What's The Problem With Locationless Caches?

[+Thot]

When I joined gc.com there was already a moratorium on locationless caches because of The Problem with them. In the 16 months I've been here I've never seen an explanation of what The Problem with them is. So . . .

 

What's The Problem with locationless caches.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Thot

[+cache_test_dummies]

There isn't a problem with the concept of locationless caches, but with respect to listing locationless caches on geocaching.com, there are two primary issues:

 

1) The site isn't set up to handle them properly.

 

2) They aren't caches.

[+briansnat]

I think the "problem" is that they aren't geocaches.

[+The Leprechauns]

Locationless caches: once a site's been visited, nobody else can claim a "find" on it.

Waymarks: The first person to visit a site creates a waymark, then everyone else can "visit" that waymark.

 

Locationless caches: only one "find" per category per geocacher.

Waymarks: find and create as many waymarks in that category as you can.

 

Locationless caches: single cache pages with 1000+ logs equals poor database performance.

Waymarks: single waymark page with the logs nested underneath it equals efficient database performance.

 

Locationless caches: whining and moaning from purists who think that a cache ought to be a box in the woods, not taking a picture of a yellow jeep.

Waymarks: separate game, separate way to have fun. Even for a purist like me.

[+Thot]

I think the "problem" is that they aren't geocaches.

Okay, but neither are virtuals, travel bugs, or webcams, and though they became more selective with virtuals they only banned locationlessesessesses.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I think the "problem" is that they aren't geocaches.

Okay, but neither are virtuals, travel bugs, or webcams, and though they became more selective with virtuals they only banned locationlessesessesses.

But you didn't ask about virtuals and travel bugs and webcams. You asked about locationless caches.

[+Thot]

I think the "problem" is that they aren't geocaches.

Okay, but neither are virtuals, travel bugs, or webcams, and though they became more selective with virtuals they only banned locationlessesessesses.

But you didn't ask about virtuals and travel bugs and webcams. You asked about locationless caches.

Because the moratorium only applied to locationlessessesseses. There was no moratorium on the others even though they aren't "geocaches" in the box and log sense.

 

Do we have a place in this circle to exit?

Edited September 13, 2005 by Thot

[+Thot]

Locationless caches: once a site's been visited, nobody else can claim a "find" on it.

Waymarks: The first person to visit a site creates a waymark, then everyone else can "visit" that waymark.

 

Locationless caches: . . . <yada, yada deleted>

Those are differences between waymarks and locationlessesseses. Not a reason for banning locatonlessess when waymarks didn't exist and wouldn't for a loooooong time.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I'm sorry. Wasn't trying to be argumentative.

 

I guess I don't understand where you are going with this. The issue of locationless caches on geocaching.com is over, as far as I can tell. The locationless concept is being moved quite successfully to Waymarking.com, which is a much better place for it.

 

What's left to discuss?

[+mtn-man]

I think the "problem" is that they aren't geocaches.

Okay, but neither are virtuals, travel bugs, or webcams, and though they became more selective with virtuals they only banned locationlessesessesses.

I guess I can give a unique perspective on this for you.

 

There were only a few reviewers back then. One of our largest time problems became the issue of dealing with new locationless cache submissions. A lot of what was being submitted was really getting off the track that Jeremy wanted. We are talking some pretty bizarre things. We kicked a lot of them around behind the scenes trying to see if we could make suggestions to make them work and such. It was odd though. People email in defense of their ideas to get their webcams or virtual caches listed and some of that spills over into the forums. Some of the emails we got for locationless caches were downright nasty though. I don't know why they were such a lightning rod. I guess that's why it is so hard to phase me these days. Some of us older reviewers have really been ripped in emails back then. Most everyone these days is pretty nice really and truly.

 

I jokingly redid an archived reviewer/working cache page description I had into a locationless for fire plugs as a play on the puppymonster doing a locationless cache. I showed it to a couple of reviewers for a chuckle. In less than a week fire plug cache came up for review. It wasn't listed as a locationless cache, but I have listed them as a waymark category in tribute to that old joke cache page of mine.

 

It is a good illustration though. We thought we had seen pretty much everything submitted back then. Now, with Waymarking, you can list just about anything. The rating system will keep good ideas at the top and not so good ideas will drop off of the map. Rather than have cache reviewers pick and choose what is listed, your fellow cachers pick up on the cool stuff they like and do more of it. If your idea is a good one then it will be popular.

[+The Leprechauns]

Locationless caches:  once a site's been visited, nobody else can claim a "find" on it.

Waymarks: The first person to visit a site creates a waymark, then everyone else can "visit" that waymark.

 

Locationless caches: . . .  <yada, yada deleted>

Those are differences between waymarks and locationlessesseses. Not a reason for banning locatonlessess when waymarks didn't exist and wouldn't for a loooooong time.

My post pointed out real problems which have been identified and discussed ad nauseum in prior threads. I then related these to how TPTB have attempted to solve the problem constructively through the introduction of Waymarking.com.

 

If that all came out as "yada yada" to you, then I'm with cache test dummies; there's really not much point in trying to answer your question.

[+budd-rdc]

I'll chime in a bit since I found ways to translate some of the problems of locationless into challenges.

 

I agree that locationless's like "Yellow Jeep Fever" and "US Flag" had no end in sight, and could defeat the purpose of their existence with too many entries while impacting database performance.

 

Locationless like the "Largest Locomotives Ever Built" had only 13 possible entries, so the listing rewarded only the fast, diligent, and the fanatical. Ironically, the impact of database performance for this one is minute, at best.

 

Other listings fit somewhere in between the extreme examples I mentioned above. Personally, I enjoyed the fact that some of them were "limited in supply" which motivated me to do research, plan a trip to find them, while I grabbed traditional, virtual, and puzzle caches along the way to make that trip interesting.

 

If executed properly, Waymarking should provide more general and long term solutions to the problems with the locationless that the Leprechauns mentioned. However, I respectfully disagree with "catering to purists" part since that smells of dangerous fanaticism.

[+Thot]

If that all came out as "yada yada" to you, then I'm with cache test dummies; there's really not much point in trying to answer your question.

Sorry, I didn't mean yada yada as something negative. Simply to signal that I was snipping more similar text that wasn't necessary to my answer in order to reduce repetition.

 

Is 'yada yada' bad?"

"No, yada yada's good . . . very succinct."

      - Jerry and George, talking about Marcy, in "The Yada Yada"

Definition:  Yada -- So on and so forth.

[+The Leprechauns]

Much appreciated; thanks for clarifying.

 

To assist you further with your questions, I would point out that the extremely restrictive standards for listing virtuals were viewed by many as tantamount to a moratorium. Statistics on the very tiny number of published virtuals have been tossed around in other threads. The number of waymarks already posted in the first month of beta testing have easily outstripped the number of virtuals published worldwide over the past year.

[+welch]

I think of 'the problem' as all worthless threads and time spent about something that a small percentage of 'caches'. Reviewers spend lots of time trying to figure if a new one was ok and how to fit it in (and explaining to people why theirs didn't). People that had a locationless rejected spent time complaining and looking for support. People that didn't like locationless' spent time complaining aobut why they weren't caches, why they shouldn't be approved, etc. People that did like locationless' spent time complaining about why they were caches and should be allowed, and about letting everyone play their own way, etc.

(actually those last two things till happen time to time, but oh well)

[+CYBret]

The way I see it, locationless caches simply didn't fit in with the overall scheme of an activity whose basis is in locations. That's why there's now a Waymarking.com site and a separate game over there.

 

I know people loved them, but chalk them up there with McDonald's Hula Burger. Nice idea, and it might even be tasty, but there's probably a better place for it somewhere else.

 

Bret

[+Thot]

There were only a few reviewers back then.  One of our largest time problems became the issue of dealing with new locationless cache submissions.  A lot of what was being submitted was really getting off the track that Jeremy wanted.  We are talking some pretty bizarre things. <snip>  Some of the emails we got for locationless caches were downright nasty though.  I don't know why they were such a lightning rod.

Okay, that makes sense. No way to the limit flood of banal or off the wall submissions. It did seem to me they should have been limited to things that were not common everyday things. Water towers, and flags are ubiquitous.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Thot

[+Runaround]

There were only a few reviewers back then.  One of our largest time problems became the issue of dealing with new locationless cache submissions.  A lot of what was being submitted was really getting off the track that Jeremy wanted.  We are talking some pretty bizarre things. <snip>  Some of the emails we got for locationless caches were downright nasty though.  I don't know why they were such a lightning rod.

Okay, that makes sense. No way to the limit flood of banal or off the wall submissions. It seemed like to me they should have been limited to things that were not common everyday things. Water towers, and flags are ubiquitous.

Then you would have that whole "WOW" factor debate like you had with virts. Waymarking seems to address it all nicely.

[+Thot]

"WOW" factor debate ????

[Pto]

The number of waymarks already posted in the first month of beta testing have easily outstripped the number of virtuals published worldwide over the past year.

 

Selective approval will do that. No approval will allow that-

 

Congrats on the new database. Has the number of new waymerkers outstripped the number of new cachers in the last month?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

"WOW" factor debate ????

What you consider ubiquitous, others may not agree with. We don't have water towers in the mountains like they do on the plains. For people in my area, a water tower is something elusive to track down. In fact, when I lived in Albuquerque, I ended up driving an hour south to claim a "find" on the water tower locationless. In Nebraska, I probably could have seen two or three from my front porch. Where do you draw the line at which objects should qualify? That's the "WOW! debate". Either allow everything, or there is a subjective line drawn somewhere.

[+Sagefox]

Those are differences between waymarks and locationlessesseses.  Not a reason for banning locatonlessess when waymarks didn't exist and wouldn't for a loooooong time.

They are all going over to Waymarking now so why should it matter that loc.'s were once handled differently than the other non-container caches.

 

deleted paragraph

 

deleted paragraph

 

Edit: so many posts between the comment I quoted and my response - thats the trouble with trying to get real work done at the same time.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Team Sagefox

[+Renegade Knight]

This is my opinion, and not the one that caused Wamarking to come into existance.

 

The first problem with locationless is that they don't have a location. There is no place to go look for them so they really don't need a coordinate until someone finds the item. They are backwards.

 

Because of how this site's database worked you had to use a location anyway. Then when you found the item, you couldn't hide that you found it from everone else. That makes it easy to cheat for someone else to come along and find the same thing. Now they just look up a location and go there...So the one find per location rule solved that problem and created a different one. For example I did the research and found the one Frank Lloyd Wright house in Idaho...It had already been logged and I could not claim the find. My work was for nothing.

 

Locationless were also worldwide. Try a popular one and the keeping track of hte logs is just too much. Locationlesses needa defined area for which the person is willing to do the work. The yellow Jeep was getting out of hand. It was a fun locationless but 50 of them would of been bettern one loggable in CA, one in WA, one in ID etc. You need to be able to limite the area of who can see them to something less than the entire world. Roman Ruins for example doesn't need to be seen by anyone outside of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.

 

There were some other things about them, but that's a start. Waymarking doesn't solve some of these problems so obviously TPTB had a different vision on the issues and solutions. To be fair they also changed a locationless from what it was a bit.

[+The Leprechauns]

RK, I don't think that your analysis of the issues differs very much from part of the reasoning behind Waymarking.com as the solution for the locationless cache problem. It is actually a very insightful post that squares very well with my discussions over the past few months with TPTB. I do differ a bit with the conclusions you drew from your observations.

 

Regarding the "one find per object" limitation, I really like that any number of people can log a "visit" on the object found by the first person, the one creating the waymark. The waymark creator gets extra credit, like being "FTF" on the Idaho Frank Lloyd Wright house, but others like you could still visit there and track your activity online.

 

Regarding geographic based searches, for the first time, WM.com allows for coordinate-based or state/country-based searches for what used to be the individual logged objects for locationless caches. True, there is *also* a directory, where you would see Roman Ruins as a category, but if you search based on an Idaho geographic filter you will only find brewpubs in Idaho. Which, I submit, is quite a useful piece of information to have.

Edited September 13, 2005 by The Leprechauns

[+Thot]

deleted. I misunderstood the reply I was responding to

Edited September 13, 2005 by Thot

[+Nyarlotep]

I've never understood the appeal of "webcam caches", "virtual caches", "locationless caches" (isn't that any oxymoron?), etc. It seems to me the easiest solution is to just chuck 'em and concentrate on real, tangible caches: just list containers that have GPS coords where you can locate them. Perhaps set up a separate site for non-physical caches, like Waymarking appears to be.

Just my 2¢

[+LSUFan]

I guess I can give a unique perspective on this for you.

 

Thanks for your reply Mtn-Man. I, like Thot, had wondered exactly what the problem was with locationless caches. I thoroughly enjoy doing locationless caches, especially since our area doesn't have that many physical caches. I usually have to drive over a hundred miles now to find new caches. Locationless caches were a nice alternative to me.

 

I do understand it all now after reading your take on it. I had no idea of the difficulties in the process with them.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As a biased observer on this theme, (I've posted in other areas, and generally received rather unkind replies), I rather like the concept of Locationless/Reverse Caches. Yes, they were not well maintained. Yes, some of them were inane. That could easily have been dealt with by TPTB. The real problem was that the system was not easily capable of dealing with thousands of logs. I suspect that all other complaints are merely begging the issue. If you don't like them, you don't have to hunt for them. That's easy! I, for one, enjoyed the challenge of finding a unique response to the challenges. In many case far more challenging than finding a micro in a guard rail.

But, such is life. TPTB have made their decision. Nothing more can be done about it. I shall miss them, but I'll live. Oh, well.