+briansnat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I'm sorry to plop this in the middle of a thread, but I just did a forum search and ran out of attention span before I got my answer. Can somebody explain what a pocket cache is and how it works? It seems like only a few days ago I first saw the term used, but I can't seem to pull up a definition. Should we even go into "retirement cards"? Link to comment
+carleenp Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I'm sorry to plop this in the middle of a thread, but I just did a forum search and ran out of attention span before I got my answer. Can somebody explain what a pocket cache is and how it works? It seems like only a few days ago I first saw the term used, but I can't seem to pull up a definition. Should we even go into "retirement cards"? That one was new to me when I read of it. People bring the cache log to the event and then archive it? Link to comment
+Isonzo Karst Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I've come around 180 degrees on this just in the last couple of months. Pocket caches used to be few in number and used as a mixer at events. They worked nicely for this and seemed pretty harmless to me. BUT - the numbers of them at events now has just gotten totally out of hand. I carried one to the Friday night dinner before GW3 and at another at a small local event. There were just a few at both events. However, at the last Florida event I attended I was handed a list of pocket cache GC #s late in the day. The idea being that I could just use the Gc#s to log 23 smileys. Heck, I hadn't signed any logs, or necessarily even met the people carrying these. One of the Tennessee cachers I spoke with at GW4 mentioned a TN event with 80! I've also had to explain to a couple of novice cachers that they couldn't list a "pocket cache" on GC.com and that if I logged their cache "in pocket" I'd likely never actually hunt the cache they labored to create; I haven't the memory for that - once it's logged, it won't show in a PQ and I'll never see it. I see it destroying an understanding of what geocaching is for new cachers coming into the sport here in Florida. I don't have a solution to offer. Personally, I've just been expressing my reservations around at Florida events. I think face to face and one on one is the way to turn it around, there just aren't that many folks that actually hang in the forums enough to pick this up here. I hate the idea of creating any additional rules from GC.com - I like the concept that the listing belongs to the cache owner. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Hwever, at the last Florida event I attended I was handed a list of pocket cache GC #s late in the day. The idea being that I could just use the Gc#s to log 23 smileys. Heck, I hadn't signed any logs, or necessarily even met the people carrying these Just when you think you heard it all. Really, what is the difference between this and just logging phony finds on random, archived caches, other than its OK with the owner? Link to comment
+drat19 Posted May 31, 2006 Author Share Posted May 31, 2006 Yeah. I'm really glad to see Isonzo's post - a first hand witness and participant telling it like it is. Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 It's a disservice to call these pocket snot rags "pocket caches." I don't care about "the numbers" but I do care about folks who circumvent the features of the site in order to log someone's pocket lint. If these converted listings are reported they will be archived and locked. If after a warning folks continue to make them they will be banned. My goodness. The activity used to be about the journey to discover new locations. Thanks Jeremy. I guess any one that gets archived and locked will open the area for a new cache. Link to comment
+Recdiver Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 To All It May Concern, I've read through this thread, and don't really see the point of it! <snip for brevity> If you don't see the point then possibly you haven't really read them well enough. I think the OP was about cheaters not about lame micros. Yes cheaters padding their numbers affects me cuz it diminishes my finds. So letting them play their game by cheating diminishes the enjoyment I get with my finds. Link to comment
+Recdiver Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Why are so many people worked up because of how someone else plays the game? I don't understand why anyone would care. Then you haven't been reading the posts. Link to comment
+Isonzo Karst Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Okay with the owner is a pretty important distinction actually. As opposed to just looking for old archived caches and logging finds. Link to comment
+drat19 Posted May 31, 2006 Author Share Posted May 31, 2006 To All It May Concern, I've read through this thread, and don't really see the point of it! <snip for brevity> If you don't see the point then possibly you haven't really read them well enough. I think the OP was about cheaters not about lame micros. Yes cheaters padding their numbers affects me cuz it diminishes my finds. So letting them play their game by cheating diminishes the enjoyment I get with my finds. Well, my OP was about both, actually. The proliferation of lame micros (my pet crusade) CHEAPENS overall stats in that it's comparatively easy to run up your numbers...but at least in principle, those stats are legit - a container is found and a log is signed. The cheating aspect is exactly that...CHEATING to run up the stats, plain and simple. In either case, my point is that The New Numbers Game is occurring on multiple fronts now (not just Micro Spew - my original agenda), and when all these aspects are viewed IN TOTAL is fundamentally changing the overall character of our game and how it is played. My opinion. Link to comment
Exotic Dancer Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 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. Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 <snip> At least virtuals were interesting. Pocket caches are not. You just haven't been in the right pockets. Groucho Marx once asked a woman (on live tv) to put her hand in his pocket. "I feel silly!", she said. "Reach a little deeper and you'll feel nuts", was his reply. Why do people complain about some cache being placed in a dangerous area ... There is a big difference in pointing out hazards that people might not know about and being concerned about people padding numbers. I think that is my issue with this whole discussion. In cases where it does cause problems for others, the community has a right, nay a duty to the rest of the community to point out the problem. Parts of this thread meet that criterium, like a cache being taken out of service so it can be logged at an event (the problem being for other cachers that might go looking for it where it is supposed to be). It doesn't phaze you at all that for you to log a certain cache, you hike out and find the thing at its listed coordinates to get your find, then later the owner picks up the cache (temporarily disabling it) and drives that same container (or even a 'replica' container) 4 states away and lets others "find" it at an event, thereby giving them a "find" that looks the same as yours in NC, even though they have never been to that state at all? You don't find that at all bizarre? That's my only question.... this is part of the new numbers game, apparently, but is it really caching? Yeah, its their numbers and whatever, but by default it does cheapen things somewhat in my eyes. Doesn't "phaze" me. This whole concern over number padding is utterly absurd! The people complaining say it "cheapens" their cache experience- how? The "cheapness" of a find is totally subjective. I was very "quick" in school. Does the fact that I got straight A's without effort cheapen someone else's A's that they worked their ears off for? How? It is odd that people say numbers don't matter but the fact that others are padding their numbers does matter. HUH? I don't let the actions of others bother me. I know what I did to log it, what others do it their business. It cheapens it only for the person who did not find it in the original place. Spelling edit. Dittos The only way that such activity could degrade my experience is if the quality of caches hid starts to decrease. I know there has been some discussion about this. I obviously haven't hidden a cache yet, but as I read have thought about what and where I would hide. It would definitely be traditional and located in a beautiful, inspiring or significant place. That COULD be happening, but a result does not decree a cause. There are many causes for the perceived decrease in cache quality not the least of which IMHO is the sheer number of caches and the number of cachers placing them. They may be degrading because the hiders don't really "get it" or it may be that they want numbers, or it may be that that is the way they really want to play. Or it may be none of the above. Or it may be a mis-perception. My goodness. The activity used to be about the journey to discover new locations. It still is for me, Jeremy. Pocket caches are indeed out of character for the sport. But even the lamest of lame "real" caches sometimes help me discover cool things. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 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. Link to comment
+Recdiver Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 If you don't like the way people play the game that has NO PRIZES, then stop playing. If someone logs a pocket cache, so be it. They found it. It may not have been at the posted coords, but they found it. And the proper reply is: If you don't like the rules of the game you are playing, stop playing. One of the rules of the game is a cache is supposed to be at the coords it is listed at. If it's in someone's pocket, it's not allowed on this website. If you don't like that fact, don't play that game on this website. Since the owner of this website has said that people that play THAT game on THIS website will get banned if they keep it up, it really IS that simple. Bravo, Bravo. Well said. Link to comment
+Jennifla Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I would also like to see an option to remove stats now that I see how people are making their numbers. But I would like to have the option of replacing the stat with a smartalec remark like "more than you", or "none of your beeswax". Link to comment
+drat19 Posted May 31, 2006 Author Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) 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. Brian, you know I've been with you almost 100% on this and most other issues, but in the case of the cache hide stats you've cited, you know as well as I do that you're located in an area that has not been overwhelmed by Micro Spew...but you also know that so many other areas have. Choose a few other metro areas and run the same 500 nearest search and you know what you'll find in at least half the cases. Edited May 31, 2006 by drat19 Link to comment
+Recdiver Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 My heart be still!! My suggestion that the 'numbers' be viewable only to the account holder doesn't seem so silly afterall now.................do it? And BTW gang, I do most certainly want GC.com to continue tracking The Numbers, just don't make them viewable by the community at large. If I want to inform others of my counts, I'll just send them my stats link or whatever. It's not anything that anyone else needs to worry about.....now is it? But don't you think that anyone who would resort to cheating in order to inflate their stats will do whatever is necessary to publicly display them? If they're so insecure that they have to fake a find, they're going to need to show others their stats. Better to leave the tallying system in place, and allow those who choose the option of not seeing anyone's stats, or maybe anyone's stats other than their own. When I stated "...viewable only to the account holder..." I didn't mean almost viewable only by the account holder or only viewable by the owner under a special set of circumstances or only viewable by the account owner with these select exceptions". Believe it or not I meant precisely what I said, "...only viewable to the account holder..." Period. What any member chooses to do with his stats information outside the perview of geocaching.com would be up to each and every member and in the end would be entriely irrelevant. You want to communicate your stats to granny, be my guest. You want to post your stats in a gc.com forum...NO. I don't believe that I suggested removing the tallying system. If I did, that was a mistake on my part. If I had wanted the tallying system removed, then I would not have made this statement : "And BTW gang, I do most certainly want GC.com to continue tracking The Numbers..." At least I don't think that I would have done that. People will display their stats, still, even if it can be turned off...the easiest way that comes to mind is what some people around here do which post the "find #" of each cache they log. I kind of like that practice, since the number after every name is the CURRENT number of finds, but when people start off their log with "Find #30" and you see their current stats are in the triple digits, it almost feels like you get a better idea of what the find was like for them...whether it was new in their caching career or old hat. I do this with milestone caches, but if stats were turned off I think you'd see a lot more people keeping and displaying their own running totals. But that would mean nothing to a smart arse like me. I’m a scuba diver and was first certified in ’73. I’ve never kept a dive log, too lazy I guess; now days it all seems to be about the number of dives. People are always talking about how many dives they’ve done. So whenever any one asks me I make up a new number. I was told by one dive operator that I had to have a dive log to prove I was experienced before I could dive off their boat. So I created a new log that started at 1000. You think there is cheating now, wait until people can keep their own logs. Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Okay with the owner is a pretty important distinction actually. As opposed to just looking for old archived caches and logging finds. I think there can be cases where bogus logs are OK if allowed by the owner. I would allow it on my caches if a cacher cannot physically access a cache that I have listed as handicap accessible. (different people have different disabilities so it is impossible to really say a cache is accessible) (I hope this next example doesn't cause my email to be flooded by automatic emails) As another example, I have a puzzle cache called "Liar's cache" for which I invited a few people to make bogus logs. Since it is a "liar's" cache, false logs are in character, but a "requirement" is that the log contain a tall tale. The fake logs do cause a problem though, because I have no way to tell if the cache is still there without actually going out to look. (it is close to home so that's not a biggie) Actually, even if it disappeared people could still log it in character. How tangled is THAT web! I think this is a little different than just logging for numbers though. The point is to try to be entertaining. I suppose I would delete logs that just said tnlnsl if I found they had not sl. However, Jeremy has spoken on pocket caches, so until he decides to allow them I reckon that practice needs to stop- or go to another site. Link to comment
Exotic Dancer Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 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. Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 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. Brian, you know I've been with you almost 100% on this and most other issues, but in the case of the cache hide stats you've cited, you know as well as I do that you're located in an area that has not been overwhelmed by Micro Spew...but you also know that so many other areas have. Choose a few other metro areas and run the same 500 nearest search and you know what you'll find in at least half the cases. I have not "run the numbers" per se, but I do run 2 separate PQs to populate my paperless cache maps and it is a fact that the 500 micros takes up a lot LESS real estate than the 500 regulars. For the micros I have to divide the state into about 6 parts to get them all, only 3 for regulars. Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 You see it all the time: cachers get judged by too little finds, by too many finds, by not enough hides or no hides at all...not having numbers is freedom from being judged, or being in the 'numbers race'... Now, as far as my 'geocharacter' goes, I will let you be the judge of that...sure, I have been caching since 2001, and yes, I have some strong opinions and have gone head-to-head with many of the forum 'heavyweights', like Mopar, Briansnat, etc...but I would love to sit down and have a beer, a shot of vodka, and a good geochat with all of them, anyday...shoot, I might actually get along with some of them... I just got in from GeoWoodstock4. 2100 miles and 32 hours of driving round-trip, over $300 in gas alone. I claimed two caches, the Snoogans Meet and Greet Event, and the GW4 Event. That's it. Worth every penny. While I was there I ran into Mtn-Man, AlabamaRambler, and JoGPS, ALL OF WHOM I have had some big-time arguments with in these forums. While I thought they might want to take a shot at me, we had a good laugh and got along fine. I spent the entire day under the pavilion in that Texas heat, making sure cachers could come up and get a look at the O.C.B. Good camaraderie all around, even without online logs to share. I was actually REALLY glad to meet them and to know they are GOOD PEOPLE, every one of them. Don't make your final judgement of someone until you meet them and get to know them. Typing on a keyboard across the country won't allow you to really know someone... AMEN BROTHER! I've been quoted as saying, "I never met a geocacher that I didn't like," and after GW4 that still remains true. There was one person there that I wanted to test that statement out on and the hatchet was buried about 2 seconds later. The person I'm referring too turned out to be a nice guy just as I suspected. Those of us that stick with this game become a family of sorts and disagreements happen within a family. From my experience, online tiffs rarely translate to real life in geocaching. As far as this neighbors lookin' over fences to judge what they have in their yard thread goes: "Everyone plays their own game. There is no sense in trying to police another's mindset as long as it falls within the general parameters of the game." Me (quoting myself from the poll that I posted on 10/23/03.) Link to comment
+Corp Of Discovery Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 How would everyone who says "play this game how you want to" would like it if another cacher just decided to start stealing their caches. It would be them 'just playing how they want to' after all. I guess it's just a matter of where the line that people won't cross is drawn. Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 How would everyone who says "play this game how you want to" would like it if another cacher just decided to start stealing their caches. It would be them 'just playing how they want to' after all. I guess it's just a matter of where the line that people won't cross is drawn. Happens all the time.... Link to comment
+Stunod Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 "Everyone plays their own game. There is no sense in trying to police another's mindset as long as it falls within the general parameters of the game." Me (quoting myself from the poll that I posted on 10/23/03.) I think the "general parameters" are being stretched pretty far.... Link to comment
+ajayhawkfan Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 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. Brian, you know I've been with you almost 100% on this and most other issues, but in the case of the cache hide stats you've cited, you know as well as I do that you're located in an area that has not been overwhelmed by Micro Spew...but you also know that so many other areas have. Choose a few other metro areas and run the same 500 nearest search and you know what you'll find in at least half the cases. Can you run it in Memphis, TN. I hear that town is micro hell. Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) How would everyone who says "play this game how you want to" would like it if another cacher just decided to start stealing their caches. It would be them 'just playing how they want to' after all. I guess it's just a matter of where the line that people won't cross is drawn. Again apples and oranges. Straw man. ETC We're talking MAINLY about padding numbers. Minor issue. Pocket caches wherein someone might look for it and it hadn't been disabled- bigger issue- also probably straw man because it assumes that the pocket cache owner did NOT disable the cache prior to "pocketing" or even that the pocket cache represents a cache that was ever real. possibly minor, possibly moderate (issue) STEALING: morally wrong by anyones moral code (OK perhaps some anarchist or satanist or some such off-the-wall code might NOT consider it immoral) BIG ISSUE apples and oranges Indeed it IS about where you draw the line, but that line is not THAT hard to draw. I am amazed we are so "enlightened" in our society to think that morals are ALL relative. Stealing would not have even been considered "just playing their own way" by anyone a couple of generations ago and indeed is so considered by nearly noone today. Edited May 31, 2006 by Confucius' Cat Link to comment
+ventura_kids Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 What a quote! I've even said it on T.V... Geocaching is whatever you want it to be..... (here is the rest of the quote) ... If you like hiking, you can find caches up on the top of mountains. If you would rather grab a cache or two on the way home from work, then urban micros may be your favorite. Multicaches are fun, and if you like puzzles, and the internet, try a few of those. ....Geocaching is whatever you want it to be. I guess we should have added ....but NO cheating. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) 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. Well the Zip I used was for Morris County NJ, which happens to be in the center of the most densely populated state in the US. OK, lets try someplace else. How about Peoria Ill, the picture of "middle America". The zip used was for the center of a fairly densely populated city so you'd think micros would be the rule. Wrongo boyo. Containers: 4 ( 0.8%) Large 173 (34.6%) Micro 16 ( 3.2%) Not chosen 12 ( 2.4%) Other 214 (42.8%) Regular 78 (15.6%) Small 3 ( 0.6%) Virtual So I decided to try another place. I picked Boulder Co, another fairly densely populated city. City usually = micros, right? Wrong! Though the percentage is now higher, micros are still in the minority: Containers: 1 ( 0.2%) Large 190 (38.0%) Micro 24 ( 4.8%) Not chosen 13 ( 2.6%) Other 154 (30.8%) Regular 98 (19.6%) Small 20 ( 4.0%) Virtual OK, three urban/suburban areas where micros were in the minority. So lets try another on the left coast. Sacramento!! Containers: 12 ( 2.4%) Large 221 (44.2%) Micro 15 ( 3.0%) Not chosen 16 ( 3.2%) Other 150 (30.0%) Regular 75 (15.0%) Small 11 ( 2.2%) Virtual Hmmmm, still nothing to support your statement. So next I picked Provo Ut. Just because. Containers: 6 ( 1.2%) Large 135 (27.0%) Micro 31 ( 6.2%) Not chosen 13 ( 2.6%) Other 218 (43.6%) Regular 85 (17.0%) Small 12 ( 2.4%) Virtual OK, that's a pretty good sample of densely populated areas where you'd think micros would be the rule, yet they aren't, so I decided to get more random. I pulled up the Google map, closed my eyes and put my finger on the screen. It came up closest to LK Placid NY. Let's see what they're hiding around LK Placid. Containers: 9 ( 1.8%) Large 42 ( 8.4%) Micro 14 ( 2.8%) Not chosen 16 ( 3.2%) Other 346 (69.2%) Regular 66 (13.2%) Small 7 ( 1.4%) Virtual So just to balance out Lake Placid I picked a spot that was approximately the US geographic opposite of Lk Placid. Farmington NM. I was going to use Albequerque, but we've done enough urban/suburban areas so I decided to do a more rural one (still 500 caches though). Here are the results: Containers: 3 ( 0.6%) Large 35 ( 7.0%) Micro 21 ( 4.2%) Not chosen 12 ( 2.4%) Other 359 (71.8%) Regular 52 (10.4%) Small 18 ( 3.6%) Virtual Hmmmm. OK, those places were picked pretty much at random. I just thought of a city and checked. Now lets forget about randomness and deliberately choose a city that is renown for park and grab micros. Jacksonville Fl., home of a previous world record cache run. I think most people will agree that Jacksonville is one of the USA's micro capitals. So here is what came up: Containers: 1 ( 0.2%) Large 284 (56.8%) Micro 26 ( 5.2%) Not chosen 10 ( 2.0%) Other 135 (27.0%) Regular 38 ( 7.6%) Small 6 ( 1.2%) Virtual Hmmm, only 56 percent micros. Barely a majority, in a city that is known for its micros. Even in Jacksonville I don't see any notable market preference for micro caches. In fact when you consider that regular sized caches take considerably more effort than a micro to put together and hide. Needing a large, waterproof container and swag, they are generally more expensive than micros. Also, being larger they are more difficult to conceal. In spite of this they are in the majority. I think that shows a "notable market disfavor" for micros. Edited May 31, 2006 by briansnat Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) So I decided to try another place. I picked Boulder Co, another fairly densely populated city. City usually = micros, right? Wrong. Though the number is now higher, micros are still in the minority: Containers: 12 ( 2.4%) Large 221 (44.2%) Micro 15 ( 3.0%) Not chosen 16 ( 3.2%) Other 150 (30.0%) Regular 75 (15.0%) Small 11 ( 2.2%) Virtual OK, three urban/suburban areas where micros were still in the minority. So lets try another on the left coast. Sacramento!! Containers: 12 ( 2.4%) Large 221 (44.2%) Micro 15 ( 3.0%) Not chosen 16 ( 3.2%) Other 150 (30.0%) Regular 75 (15.0%) Small 11 ( 2.2%) Virtual Hmmmm, still nothing to support your statement. So next I picked Provo Ut. Just because. odd that these two areas have EXACTLY the same statistics. (I'm sure you didn't do that on purpose, but I had to point it out) I bet that's a common "mistake" in a LOT of statistics OBTW there WERE more micros than regulars there. Doesn't that at least SORTA support the argument you're trying to refute? Edited May 31, 2006 by Confucius' Cat Link to comment
+Texas-Jacksons Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I agree with all points except this one. DISAGREE(2) Claiming a Find on a cache carried to an Event for logging not at orig. coords, such as the Iraq cache (cheating) Hey, someone posted coordinates. I hiked the trail and have the chiggers to show for it. What difference does it make where the original coordinates are? On the other point: STATS I like the stats. They help me distinguish those who do it for the love of the game from those who do it for the numbers. Someone logs my cache with only a couple of finds I like to welcome them to the game and to my town. Someone with a lot of finds I usually like to swap stories with. Someone with an obscene amount of finds I think to myself, each to their own - whatever makes you happy. This politically correct, equalization of everyone only catapults people up and while dragging others down. If you don't like stats just ignore them. If you remove them than the superiority scale will only shift to something else. Then you'll have to remove that too (e.g. Member Since). People, get outside and find a cache. Quit griping about numbers and stats. Link to comment
+El Diablo Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 There are enough caches out there today to fit everyone's taste. People shouldn't try and force thier opinions on others. Enjoy the game the way you want to play it, and let others play it their way. But the other "game" isn't geocaching. I don't know what you want to call it ..."Meet Folks", "Bag a Smiley", "Numbers Madness" - but it no longer involves using a GPS to find a hidden container. I'm fine if the others want to play that game, but why do they have to do it on a geocaching website? Brian, You know you have my upmost respect. However GC.com opened up this game/hobby/sport to make it what it is today. They have done it to play to the largest audience possible by offerring various types of caches. These caches are park and grabs, Wal-Mart caches, Event caches, Virtuals, Locationless, Micros, Earth Caches, etc.... Like I said earlier, there is something for everyone. El Diablo Link to comment
+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Can I run this query myself? I am curious about my zip code. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Brian, You know you have my upmost respect. However GC.com opened up this game/hobby/sport to make it what it is today. They have done it to play to the largest audience possible by offerring various types of caches. These caches are park and grabs, Wal-Mart caches, Event caches, Virtuals, Locationless, Micros, Earth Caches, etc.... Like I said earlier, there is something for everyone. I don't think that is the issue here. The issue is deliberately abusing the features of this website to log caches that would not have been published by GC.COM. Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 There are enough caches out there today to fit everyone's taste. People shouldn't try and force thier opinions on others. Enjoy the game the way you want to play it, and let others play it their way. But the other "game" isn't geocaching. I don't know what you want to call it ..."Meet Folks", "Bag a Smiley", "Numbers Madness" - but it no longer involves using a GPS to find a hidden container. I'm fine if the others want to play that game, but why do they have to do it on a geocaching website? Brian, You know you have my upmost respect. However GC.com opened up this game/hobby/sport to make it what it is today. They have done it to play to the largest audience possible by offerring various types of caches. These caches are park and grabs, Wal-Mart caches, Event caches, Virtuals, Locationless, Micros, Earth Caches, etc.... Like I said earlier, there is something for everyone. El Diablo Sorry I can't be "devil's advocate" on this point. BS is right. It has been the case all along (as far as I can tell) that geocaching requires use of GPS. There have been a lot of caches denied because there was no need for a GPS to find the "cache". If I give a thorough but cryptic description by which one can find a box but there is no need of GPS then it is a letterbox (providing it has a stamp) and not a geocache. By definition, a "pocket cache" is not a geocache. (unless the pocketeer wishes to stay in one place for three months) Sooooo.. I guess it would be a geocache if it was in a DEAD MAN's pocket. Link to comment
+El Diablo Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Brian, You know you have my upmost respect. However GC.com opened up this game/hobby/sport to make it what it is today. They have done it to play to the largest audience possible by offerring various types of caches. These caches are park and grabs, Wal-Mart caches, Event caches, Virtuals, Locationless, Micros, Earth Caches, etc.... Like I said earlier, there is something for everyone. I don't think that is the issue here. The issue is deliberately abusing the features of this website to log caches that would not have been published by GC.COM. Dave's original post seemed to address the things that happen at events. The logging of coins, TB's, temp caches etc... Once again...why worry about other peoples numbers? I've never done any of the things that Dave mentions, but I saw it rampant at GW3. It didn't bother me, I just stuck to my standards. I guess that's why I only have 98 finds after 5 years....or do I? Play the game your way and don't fret on how the others play. El Diablo Link to comment
+Deliveryguy428 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 One way or the other people will still read their geocaching publications so no worries there.... Been reading through the bookmark set up by Criminal and I am wondering why certain caches are archived and yet you have to view all logs to find why it is archived because the first page is nothing but people logging it since it was archived, and second, why are some caches that are clearly moving caches not archived and still active for logging? What many people have knowning for a long time has sadly come to the light in a big way, and I am sorry such a huge event like GW4 was what brought it out in the open like it is now. Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I think this thread has merit in the alleged effects of new logging methods but not much merit about being bothered by others' numbers. Any way you look at it being bothered by others' numbers is something you do to yourself. The "cheating" exists- in geocaching and everywhere else in the world- there is little one can do about that except to hold one's own standards high. Being bothered by it is one's personal choice- whether one realises it or not. MYOB is a rarity today it seems. We enjoy all sorts of anonynimity, yet we seem to always want to be in each others' business. Do we perhaps have too much anonyminity and deep inside we yearn for more connectedness? And perhaps we get this vicariously by being outraged by other peoples' dubious deeds even though they don't really effect us? Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 why are some caches that are clearly moving caches not archived and still active for logging? OT, but I have found one moving cache and found it very enjoyable. It is only around because it is grandfathered. I for one wish there were more of them, it is a special challenge- essentially a cache where every find is a FTF. You are either first at the new location or you DNF. I understand that GC loses control and placement can be illegal, but at least this one example seems to be working well. Link to comment
+Deliveryguy428 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Ahh man, stupid me, a thread about pocket caches being the new numbers game and how Groundspeak has put out a request to archive them all and yet I still see some active and logging and it OT (Off Topic) Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Ahh man, stupid me, a thread about pocket caches being the new numbers game and how Groundspeak has put out a request to archive them all and yet I still see some active and logging and it OT (Off Topic) Have to admit I don't understand much of this, but it is a good point that archiving a cache doesn't stop logging and doesn't do much good to solve the pocket cache "problem". Link to comment
+WalruZ Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I think this thread has merit in the alleged effects of new logging methods but not much merit about being bothered by others' numbers. There's actually a very good reason to be concerned. What keeps the sport going for many people is the social aspects, meeting and knowing your area cachers. If some of them strut around saying "look what I did", when in fact they didn't really do squat, then it divides the community. if numbers padders don't plan to brag about what they've 'done', why do they do it? My goodness. The activity used to be about the journey to discover new locations. That's Waymarking. I've developed a new appreciation for it. Link to comment
+Deliveryguy428 Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I have to admit I am getting a little lost in all of this myself, however I do agree with one thing I've seen in a couple of logs. The cache was reported missing or was archived because it was missing and then all of a sudden it is getting logged as being seen at GW4 or... One cache in Florida just went missing, turns out someone took it to GW4, did not report the activties, and people actually went out looking for a cache that was halfway across the USA. Wrong, bottom line Link to comment
+Corp Of Discovery Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 How would everyone who says "play this game how you want to" would like it if another cacher just decided to start stealing their caches. It would be them 'just playing how they want to' after all. I guess it's just a matter of where the line that people won't cross is drawn. Again apples and oranges. Straw man. ETC We're talking MAINLY about padding numbers. Minor issue. Pocket caches wherein someone might look for it and it hadn't been disabled- bigger issue- also probably straw man because it assumes that the pocket cache owner did NOT disable the cache prior to "pocketing" or even that the pocket cache represents a cache that was ever real. possibly minor, possibly moderate (issue) STEALING: morally wrong by anyones moral code (OK perhaps some anarchist or satanist or some such off-the-wall code might NOT consider it immoral) BIG ISSUE apples and oranges Indeed it IS about where you draw the line, but that line is not THAT hard to draw. I am amazed we are so "enlightened" in our society to think that morals are ALL relative. Stealing would not have even been considered "just playing their own way" by anyone a couple of generations ago and indeed is so considered by nearly noone today. I don't see it as apples and oranges. Wrong is wrong. Whether it's lying, cheating or stealing. Some think lying is ok. Some think cheating is ok. Some think stealing is ok. Some think none of those are ok. All of them are 'playing their own way'. The line should be easy to draw but apparently it isn't- otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I don't see someone stealing caches as being the same as lying or cheating, in fact I think as most would say- it's much worse, but it doesn't make the lying or cheating any less wrong. Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 There's actually a very good reason to be concerned. What keeps the sport going for many people is the social aspects, meeting and knowing your area cachers. If some of them strut around saying "look what I did", when in fact they didn't really do squat, then it divides the community. if numbers padders don't plan to brag about what they've 'done', why do they do it? I had a friend a while back that bragged about "having" 21 women for his 21st birthday. Didn't bother me or make him less of a friend. He just proved he was full of it. Still a good friend, just squirrely. So someone brags about their stats. So what? Is that anything to divide over? we're all squirrels in one way or another. Squirrels make good friends too. (as long as you don't try to get their nuts) Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 How would everyone who says "play this game how you want to" would like it if another cacher just decided to start stealing their caches. It would be them 'just playing how they want to' after all. I guess it's just a matter of where the line that people won't cross is drawn. Again apples and oranges. Straw man. ETC We're talking MAINLY about padding numbers. Minor issue. Pocket caches wherein someone might look for it and it hadn't been disabled- bigger issue- also probably straw man because it assumes that the pocket cache owner did NOT disable the cache prior to "pocketing" or even that the pocket cache represents a cache that was ever real. possibly minor, possibly moderate (issue) STEALING: morally wrong by anyones moral code (OK perhaps some anarchist or satanist or some such off-the-wall code might NOT consider it immoral) BIG ISSUE apples and oranges Indeed it IS about where you draw the line, but that line is not THAT hard to draw. I am amazed we are so "enlightened" in our society to think that morals are ALL relative. Stealing would not have even been considered "just playing their own way" by anyone a couple of generations ago and indeed is so considered by nearly noone today. I don't see it as apples and oranges. Wrong is wrong. Whether it's lying, cheating or stealing. Some think lying is ok. Some think cheating is ok. Some think stealing is ok. Some think none of those are ok. All of them are 'playing their own way'. The line should be easy to draw but apparently it isn't- otherwise we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I don't see someone stealing caches as being the same as lying or cheating, in fact I think as most would say- it's much worse, but it doesn't make the lying or cheating any less wrong. Exactly. wrong is wrong, but your earlier post compares cheating and stealing as if they are no different. Link to comment
+JohnnyVegas Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 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. This in not true, your logic is flawed, people keep log find in Micros because that is what is being placed. Most micros are lame hides the are place just for a reason to hide a cache. Most of them are being placed by cachers that are too cheap to spend more that 5 cents to hide a cache. People have not choice but to look for micros, the option in many places would be to give up geocaching for another hobby. Link to comment
+Glenn Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I would also like to see an option to remove stats now that I see how people are making their numbers. But I would like to have the option of replacing the stat with a smartalec remark like "more than you", or "none of your beeswax". Awesome. Link to comment
+BelKen Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 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. Link to comment
+briansnat Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 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. Link to comment
+BelKen Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Ok. But my suggestion would be the same to prove the theory. Not the total figures as suggested. I am not suggesting you do it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts