Jump to content

Why are multis less popular?


PlantAKiss

Recommended Posts

In a recent topic I started in newbie forum, there were comments about how multi caches aren't as popular as singles. I sort of noticed this as my first cache placed is a multi and hasn't gotten nearly the traffic I expected for a new listing. Great reviews but slow traffic. (Although part of the reason could be the area itself is tricky to find and I suspect there have been a number of unlogged DNFs.)

 

So, pardon me if this is an old, tired topic. Mods can zap it if they want to. But I AM curious about why multis aren't as popular as a single.

 

From my own (rather limited) experience, I have found most multis give you a great walk (exercise!), often are placed in woods (beautiful!) and you get multiple hunts/finds for the "price" of one! What's not to love about that? Now, I do recognize that multi's take more time than a park and grab...you might get one smiley for an hour's hunt vs. several smileys for a bunch of parking lot micros. But...if the idea is THE HUNT...wouldn't a bunch of hunts rolled into one be a lot of fun? And you can be so creative with the different stages!

 

One of my first finds was a multi and I had a great time walking, finding creative hides with a nice ammo can at the end. To my way of thinking, a multi gives you more fun than a single: "Ok, I found it...I'm done."

 

Is the time factor??

 

Don't get me wrong...I like singles too...even micros that are creatively and thoughfully placed. But I'm really surprised to find multis are unpopular.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

You're correct in your observation multis do get less visits than traditional caches.

  1. Most multicaches require more time to find.
  2. Many cachers (especially out of towners) are trying to find as many caches as they can in a given amount of time. (The new numbers game!)
  3. Multis are routinely filtered out by cachers, because they prefer "quick and easy" caches only.
  4. As a general rule, cachers who do find your cache have more time to write nice logs, and enjoy what you have to share with them.
  5. Urban park and grab cachers don't like mosquitos.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

In my opinion it's because of the unknown factor. Most descriptions of multi-caches don't tell you how many stages you're looking for, how long it might take you, and where you'll end up.

 

If I was going to look for four caches in a park and two were multis, I would probably find those as well and hope that they took you to another area of the park.

 

If I had a choice to find two regular caches in park A, or two multis in park B, I'd pick park A because without knowing better the multis might both take me out of the park and in two different directions. It would probably take me much longer to find them both, and I might have to drive all over town to finish them, IF I finished them both. However if I went to park A I'd be able to go somewhere else and grab more caches and have a better idea of where I'd be going.

 

At one time I had a 5 stage multi that took you on a several mile drive between start and finish, but since I didn't want the unknown to be a factor I tried to describe enough about it so folks could make a more educated decision about it. I told them how many stages, how far they would go, generally which direction they'd go, and even gave links to several caches they could grab in between my stages. I really think that helped keep up the traffic.

 

There's nothing that says you have to do any of that of course. It may be that you want to hide a fantastic cache that rewards the few finders that took a chance on it with something spectacular. Nothing wrong with that either.

Link to comment

5 finds and one smiley or 5 finds and 5 smileys? It's all about the numbers.

 

What briansnat says is totally and undeniably true. I actually have two multis that have each been voted as the Cache of the Month by the local caching group, and I think that I generally have a pretty good reputation as a quality hider, yet both caches get hunted far less often than my traditionals, regardless of size, despite being much more exciting, more ambitious camoflage, etc.

 

And I'm guilty of the same thinking, to be totally honest. I've ignored multis despite great logs, simply because I wanted quantity rather than quality. Not every time, but I have done it.

Link to comment

I replaced a really high traffic cache with a new multi just recently. Not only have very few people found it, but many of the ones who have have just skipped right past all the WP's, many by using the unwarrented "ask a friend" option. Quite upsetting really..but it's their loss. The cachers who made it to WP5 said it was the best they've ever done.

Edited by ~Hylife~
Link to comment

There are those of us who have limited mobility, or other factors that need to be addressed when deciding which caches to go for.

 

I like multis and have done some of them. However, there have been some that I can start on but the final turns out to be beyond what I can do.

 

With a traditional cache it is easier to judge what is needed to get to it.

 

As for the numbers, seems to me the people on the forum that complain about it being all a numbers game, are more obsessed with the numbers then the rest of us. Every problem is about the numbers.

 

I love keeping track of the number of finds I have, but I really don't care how many finds anyone else has. There are so many variables in peoples physical abilities, time, type of caches they like, and even how much they like caching, that numbers don't mean much.

Link to comment

5 finds and one smiley or 5 finds and 5 smileys? It's all about the numbers.

 

That's why bonus caches are so popular in my area. You put out a series of regular caches and then put partial coords to the bonus in each one. That way each stop of your multi is a legit find. :laughing:

 

Why are multi's less popular?

 

All night caches that I have done are multis. They are the MOST popular multi that I know of. :)

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

5 finds and one smiley or 5 finds and 5 smileys? It's all about the numbers.

Makes sense, but for me it's more about the puzzle factor that seems to be a part of many muti's. Simply put, I just don't like puzzles. I'll happily spend two or three hours trekking into the wilderness to enjoy the journey and the hunt of one smiley, but the last multi I spent 2 -3 hours on was just...trying.

 

If I recall, it went something like this: Find this and then count the number of buttons on famous what's his names sleeve and them multiply the number of buttons by you know what and then find the next set of words that just happen to be on the divider of a busy street at the base of a historic statue with a brass plack and (not kidding) there was a dead mouse laying across the plack covering the clue. While trying to resolve the dead mouse issue, a car came whizzing around the corner and almost clipped my backside which was obviously too far out in the street because of my dislike of rodents.

 

With all due respect to the many cachers who do like puzzles, and to spend a great deal of time and effort creating multis, I don't mean to offend. I think that some people really enjoy puzzles, math, steps and stages, and some don't. This could be a factor in the stats.

Link to comment

I've got a couple multi caches, one of which is on 3 Bookmarks describing it as "Extra Special" or "Favorite."

 

Maybe it's the fact that stage one has given people fits (Making the name "R U Nuts?" rather appropriate) but it has only had 30 logged visits in 9 months (including 9 DNFs) but is on a road (the Kancamagus Highway) covered in some great caches. The hunt takes you across a historic covered bridge and along the beautiful Swift River.

 

Right down the road, a hide-a-key in a guardrail that has been there for 4 months has sixty logged visits. (One DNF)

 

It's all about the amount of time people want to spend on the hunt.

 

There's nothing I'd do to change my cache, though. I'm pretty darned happy that 3 people decided to bookmark it. Only one person bookmarked the guardrail cache, it's a FTF list.

icon_tu.gif0 (0%) out of 2 users found this list useful. [rate it]
:laughing: Edited by Too Tall John
Link to comment

OK, in favor of multis, I must add this, however. One of the appealing advantages to multis is that the first stages are not limited by the requirement to contain a log. That lends considerable creative advantage. Considerable. Did I say, "Considerable"? Not that it is always taken advantage of, but that frequently is one of the motives that often fails to get mentioned.

Link to comment
OK, in favor of multis, I must add this, however. One of the appealing advantages to multis is that the first stages are not limited by the requirement to contain a log. That lends considerable creative advantage. Considerable. Did I say, "Considerable"? Not that it is always taken advantage of, but that frequently is one of the motives that often fails to get mentioned.
Don't think that the title "R U Nuts?" only refers to my questionable sanity. I had a good time at the hardware store for one stage and the craft store (trying to come up with a nut that a squirrel wouldn't want) for the other. ;)

 

If I said more I'd have to kill you. :rolleyes: Since keeping track of who reads this is beyond my capabilities, I'll say no more. :o

 

ee50362b-3d44-4883-bffe-68eb923fc98b.jpg

Link to comment

I had a good time at the hardware store for one stage and the craft store (trying to come up with a nut that a squirrel wouldn't want) for the other. :rolleyes:

 

Very intriguing. But wouldn't you have been more productive looking at the hardware store for a nut that a squirrel wouldn't want, instead of at the craft store?

Link to comment

5 finds and one smiley or 5 finds and 5 smileys? It's all about the numbers.

 

Maybe for many it is, but that's not the only reason. I would say that I am not into the numbers game, yet I tend to avoid multis in areas I visit or multis that have been around for a while. The reason? The probability that something has gone wrong with a multi (missing stage, etc.) is much larger than for a single-stage or puzzle cache. I've had several experiences of hiking several miles for a multi only to discover that the penultimate stage is missing. So, even though it's not abouut the numbers and even though I had a nice hike, there is still frustration at being unable to finish.

Link to comment

I am a numbers cacher and I have found all the multi's within 15 miles of my home coords. Today I went about 35 miles to go caching in a different area and I came across a multiple stage multi around their city hall. It looked like an awesome time, but I am definately a numbers cacher and considering that I went this far to get numbers, I skipped this cool multi. In fact, I think I skipped 3 cool looking multi's. If they were placed in my area, I would grab them. If the cache description said "2 stage multi in a park" Then I would have done it. If it says 5 stage multi as a tour of city hall area, then I'll pass.

 

I'll pass not solely because of time though. I also pass because I have a hard time trusting other owners with maintaining their caches. If it's traditional and the coords are wrong or it's gone or whatever then I just leave. If I'm 3 stages in to a 5 stage multi and the coords are wrong then I'm frustrated. If I'm 2 stages in to a 3 stage multi and the stage is gone, then I'm frustrated. If the cache is in my area, then I will endure the possible frustration to log the find. If it is 30 miles away, then I'm better off passing it over to get a traditional just a half mile up the road.

Link to comment

5 finds and one smiley or 5 finds and 5 smileys? It's all about the numbers.

 

Reply number 1.

 

This seems to imply that multi-caches offer a better quality of geocaching. Are those 5 multi waypoints going to be better than the 5 regulars? When visiting a new city or being more than 5 miles from home with little time to research can we count on multis consistently providing a better quality caching experience?

 

Reply number 2.

 

A "numbers" cacher with 5000 finds usually has been to far more multi-caches than one with 500 finds. What does it matter how many park and grabs fall between the multis? How is "It's all about the numbers" relevant in this situation?

 

Reply number 3.

 

It appears that most people are going to be doing multi and puzzle caches combined somewhere between 5 and 15% of their total finds. This appears to be an across-the-board condition regardless of total find count. How is "It's all about the numbers" relevant in this situation?

Link to comment

It appears that most people are going to be doing multi and puzzle caches combined somewhere between 5 and 15% of their total finds. This appears to be an across-the-board condition regardless of total find count. How is "It's all about the numbers" relevant in this situation?

 

What I'm about to say is in no way directed toward the person you quoted, because I have seen this a lot around this forum.

 

I could be that is just a refrain because they have a bias against people with high find counts, or at least higher than theirs. ;)

 

I have a low find count.... Just 527 or so in 5 years. I've never felt inferior to anyone with a higher find count than me and I count many of the top 100 and most of the top 25 cachers in find stats as friends. :o

Many of these high find folk practice a different logging ethic than me. It makes no difference to me or my enjoyment and I don't wish to impress my ethics upon them. I have no need of it.

 

I truly believe it is personal angst, because many of these people believe their way/ethic is the right way and all others that believe in a different ethic are somehow less for it. I can't respect that. :rolleyes:

 

I guess I'm just as agnostic about cachin' as I am about religion. ;)

Link to comment

Many many many cachers at any given moment are relatively novice - they're working on simple traditionals, as often advised. Long ago Jeremy scraped the site and reported that 90% of registered cachers have fewer than 56 finds. I'm sure the numbers have shifted, but the reality is still there - most cachers are novice, and many many will drop out after a single year or season of caching. They don't attempt multis or puzzles.

 

I actually don't think its about the numbers - the real numbers hos do everything! including the multis, at least in their home turf. As fizzy has said, it's about the uncertainty of all the stages being intact, and it's about the general uncertainty of where you're going and what you'll be doing (this is what I like actually).

 

Personally I prefer a half day or all day multi to any other cache type. I like driving once to one spot and then getting out of the car to hike/bike/'yak - I like the potential creativity in the stage hides, as someone has noted, they don't have to be container and log - they can be anything.

 

As the owner of quite a few multis, I meticulously post owner maintenance notes to them at the start of the caching season to reassure cachers that they are in place. It certainly can be aggravating to travel some driving distance, then work your way through x number of stages, and then DNF a stage or the final itself.

Link to comment

I truly believe it is personal angst, because many of these people believe their way/ethic is the right way and all others that believe in a different ethic are somehow less for it. I can't respect that. :rolleyes:

 

I guess I'm just as agnostic about cachin' as I am about religion. :o

Well, that reminds me of a certain favorite smashed nickel that I got from you at GW5..... but back on topic!

 

I have a multi that has a hugely long description page. It's meant to be informative, but I also think that it scares people off. It hasn't been found in many months --- well... since the blackberries were last in season. There are several trackable items in the cache that probably should move along, but I put them there hoping to attract at least a few cachers to do my cache. So far, that's not working out too well.

 

So here's my dilemma - should I go move the trackables myself -or- should I go place a few strategic individual caches in the area (within 0.1mi of my cache's stages) to cause people to come over and at least consider doing my multi?

 

I'm leaning strongly toward the 2nd option right now. ;)

Link to comment
So here's my dilemma - should I go move the trackables myself -or- should I go place a few strategic individual caches in the area (within 0.1mi of my cache's stages) to cause people to come over and at least consider doing my multi?

 

I'm leaning strongly toward the 2nd option right now

 

Adding trads along the multi trail will attract cachers for sure. They're much more certain to find something! and you're outlining the form of the multi-cache as well.

 

If you're out there placing some traditional caches, I'd say you should pick up those TBs and move them to an easy near the road trading cache. Time to be nice to the TB owners. They paid for the tracking to see the bugs move, not to advertise your hide.

 

Trackables do not attract cachers. Period. Coins did for a while, but no longer - there are too many of them.

I personally NEVER place trackables in my own, or other long distance caches because they sit too long. I go out in the late spring and retrieve any trackables from my own caches and transfer them to a really good TB hotel near the interstate (summer being the off season here).

Link to comment

Probably no one else's reason, but I avoid multis that are far from home because doing them gps-less either takes a lot of careful plotting and math, or multiple trips home to the computer to get the new map showing the location of the next stage. I do own two multis that together make a 9 cache loop for two smilies. Those that do them seem to have a great time, but they do not get much traffic.

Link to comment

Swag! It's the swag!!

 

Numbers....smumbers! Just give me .......SWAG!

 

Figuring out a puzzle? Going through 3 or more hesitation stops before I get to the loot??

 

NO WAY!

 

Just give me the lone tree in the middle of the field.....nice pile of sticks at the base....lotsa Swag in that

watertight can......and a McToy or two for the kids!

 

Yep! It's all about the SWAG! :o:rolleyes:;)

Link to comment
I could be that is just a refrain because they have a bias against people with high find counts, or at least higher than theirs.

This very well may be true for some folks, but is not universal.

 

I don't have a bias against folks with higher find counts. It would be kind of weird if I did as we don't always log caches we find. I do have a bias against the practices of some of the higher numbers folks, especially on the hiding practices where the main goal is simply another opportunity for a smilie for other numbers chasers.

 

On the subject at hand and in relation to "all about the numbers," only one of the reasons for folks skipping multis is because of higher yield. As been mentioned is the unknown factor and is certainly a legitimate reason. "Where is this multi going to take me?" "How long is it going to take?" "Will all of the stages be there?" Etc.

 

Another reason is the convenience factor. Doing a multi is simply not as convenient as doing a single stage. Same with cache distance from home, destination, or route. The further out of the way the cache is, the less it will be hunted.

 

All of these are reasons multis don't get hunted nearly as often, but folks have said previously that if a cache takes more than 7 minutes to find they'll skip it. The faster the cache can be found the quicker they are able to move on to the next cache and get a higher yield on their trip. I'm guessing that a multi fills the bill in these cases and thusly certainly fits the "it's all about the numbers" reason for skipping.

 

I think it would be as interesting experiment to put out as identical caches as possible, but one is a 5-stage multi and the other is 4 caches with partial coords to a bonus cache. Both are essentially the same hunts, only one gets to log each "stage" and the other doesn't. In the end, which will get hit more often, if there is a difference, the multi or the bonus cache? Why? If there is a difference what does this tell us?

 

All of this said, is a higher number of smilies per trip right or wrong? Not in my humble opinion as long as it doesn't adversely affect the hobby for the rest of us. Is it an explanation of why multis get visited less often than traditionals? Partially, yes.

Link to comment
I had a good time at the hardware store for one stage and the craft store (trying to come up with a nut that a squirrel wouldn't want) for the other. :rolleyes:
Very intriguing. But wouldn't you have been more productive looking at the hardware store for a nut that a squirrel wouldn't want, instead of at the craft store?
The hardware store doesn't stock anything like this:

6c3eb286-68ad-4f54-90c7-d253a465d0a1.jpg

If sbell111 were still selling these on eBay I'd probably have one, but I had to work out my own.

 

The 'unknown' factor mentioned by CR is a big part of it, too. My 2nd multi (actually, it's my first hide ever) has a log history to make you think twice in hunting it. 2 of the 3 first people to hunt it DNF'ed it (well, one actually posted a Needs Maintenance Log). The cacher who "DNFed" it (Hipointer) now has almost 3500 finds (was around 2500 at the time) and when I cache with him, he's almost always finding those clever hides before I'm even close. The "Needs Maint" Logger (LandRocket) was an experienced night cacher/FTF hound who has found caches in the dark without a problem that Hipointer and I have spent over an hour searching together for in broad daylight. Both cachers are people I'd take a DNF log from very seriously, in fact, I checked on the cache after LandRocket's log & actually tagged along with Hipointer & Capiti to see if there was something wrong with the hide.

 

At the same time, this cache is really easy if you remember that it was my first cache hide. There are scores of kids who I've taken group caching on this loop who find all the stages really quickly because, like me when I hid it, they have few preconceptions about how a hide should work.

 

This cache might be an extreme example, but stages of a multicache can be really tricky & the possibility of a DNF looms heavily on those who only have a limited amount of time to hunt. Do they go for the "sure thing" down the road or the "Maybe I'll find it, maybe not" right here?

 

If I only had limited time, I'd probably skip my cache, too.

 

The cache wasn't put out there to be a numbers cache, though. Between the woods, the glacial erratic and the overlook, this is just a cool spot. For me, that's what caching is about.

Link to comment
I could be that is just a refrain because they have a bias against people with high find counts, or at least higher than theirs.

This very well may be true for some folks, but is not universal.

 

I don't have a bias against folks with higher find counts. It would be kind of weird if I did as we don't always log caches we find. I do have a bias against the practices of some of the higher numbers folks, especially on the hiding practices where the main goal is simply another opportunity for a smilie for other numbers chasers.

 

My response to that statement would have been a simple "Nonsense!". You explained it better and more diplomatically.

 

On the subject at hand and in relation to "all about the numbers," only one of the reasons for folks skipping multis is because of higher yield. As been mentioned is the unknown factor and is certainly a legitimate reason. "Where is this multi going to take me?" "How long is it going to take?" "Will all of the stages be there?" Etc.

 

I know of one multi where the entire walk was about a .1 mile and probably involved 30 minutes. That was mentioned on the page. It was a pretty cool area, yet the cache was not popular. It was broken it into separate caches, with each one in the exact same spot as one of the multi stages. The find rate has at least doubled with nearly everyone doing both caches. Same cache experience, but two smileys instead of one.

 

I've had similar experiences where I broke other multis into separate caches. The find rate went up and the majority of finders usually found all of the caches that were at the sites of previous stages of the multi.

Link to comment

I agree that it's more about the time and uncertainty, and less about the smilie count. I seldom take a day or an afternoon for caching; usually I have to go from point A to point B and will add extra time to the trip to grab some caches along the way. It also seems like lots of logs I see on my caches are "was traveling through the area and..." Given that, if I have a choice of using up all my extra time getting one multi in one area, or getting one traditional, drive for a while until I want another break and find another traditional, then drive and another break etc, I'll opt for breaking my drive up in several spots, not just get one multi then drive, drive, drive.

 

The experiment with four traditional caches with a bonus vs one five part multi would be interesting, not only to see how many get all five vs. the one multi, but also to see how many times only one or two of the traditionals were hunted. That would show that its more about the time than the smilie count - if they didn't have enough time to get all four traditionals plus the bonus they wouldn't have had time for the one multi, regardless of the smilies. Additionally, you often don't know how many stages or if they're in the same park or spread across the county, so if you're just traveling through chances are you're going to skip the multi.

Link to comment

I know you have heard most of the reasons that Multi's do not get the same traffic as a traditional but I'll drop my $0.02 worth anyway;

 

Before I get started on my diatribe I should state up front that some of my most memorable and enjoyable caches have been multi's. For example see Nemesis - GCRZBD.

 

For me, I'm usually caching with my daughter, girlfriend, or a Team. While I do have a few multi's on my stats, we will often pass on a multi if it is not some what of a simple off-set two or three stage cache within a reasonable distance from the first stage.

 

There have been many times where we have begun to hunt for a multi but in reading up the requirements to finding stage two or three, we will often be discouraged because some are quite complex - to the point of no longer being fun. That's where we draw the line on any cache. Multi's, Traditional, Virtual, Unknown, whatever.

 

As soon as the hunt becomes 'no longer fun', we simply move on.

 

Please keep in mind that this opinion is coming from a relative 'newbie' and that there are many others out there with more articulate opinions but regardless, opinions are all you will read here. Some will be very good while others will simply flame others for their level of involvement in the game.

 

So, that said, there are places for all types of caches and you will notice that there are all sorts of cachers. Some love the multi, some don't.

 

Hope this helps! Happy caching!

Link to comment

I believe multis are more popular in Europe than in the states. I once saw this really cool map that Raine made when I visited HQ. It was a giant picture of the earth, (google earth style) and on it was all the caches from sattelite view and their type. Europe was just about entirely yellow from all the multis, the states were green mostly on the coasts (I do think the seattle area was completely blue :rolleyes: ) And there were occasional green dots here and there, across the rest of the world.

Link to comment

5 finds and one smiley or 5 finds and 5 smileys? It's all about the numbers.

 

Reply number 1.

 

This seems to imply that multi-caches offer a better quality of geocaching. Are those 5 multi waypoints going to be better than the 5 regulars? When visiting a new city or being more than 5 miles from home with little time to research can we count on multis consistently providing a better quality caching experience?

 

Reply number 2.

 

A "numbers" cacher with 5000 finds usually has been to far more multi-caches than one with 500 finds. What does it matter how many park and grabs fall between the multis? How is "It's all about the numbers" relevant in this situation?

 

Reply number 3.

 

It appears that most people are going to be doing multi and puzzle caches combined somewhere between 5 and 15% of their total finds. This appears to be an across-the-board condition regardless of total find count. How is "It's all about the numbers" relevant in this situation?

 

It's an undeniable statistic that multis (and puzzle caches) don't get logged as much as traditional caches. This thread is about possible reasons for why this is. While I would agree that it's not fair to blame this phenomena entirely on those people who are caching for numbers, it's delusional to say that it has nothing to do with it either.

 

If asked which factor is greater, I'd say the "unknown" wins. Reading this thread actually gives me motivation to revisit some of my multi caches and include a few simple facts about them. Distance traveled, estimated time to find, and number of stages comes to mind.

Link to comment

5 finds and one smiley or 5 finds and 5 smileys? It's all about the numbers.

 

Maybe for many it is, but that's not the only reason. I would say that I am not into the numbers game, yet I tend to avoid multis in areas I visit or multis that have been around for a while. The reason? The probability that something has gone wrong with a multi (missing stage, etc.) is much larger than for a single-stage or puzzle cache. I've had several experiences of hiking several miles for a multi only to discover that the penultimate stage is missing. So, even though it's not abouut the numbers and even though I had a nice hike, there is still frustration at being unable to finish.

 

I won't give you a long answer.

 

The most common reason we skip multi-caches is because we have extensive experience with the middle waypoints being missing, damaged, or un-findable. :rolleyes:

 

This causes disappointment, and we are in this for Fun! :o

And then instead of fixing the problem it's archived..... I'm amazed at how often someone will hide a long multi and then not maintain it. A stage is reported missing and the cache sits disabled for months until the admins archive it.

 

I've been working out of town a lot recently and geocaching adds an element of enjoyment to an otherwise onerous situation. I usually only have an hour or two after work to cache and multis are always at the bottom of my list. I just looked at a map of the area that I just finished working in and when I check the box to hide my finds about the only ones left are multis.

Link to comment

I won't give you a long answer.

 

The most common reason we skip multi-caches is because we have extensive experience with the middle waypoints being missing, damaged, or un-findable. :rolleyes:

 

This causes disappointment, and we are in this for Fun! :o

Same with us. When we do get time to go out - which in our busy lifestyle is rare, we get halfway through and then the cache owner has not done maintenance and we are not able to finish - it is just more frustrating than anything else. I recently went on a 7 stage multi and battled the mosquitos which were fierce only to get to the 6th waypoint and it was gone, I verified that it was missing by someone who had done it prior. If the cache owners would maintain them properly like they should, they would be great - I love the exercise. Unfortunately for me around where I live this seems to be a problem.

Link to comment

While I would agree that it's not fair to blame this phenomena entirely on those people who are caching for numbers, it's delusional to say that it has nothing to do with it either.

 

I definitely agree with that. Numbers are certainly a big part of that mix and often is the initial factor. There is the "Eureka (I Have Fount It)" element that comes into play, too. Since the foundation of this game is The Hunt, five smileys means five Eureka moments. You don't get that at those four multi intermediate waypoints.

 

I believe that everyone chooses to pass on multis for pretty much the exact same suite of reasons. I don't think there is a significant group that passes multis for reasons purely other than numbers and numbers hounds seem to amass a significant number of multis.

 

When the time is right a good multi on park trails or a downtown history multi is a beautiful thing.

 

I think time is as big a factor as numbers, if not bigger. We don't always have time to enjoy multis. And the perception that mulits take longer skews the decision process making it more likely that we will pass them by.

Edited by Team Sagefox
Link to comment

It appears that most people are going to be doing multi and puzzle caches combined somewhere between 5 and 15% of their total finds. This appears to be an across-the-board condition regardless of total find count. How is "It's all about the numbers" relevant in this situation?

 

What I'm about to say is in no way directed toward the person you quoted, because I have seen this a lot around this forum.

 

I could be that is just a refrain because they have a bias against people with high find counts, or at least higher than theirs. ;)

 

I have a low find count.... Just 527 or so in 5 years. I've never felt inferior to anyone with a higher find count than me and I count many of the top 100 and most of the top 25 cachers in find stats as friends. ;)

Many of these high find folk practice a different logging ethic than me. It makes no difference to me or my enjoyment and I don't wish to impress my ethics upon them. I have no need of it.

 

I truly believe it is personal angst, because many of these people believe their way/ethic is the right way and all others that believe in a different ethic are somehow less for it. I can't respect that. ;)

 

I guess I'm just as agnostic about cachin' as I am about religion. :rolleyes:

 

This might make for lively thread but I doubt it would see 24 hours :o I'll say that I think you have it partially correct. There is in fact an underlying angst towards number cachers but I think it has very little to do with "find count" envy.

Link to comment

It appears that most people are going to be doing multi and puzzle caches combined somewhere between 5 and 15% of their total finds. This appears to be an across-the-board condition regardless of total find count. How is "It's all about the numbers" relevant in this situation?

 

What I'm about to say is in no way directed toward the person you quoted, because I have seen this a lot around this forum.

 

I could be that is just a refrain because they have a bias against people with high find counts, or at least higher than theirs. :o

 

I have a low find count.... Just 527 or so in 5 years. I've never felt inferior to anyone with a higher find count than me and I count many of the top 100 and most of the top 25 cachers in find stats as friends. :rolleyes:

Many of these high find folk practice a different logging ethic than me. It makes no difference to me or my enjoyment and I don't wish to impress my ethics upon them. I have no need of it.

 

I truly believe it is personal angst, because many of these people believe their way/ethic is the right way and all others that believe in a different ethic are somehow less for it. I can't respect that. ;)

 

I guess I'm just as agnostic about cachin' as I am about religion. ;)

 

This might make for lively thread but I doubt it would see 24 hours ;) I'll say that I think you have it partially correct. There is in fact an underlying angst towards number cachers but I think it has very little to do with "find count" envy.

 

Exactly! I don't know anyone that is envious over someone's find count. I only have one because the site insists on adding up my finds. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

For me, it is economics, I can not afford to expend large sums per smilie. I am retired and must be careful. Others may have other reasons to economize.

 

I am finding that I DO multis when I can park once and find all the stages . . . with the cost of caching, I like to average a certain 'cost per smilie'.

 

Right now, I am looking at 25 cents per smilie and doing well at this target. My last trip, splitting the cost with a friend, was under 10 cents per smilie (all trip expenses, except food).

 

So, when studying the logs and the cache page, if each stage appears to be a drive to the next, I simply drop the cache and move on as it becomes too expensive to hunt for the smilie return.

Edited by GRANPA ALEX
Link to comment
For me, it is economics, I can not afford to expend large sums per smilie. I am retired and must be careful. Others may have other reasons to economize.

 

I am finding that I DO multis when I can park once and find all the stages . . . with the cost of caching, I like to average a certain 'cost per smilie'.

 

Right now, I am looking at 25 cents per smilie and doing well at this target. My last trip, splitting the cost with a friend, was under 10 cents per smilie (all trip expenses, except food).

 

So, when studying the logs and the cache page, if each stage appears to be a drive to the next, I simply drop the cache and move on as it becomes too expensive to hunt for the smilie return.

Maybe you should come up with a cost/fun-meter metric. Not all smilies are equally as fun. Some of my favorite caches are multis where you could park and do the whole thing. They were worth 50+ smilies on my fun-meter!
Link to comment

Maybe you should come up with a cost/fun-meter metric. Not all smilies are equally as fun. Some of my favorite caches are multis where you could park and do the whole thing. They were worth 50+ smilies on my fun-meter!

 

YOU ARE RIGHT . . . one of my most memorable days was the 11 mile hike in th Blue Ridge Mountains of VA for only 5 smilies. There is simply no way to measure the satisfaction and memories of that day which completely exhausted me.

Edited by GRANPA ALEX
Link to comment

Maybe you should come up with a cost/fun-meter metric. Not all smilies are equally as fun. Some of my favorite caches are multis where you could park and do the whole thing. They were worth 50+ smilies on my fun-meter!

 

YOU ARE RIGHT . . . one of my most memorable days was the 11 mile hike in th Blue Ridge Mountains of VA for only 5 smilies. There is simply no way to measure the satisfaction and memories of that day which completely exhausted me.

I would love to do that hike! :rolleyes:
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...