Why are multis less popular?

[+ventura_kids]

One famous cache in Las Vegas had a large number of geocachers (after the drinking party ) wandering about in a park , searching out the waypoints of a multi-cache (at midnight). After finding a few waypoints (by walking around the park in a huge group), we discovered the final waypoint was over 7 miles away.

 

This certainly soured a large group of cachers (at midnight) on multi-caches.

 

Perhaps a bit of explanation on the webpage would have prevented our angst.

Something like....note: this multi-cache will take you 7 miles away.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

I would love to do that hike!

 

You have the mountains just above Fresno in the Sequoia National Park, Kings Canyon . . . the deer are a different species but the Rhododendrons are just as beautiful, plus you have the Redwoods, Douglas Fir, Incense Cedar (all giants!). There must be some neat trail caches there, near Escondido, right?

 

I rented a housekeeping cabin there for several years - it was incredible and challenging hiking. You gotta check this out, it will be well woth your time!

Edited November 11, 2007 by GRANPA ALEX

[CoyoteRed]

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!

I concur.

 

We probably spent $50 on gas alone on our last trip and received exactly one smilie. We too have to be careful with our money, but couldn't care less how many smilies come from it. It's all about the fun and experiences.

 

Come to think about it, I think one of the reasons we dislike trache is they take away time from the worthwhile caches.

 

* Don't anyone get their panties in a wad. Our definitions of "trache" and "worthwhile" are our own. YMMV.

[+Sileny Jizda]

I believe multi's 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 satellite view and their type. Europe was just about entirely yellow from all the multi's, the states were green mostly on the coasts (I do think the Seattle area was completely blue ) And there were occasional green dots here and there, across the rest of the world.

 

It's a good thing my wife is good at math since most of the ones there have algebra and trig involved in the area's we're headed to.

[+webscouter.]

For me it comes down to this.

 

Can I do the cache with only my GPS in hand.

My GPS will store most of the hint, the coords, and the difficulty terrain rating.

 

What it won't store is the "find a sign, add 24 then subtract that from the north to get the final cache" directions. If I knew that all multi caches were set up such that each stage took you to a container that had coordinates to the next stage I would do them. As it is I can only do so many caches in each area I am in and would like to find the cache.

 

I do however bookmark recommended caches that are either multi or puzzle, or .... caches and will do them if I am close. In fact I did one last week, or maybe the week before.

 

So if you have a great multi cache for me to do on my travels send me an e-mail so I know about it.

[bogleman]

I've done a few multis and I do avoid them but if they look good enough I'll put some time into them. Some have mentioned already and I will add that a majority of the multis I've found involve micros with little rotten slips of paper or you have to drive all over for the waypoints.

 

I have one multi and I basically gave dead spoilers for each stage, my reason is that I want the folks to follow a specific path to get to the final.

 

Not many visits to my regular hides, all the heavy hitters found them and there are far too many park & grabs to keep the nobs attention occupied.

 

Today the boy and I found a monster prime area that holds potential for a long multi circle hike - rocks, easy trails, hills, big trees, wildlife entertainment - just have to check a few other things before I am happy. We walked over 4 miles and did not put a dent in the place. I'd use a regular sized container for each stage with back up waypoints (stamped brass plates with a small chain attached to a stake pounded into the ground) for the next step.

[JASTA 11]

We'd take a good, well planned multi that had a hike or paddle involved over a bunch of traditionals in a small park. A single stage traditional would work too, if it had a decent hike or paddle involved. When we started out, we avoided the multis, but now that we have a few tough ones under our belts, we try to seek them out. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned 'Fun Factor'. We agree, but we also have the satisfaction factor as a motivator. In the end, to each his own.

Edited November 11, 2007 by JASTA 11

[+Snoogans]

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.

 

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.

 

What else could it be?

 

Cacher "A" practices a strict cache logging ethic and is proud of their achievement. And rightly so. The balance their life and get geocaches at a steady rate.

 

Cacher "B" is more liberal. They have a huge number of finds and they go about their caching like a fanatic. They know they are a target and they don't care much about it. They are playing their way.

 

Cacher "A" finds fault with cacher "B" for their logging ethics..... Why? It's not just ethics. It's the fact that cacher "B's" numbers tower over them and in their perception, unfairly. It makes Cacher "B" less in their mind and they can feel better about their own self.

 

However, if you were to scrutinize cacher "B's" finds and manually strip them of multiple logs, etc. they are STILL thousands of finds ahead.

 

Yes, to me the ethical logging/numbers debate is just a coping device for numbers envy. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

 

My next post to this thread will be more ON topic. I promise.

[+Snoogans]

One famous cache in Las Vegas had a large number of geocachers (after the drinking party ) wandering about in a park , searching out the waypoints of a multi-cache (at midnight). After finding a few waypoints (by walking around the park in a huge group), we discovered the final waypoint was over 7 miles away.

 

This certainly soured a large group of cachers (at midnight) on multi-caches.

 

Perhaps a bit of explanation on the webpage would have prevented our angst.

Something like....note: this multi-cache will take you 7 miles away.

 

I have one that is a Mystery cache because of the ALR.

 

Would something like this have helped you on your disappointing hunt:

 

It has taken nearly a year to set this experience up. Plan on spending at least half a day completing each leg

 

Expect about a 2 to 3 hour car trip (depending on how fast you drive) from the first redirect.

 

The coordinates you get from the drop will lead you out past the "Boonies" and beyond the "Stix." When "B.F.E." is well behind you, the coords will lead you to a place to park, on very overgrown private property, that I own. The nearest neighbors that I know of are 4.5 miles away.

 

As with all of my rural caches, if you hear banjo music playing somewhere, it's not a good sign

[CoyoteRed]

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Well, yes, you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right or even based on reality. ("Your opinion" means opinions in general, not yours specifically.)

 

Like I said, there may be some validity to your assertions, but based on personal experience, it's far from universal.

 

To be clear, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of folks who have a higher real world find count--not just logs--than we do. I don't have the first problem with that. The problem I have is when folks, regardless of the number of finds, play the game "their way" to the detriment of the rest of us and the hobby.

Edited November 11, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+Snoogans]

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Well, yes, you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's right or even based on reality. ("Your opinion" means opinions in general, not yours specifically.)

 

Like I said, there may be some validity to your assertions, but based on personal experience, it's far from universal.

 

To be clear, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of folks who have a higher real world find count--not just logs--than we do. I don't have the first problem with that. The problem I have is when folks, regardless of the number of finds, play the game "their way" to the detriment of the rest of us and the hobby.

 

I agree it's not universal. It's pretty obvoius to me when it is and when it isn't.

 

I play my way. How is that detrimental to anyone? Not following there, but maybe it's lack of sleep on my part.

[+briansnat]

I play my way. How is that detrimental to anyone?

 

Maybe YOUR way isn't, but I remember that for a while we had cache pirates who where playing the game their way. Some people here actually supported the idea thinking it was a fun change of pace.

 

We have people whose way of playing is to get to the next cache a quickly as possible, leaving their last find poorly hidden or the lid not properly closed.

 

We have people whose way of playing is to log bogus cache finds, which does affect others in ways that I have mentioned countless times in this forum.

 

We have people whose way of playing is to throw down another cache and claim a find if they can't find the original. This causes problems when there are multiple caches at the site and the owner is forced to make a visit to sort things out.

 

The fact of the matter is that the way people play THEIR game can and does affect other cachers.

 

Despite the aspersions you like to cast on me and my motives, I have no problem with high numbers cachers per se. If someone has the time to rack up thousands of finds, that's great.

 

But when their game starts to affect my game, that's where I take issue. The smiley hunters and above practices that many of them are guilty of, as well as the junk caches that they sow around like grass seed to support their fellow smiley hunters make it impossible for me to play MY game the way I like to, which is why I am frequently critical of them. When I speak out I'm told that I'm going to have to change the way I play my game - which is my entire point.

Edited November 11, 2007 by briansnat

[+Isonzo Karst]

A summary of responses on topic: why are multi's less popular

 

1. require more time

2. unknown time

3. unknown distance - traditional cache easier to judge what is needed to get to it

4. distance given, but too far for limited mobility cacher or interest level of children

5. unknown if all stages will be in place = No smiley frustration at being unable to finish

6. no smiley for each stage (5 trads v one 5 stage multi = 5 smileys v 1 smiley) and possibly no smiley

7. don't like hunting micros (many multi cache use micros as stages)

8. dislike math/puzzle off-set type multi

9. novice cachers stick with trads - many cachers are novice - also traveling cachers often filter for low terrain/difficulty trads as well

10. (rare) tough for the orienteering (no gps) cacher

11. Multis that require driving between stages too expensive

 

what did I miss?

Edited November 11, 2007 by Isonzo Karst

[+J-Way]

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?

I've been thinking about doing this exact thing in a local park. Place 3 caches (one trad, one multi, one mystery) with identical final containers and initial swag. The terrain would be identical for all, difficulty would be 1/2 - 1 stars higher in the multi and mystery because of the extra steps. Multi would be a simple offset-style 2-stage with a "virtual" first stage (go to starting point, find sign, get coordinates from numbers on sign). Mystery would be an easy-to-solve puzzle where the final coordinates can be determined before arriving at the site.

 

I would keep track of find and DNF rate to determine an approximate percentage of people who filter out multis and/or puzzles. I'd also attempt to track the approximate relative value of the swag in the cache. I have a personal hypothesis that the type of people that search for multis and solve puzzles are more considerate in their trading.

 

A summary of responses on topic: why are multi's less popular

1. require more time

2. unknown time

3. unknown distance - traditional cache easier to judge what is needed to get to it

4. distance given, but too far for limited mobility cacher or interest level of children

5. unknown if all stages will be in place = No smiley frustration at being unable to finish

6. no smiley for each stage (5 trads v one 5 stage multi = 5 smileys v 1 smiley) and possibly no smiley

7. don't like hunting micros (many multi cache use micros as stages)

8. dislike math/puzzle off-set type multi

9. novice cachers stick with trads - many cachers are novice - also traveling cachers often filter for low terrain/difficulty trads as well

10. (rare) tough for the orienteering (no gps) cacher

11. Multis that require driving between stages too expensive

what did I miss?

I think you pretty much got all of 'em. Personally I prefer a well-done multis or puzzle to a traditional. I definitely prefer them over a film-can-in-a-parking-lot. Unfortunately, my wife isn't interested in caching, my son is too young, and my job is too busy right now to take time for long cache trips. I'm working on finding all the local multis and puzzles, but time is the factor. When I'm traveling for work, I try to pre-solve local puzzles and locate one-parking-spot multis. I usually don't have time to drive all over town, and my company would probably frown on the extra gas cost. I don't consider myself a true "numbers" cacher, but numbers do matter some, so if I only have 30 minutes to an hour I'll try for a few park-n-grabs or short-walk trads before attempting a single multi.

[Neos2]

That's a pretty good summary that Izonzo Karst wrote. I have my own reasons for not (usually) doing multis some of which agree with that list:

 

1. The unknown factor is big with me. I won't do one that doesn't say how many stages there are, or approximately how far I have to travel because:

 

* We often cache while traveling. I need to know if it's going to be a forty-minute adventure or an all day affair in case there is somewhere I need to be at a certain time.

 

* I have two slipped discs and on a bad day that means I need to manage my time well--I at least need to know how much longer I need to walk, and it's nice to know what kind of terrain I'll be walking on. I may not be able to finish something with too many stages or that takes me to rougher terrains in the later stages.

 

* about half of the multis I have attempted had a missing stage. That caching experience ended in frustration. If I'm traveling I probably won't be back to finish --ever--- and that's annoying to me. I like to finish what I start.

 

Which brings me to this statement:

 

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

 

Which I find to be incredibly overused in these forums, as though it's some sort of insult to enjoy finding a cache! You can sneer if you wish, but yes, I like to finish a cache and get my smiley. My numbers are important to me--especially because with my lousey back problems, I still feel that special glow of pride when I complete a cache. I compete only against myself, and so far, I am winning! If I have a choice between a 5-stage multi that is missing stage number three and five one-stage caches, I'll take the five singles any day. Even if I don't find all of them, I have a fair shot at finishing a couple of them.

 

2. Lastly, many of the multis that I seen don't take you anywhere special in the in-between stages or even offer anything interesting about the containers at the stages. They seem more like a mechanism to force people to tread a certain passage from point A to point J. There is no "thrill of the hunt" when all you are finding is another yellow tag with numbers on it, or one more 35mm container in a tree.

Frankly, I'd prefer to find several single stage caches hidden by various cachers so there is more variety to what I am finding. Having the multi there "takes up" spaces that could have held caches by other hiders.

[+Too Tall John]

A summary of responses on topic: why are multi's less popular

 

1. require more time

2. unknown time

3. unknown distance - traditional cache easier to judge what is needed to get to it

4. distance given, but too far for limited mobility cacher or interest level of children

5. unknown if all stages will be in place = No smiley frustration at being unable to finish

6. no smiley for each stage (5 trads v one 5 stage multi = 5 smileys v 1 smiley) and possibly no smiley

7. don't like hunting micros (many multi cache use micros as stages)

8. dislike math/puzzle off-set type multi

9. novice cachers stick with trads - many cachers are novice - also traveling cachers often filter for low terrain/difficulty trads as well

10. (rare) tough for the orienteering (no gps) cacher

11. Multis that require driving between stages too expensive

 

what did I miss?

This is actually a subset of #7, or maybe even #8, but:

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...

First I need to say that I see this as a positive as well, but I enjoy multis.

 

This is basically saying that coords aren't necessarily hidden inside a micro. I found a stage of a multi where the coords had been written on the inside of a 5' high culvert. Not exactly a micro, and not what you might expect to be looking for.

 

Perhaps this could be listed as:

 

7a. You don't know what you are looking for at all.

 

A good summary overall, thanks Isonzo Karst.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I play my way. How is that detrimental to anyone?

 

Maybe YOUR way isn't, but I remember that for a while we had cache pirates who where playing the game their way. Some people here actually supported the idea thinking it was a fun change of pace.

We have people whose way of playing is to get to the next cache a quickly as possible, leaving their last find poorly hidden or the lid not properly closed.

 

We have people whose way of playing is to log bogus cache finds, which does affect others in ways that I have mentioned countless times in this forum.

 

We have people whose way of playing is to throw down another cache and claim a find if they can't find the original. This causes problems when there are multiple caches at the site and the owner is forced to make a visit to sort things out.

 

The fact of the matter is that the way people play THEIR game can and does affect other cachers.

 

Despite the aspersions you like to cast on me and my motives, I have no problem with high numbers cachers per se. If someone has the time to rack up thousands of finds, that's great.

 

But when their game starts to affect my game, that's where I take issue. The smiley hunters and above practices that many of them are guilty of, as well as the junk caches that they sow around like grass seed to support their fellow smiley hunters make it impossible for me to play MY game the way I like to, which is why I am frequently critical of them. When I speak out I'm told that I'm going to have to change the way I play my game - which is my entire point.

 

I think this is one of the reasons that hiding and maintaining a well thought out and involved multi is different than a quick park and grab. It is really interesting to compare the interaction between the two types over a long period of time. I've hidden a few easy caches near places I'd like people to visit but mostly my hides take either some effort or some thought to solve.

 

Since most of the local cachers have found all my hides, my caches are found predominately by people that are visiting Hawaii. So the seekers are pretty much anonymous (to me) cachers from all over the world. These two type caches attract two entirely different cross sections of cachers and rarely will one cacher find both kinds. As a cache owner and regular maintainer, I see a significant difference in the logs I get, to the swag that is left, the care that is taken to rehide the caches and so on.

 

The difference is so striking that it is almost as if there's two different games being played.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+-Eleanor-]

snip

 

2. Lastly, many of the multis that I seen don't take you anywhere special in the in-between stages or even offer anything interesting about the containers at the stages. They seem more like a mechanism to force people to tread a certain passage from point A to point J. There is no "thrill of the hunt" when all you are finding is another yellow tag with numbers on it, or one more 35mm container in a tree.

Frankly, I'd prefer to find several single stage caches hidden by various cachers so there is more variety to what I am finding. Having the multi there "takes up" spaces that could have held caches by other hiders.

 

This is my thoughts exactly. My experience tends to be that many are given as much thought as the nearest skirt lifter. I don't know how many times I've been at a stage in a multi and thought "Why would anyone want to bring me here?" Also, finding one film can isn't nearly as annoying as having to find 3 before moving on to the next cache. I just tend to expect more if someone is placing a multi, there should be a reason that I'm stopping at this stage to look for a cache. Either a good hide, or a nice area. Otherwise, what is the point? One of my worst I remember was a 6 stage multi in a small park, not big enough to hold more than one cache. Every other stage took you to the other end of the park. I've already passed that swing set 3 times, and ended up at the same fence bordering the park however many more times. Again, what's the point?

[+TrailGators]

I think this is one of the reasons that hiding and maintaining a well thought out and involved multi is different than a quick park and grab. It is really interesting to compare the interaction between the two types over a long period of time. I've hidden a few easy caches near places I'd like people to visit but mostly my hides take either some effort or some thought to solve.

 

Since most of the local cachers have found all my hides, my caches are found predominately by people that are visiting Hawaii. So the seekers are pretty much anonymous (to me) cachers from all over the world. These two type caches attract two entirely different cross sections of cachers and rarely will one cacher find both kinds. As a cache owner and regular maintainer, I see a significant difference in the logs I get, to the swag that is left, the care that is taken to rehide the caches and so on.

 

The difference is so striking that it is almost as if there's two different games being played.

That is very interesting TGB! That helps to confirm my own personal theory that there are two different games being played. Hopefully invasion of the body snatchers thing doesn't reduce the placement of caches that many of us really enjoy finding. I would hate to see good multis fade away....

[+team lagonda]

I,ll betcha a multi would draw better than a singal one if they was both out of the surburban clutter of caches..if i was to go out in the middle of nowhere i,d rather do a multi then a cache n dash for all the miles i traveled....

[+PlantAKiss]

I'm finally get back to my own topic. Thanks for all the input.

 

Thank you Isonzo Karst! Good recap (leaving out the snippy parts).

 

I will admit that since most of the multis I've done were set up in park/wooded areas, I never thought about travel time and expense being a factor. I've only done one multi that was a bunch of micros (LPC type things) leading you miles down a road. Not knowing the multi was spread out over 7-8 miles, I set out to do it on my way home from work one evening, only to find it was taking me miles in the opposite direction of home...so I only did the first stage. I later finished it when I was headed out that way anyway. I'll admit, I'm not sure I would be too keen on multis that involve driving from place to place but then again it depends on where you being taken to. I'd think more highly of a scenic/historic multi than one that took you to fast food restaurants. To my way of thinking, a multi is in one location and simply leads you on a longer walk to the final with "the journey" being the THING, not the cache itself.

 

I also don't equate a multi with a puzzle cache. I don't like puzzle caches and so far have avoided them. Neither my current nor my upcoming cache will involve having to figure out anything...other than simply looking for the stage containers.

 

I was not aware that stages of multis commonly disappear or get damaged. I haven't run across that myself. But doesn't that also apply to any single cache?? I've seen single caches that were soggy and needed maintenance (and yep, I noted it in my log). Its up the cachers and the owner to keep an eye on things. I've already gone out to my multi twice to check on it and have done some improvement/maintenance.

 

I do agree it would helpful to have a guesstimate on the time it would take to do a multi. I can't remember if my current one mentions time but my next one will.

 

My find numbers aren't high because I don't have the free time it seems so many others do! I don't know how people manage that. But my low number doesn't reflect my interest, enthusiasm or knowledge. I'm not any expert by any means and learning new things all the time...but I got great responses to my first cache placement so I feel good about that. I did not throw Gladware under a bush or molest a lamp post!

 

I'd much rather see an interesting multi than a puzzle cache....my personal preference.

 

2. Lastly, many of the multis that I seen don't take you anywhere special in the in-between stages or even offer anything interesting about the containers at the stages. They seem more like a mechanism to force people to tread a certain passage from point A to point J. There is no "thrill of the hunt" when all you are finding is another yellow tag with numbers on it, or one more 35mm container in a tree.

 

On my first multi, I made quite an effort to make something interesting/uncommon for the stages...however, the point of the multi WAS to make you walk a certain way...a path through a beautiful woods where the possibilities of what you might see are endless. The one I'm working on now will have either interesting containers or scenery as well. The final stage is something I found in the woods that's pretty amazing. AND...you get another beautiful walk in the woods.

 

I guess speaking for myself...I see a multi as being about the journey...not the numbers.

 

But it takes all kinds of caches and cachers to make geocaching fun.

[+boda]

The multis that make me feel the best are the ones where the owner takes me to parts of his or her town and teaches me the history of that location. For example, one multi took us through a mining town and followed one of the major characters from birth to grave, educating us on the town's history as we traced his life. We had a blast and we invested a lot of time for that smiley. It was all good.

 

Neos2: I agree with your comments, almost in their entirety (even the back problems). I especially like your comments on numbers:

 

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

 

Which I find to be incredibly overused in these forums, as though it's some sort of insult to enjoy finding a cache! You can sneer if you wish, but yes, I like to finish a cache and get my smiley. My numbers are important to me--especially because with my lousey back problems, I still feel that special glow of pride when I complete a cache. I compete only against myself, and so far, I am winning! If I have a choice between a 5-stage multi that is missing stage number three and five one-stage caches, I'll take the five singles any day. Even if I don't find all of them, I have a fair shot at finishing a couple of them.

[+PlantAKiss]

If I have a choice between a 5-stage multi that is missing stage number three...

 

I guess considering the fact that the same thing that can happen to a multi can happen to a single--damage, missing, not maintained well--it seems funny people would hold that against the multi genera, but not the single. ??? I see logs for single caches all the time that say "cache is missing"..."cache is soaking wet", etc. Its just as much of a pain to set out to find a single and find it missing. But it doesn't make people hesitate to keep hunting for singles.

 

The multis that make me feel the best are the ones where the owner takes me to parts of his or her town and teaches me the history of that location.

 

I totally agree but I feel that way about all types caches. The best ones take you somewhere you've never been before or didn't know existed, show you something interesting, teach you something, take you to a pretty place, etc. There are "thoughtless" singles as much as "thoughtless" multis.

 

I guess it boils down to time vs. results (smiley numbers). But if I've spent an hour working my way through 3-4-5 stages, had fun hunting and have had final success, then I've had a great time for my one smiley.

 

Interesting replies. Thanks all.

[+geomann1]

I tend to avoid multi's (as well as virtuals and puzzles). My feeling is what is the point? Why not just do 3 caches than 1 multi cache? It is not because of numbers, but rather, as other have noted, the frustration of the missing intermediate stage.

 

The main exception would be a well thought out multi in park, where I would enjoy spending some time.

[+elmuyloco5]

We're getting ready to place our first multi which is just one of 20 new caches in a series that we made. I knew people didn't bother with multis if they are about the numbers, but had no idea that there were so many other reasons that you all avoided them (except for missing stages, of course). So what if my multi adressed the following issues in the description:

 

 

A summary of responses on topic: why are multi's less popular

 

1. require more time

can't change this fact

2. unknown time

depends on how low it will take to do 1 mile walk

3. unknown distance - traditional cache easier to judge what is needed to get to it

description tells that it's an easy 1 mile walk

4. distance given, but too far for limited mobility cacher or interest level of children

description says length and it is very child friendly (I have three between 9-6)

5. unknown if all stages will be in place = No smiley frustration at being unable to finish

The multi is in my small town and we are VERY good about maintenance

6. no smiley for each stage (5 trads v one 5 stage multi = 5 smileys v 1 smiley) and possibly no smiley

can't change this fact

7. don't like hunting micros (many multi cache use micros as stages)

2 of the four stages of the multi are micros and one is a nano, but each take you to a beautiful view and the last stage is a large 5 gallon bucket (all of this is in the description with a hint for each stage)

8. dislike math/puzzle off-set type multi

none of mine are puzzles, they're just containers with the next coordinates and the description says this

9. novice cachers stick with trads - many cachers are novice - also traveling cachers often filter for low terrain/difficulty trads as well

can't change a novices mind, but the cache is fairly easy and won't have a high terrain or difficulty level.

10. (rare) tough for the orienteering (no gps) cacher

haven't done orienteering myself, but I can understand why this might make it harder.

11. Multis that require driving between stages too expensive

one stop shopping at ours

Edited November 13, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+Team GeoBlast]

We're getting ready to place our first multi which is just one of 20 new caches in a series that we made. I knew people didn't bother with multis if they are about the numbers, but had no idea that there were so many other reasons that you all avoided them (except for missing stages, of course). So what if my multi adressed the following issues in the description:

 

 

A summary of responses on topic: why are multi's less popular

 

1. require more time

can't change this fact

2. unknown time

depends on how low it will take to do 1 mile walk

3. unknown distance - traditional cache easier to judge what is needed to get to it

description tells that it's an easy 1 mile walk

4. distance given, but too far for limited mobility cacher or interest level of children

description says length and it is very child friendly (I have three between 9-6)

5. unknown if all stages will be in place = No smiley frustration at being unable to finish

The multi is in my small town and we are VERY good about maintenance

6. no smiley for each stage (5 trads v one 5 stage multi = 5 smileys v 1 smiley) and possibly no smiley

can't change this fact

7. don't like hunting micros (many multi cache use micros as stages)

2 of the four stages of the multi are micros and one is a nano, but each take you to a beautiful view and the last stage is a large 5 gallon bucket (all of this is in the description with a hint for each stage)

8. dislike math/puzzle off-set type multi

none of mine are puzzles, they're just containers with the next coordinates and the description says this

9. novice cachers stick with trads - many cachers are novice - also traveling cachers often filter for low terrain/difficulty trads as well

can't change a novices mind, but the cache is fairly easy and won't have a high terrain or difficulty level.

10. (rare) tough for the orienteering (no gps) cacher

haven't done orienteering myself, but I can understand why this might make it harder.

11. Multis that require driving between stages too expensive

one stop shopping at ours

 

I think you've got it covered. The additional information addressing the unknowns on the cache page is a very good practice. This is why I come to the forums to hear perspective like this. Should be required reading for anyone setting up a multi that wants to maximize visitation.

[+Fish Below The Ice]

The other unknown factor with regard to multis is that you have to read the cache page ahead of time to know if you're looking for containers containing coordinates, or if you're going to be copying numbers down off a plaque.

 

If I'm planning a day of caching, I'll sit down and read the descriptions of the caches I'm going to hit and will prepare printouts for the caches that require me to collect information. If I'm out of town and decide to grab some caches on a whim I won't have this option, so I'll almost certainly stick entirely to traditionals.

 

dave

[+Team GeoBlast]

I tend to avoid multi's (as well as virtuals and puzzles). My feeling is what is the point? Why not just do 3 caches than 1 multi cache? It is not because of numbers, but rather, as other have noted, the frustration of the missing intermediate stage.

 

The main exception would be a well thought out multi in park, where I would enjoy spending some time.

 

I know some cachers that live for moments like a missing stage or a cache that others say is not there. They have grown tired of a "sure thing" when hunting and embrace the challenge of the unknown. They are very patient and very good. I consider them some of the best cachers I've ever met.

[+elmuyloco5]

The other unknown factor with regard to multis is that you have to read the cache page ahead of time to know if you're looking for containers containing coordinates, or if you're going to be copying numbers down off a plaque.

 

If I'm planning a day of caching, I'll sit down and read the descriptions of the caches I'm going to hit and will prepare printouts for the caches that require me to collect information. If I'm out of town and decide to grab some caches on a whim I won't have this option, so I'll almost certainly stick entirely to traditionals.

 

dave

 

This is a perfect reason to get a PDA (but certainly not the only one). You can get one that will work for geocaching for very little money used and it will take care of any of those issues you have.....and save you money in ink and paper.....not to mention the environmental effect it will have.

[+Renegade Knight]

...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....

 

Back in the day I did them all. Then I had a couple of multi caches where I didn't manage to finish for various reasons. Worse I never got back to them. A few of those and I lost interest in doing multi caches because for me, part of the fun is the completion of the cache. No completion, no sence of satisfaction of having done the job.

 

Now there are so many caches that I can avoid all multi caches and not run out of caches to find.

 

Now a multi would have to become a legendary cache to make it stand out enough to do the cache. Every multi cache I've ever done had nothing more going for it than a single cache did.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+nikcap]

... 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'm on the same page with Fizzy here. Although, I typically will plan my cache outings around finding a Multi or Puzzle cache, as I've found the hides and location are usually a little better quality and more interesting to me.

 

The other thing that keeps me away from seeking a multi when I on the road or not near my home base, is that many multi's are off set caches. If you don't have the print out of these caches, you're just wasting you time.

 

As most everyone else touch on before. It's all about pumping up your find count.

[+nikcap]

...

Back in the day I did them all. Then I had a couple of multi caches where I didn't manage to finish for various reasons. Worse I never got back to them. A few of those and I lost interest in doing multi caches because for me, part of the fun is the completion of the cache. No completion, no sence of satisfaction of having done the job.

 

Now there are so many caches that I can avoid all multi caches and not run out of caches to find.

 

Now a multi would have to become a legendary cache to make it stand out enough to do the cache. Every multi cache I've ever done had nothing more going for it than a single cache did.

 

Although, I do find that most multi's in my neck of the woods are still above average cache experiences. I've been getting the feeling that some are placed solely to bust the seekers chops or artificially make the cache harder.

[+trainlove]

If itsallaboutthenumbers vs. itsnotaboutthenumbers then a multi is more work for one more smiley. As more and more people get bored with traditionals, like me, they will eventually do the multis and puzzles.

edited since Smily just didn't look right without the e.

Edited November 13, 2007 by trainlove

[+PlantAKiss]

Well this gets more depressing as it goes along.

 

It is not because of numbers, but rather, as other have noted, the frustration of the missing intermediate stage.

 

That's kind of assuming multis will have a missing stage. Why do multis have stages go missing more often than a single cache gets muggled or destroyed in some fashion? No one gives up on singles if they find out the cache they went after was missing. I don't get it...I'm missing something here about the ever-present "missing multi-stages."

 

The main exception would be a well thought out multi in park, where I would enjoy spending some time.

 

Well, that was/is the point with my first and second multi. Nice hike in the woods. My way of thinking WAS (note past tense) that "cachers like to hunt for things"...."more hunting = more fun"..."More fun + pretty surroundings = fun caching experience."

 

 

I guess I need to start slinging some Gladware under bushes. That'll be some quick and easy finds.

[+TKOFaith]

I confess that I didn't read all of the replies to your post. But I didn't see any posts that mentioned my reasons for avoiding multi's. I took up geocaching, primarily, as a way to spend more time with my kids. While they are 10 and 12, for them, it's about the treasure at the end of the hunt. They want to trade stuff. They don't like micros or nanos either. They get tired of looking, after a while, without the opportunity to trade.

 

When I cache alone, I usally look for caches that will get me some exercise and/or are of the smaller variety.

 

TKOFaith

[+uxorious]

That's kind of assuming multis will have a missing stage. Why do multis have stages go missing more often than a single cache gets muggled or destroyed in some fashion? No one gives up on singles if they find out the cache they went after was missing. I don't get it...I'm missing something here about the ever-present "missing multi-stages."

 

I think you are missing the point here. If you are going after a four stage multi, and the second stage is missing, thats it. You might as well go home. If you are going after four single stages, and the second one you look for is muggled, you can just keep going and find the rest.

 

I will say this has not been a problem for me yet. The multis I have gone for have all had all the stages intact. (There was one that I really had to work at as the info on one stage was wet, but I could read it.) However, I understand what the frustration would be if someone ran into this a few times.

 

Edited to add, I do remember one multi I did where the stages were missing. There had been a wind storm and the first stage was not where it belonged. Took me 40 minutes to find it and that was by accident. The second stage was gone, and I never did find that one. I will have to say I still enjoyed the heck out of the outing and loved the area it took me too. But it was frustrating.

Edited November 13, 2007 by uxorious

[+PlantAKiss]

I DO understand not every cache is for everybody. But I am shocked and disappointed to see all the bias against multis. I didn't realize that...

 

In my area, it seems almost every new cache listing is a micro. They are breeding faster than bacteria in a ripe petri dish. I just wanted to get down some regular containers with swag but with a nice walk involved (exercise!). One way to do that is to "guide" the cachers along a specific route by way of stages. I spent months looking for a "free" (non-cache saturated area), camo'ing containers, being creative, looking for the a-typical/interesting hide.

 

I would say now it was wasted effort EXCEPT...*I* enjoyed doing it and at least some people, according to the logs, have enjoyed my multi. I guess there will be few who will see what I see, hear what I hear and experience what I experience when I walk through the woods. I had hundreds of geese fly overhead in giant, classic V formations, so low you could literally hear their wings whistling. I heard two owls who-whoo-ing to each other. I've seen an old rusted shovel head sticking straight up out of the ground in the middle of a forest. I've seen a cable looped completely throught a tree as if the tree tried to eat a hoola hoop. I've seen a gigaaantic tree with a hollow so big you could use it for a room! If all that's not worth "just one smiley"...I don't know what is! But that's just me.

 

 

I think you are missing the point here. If you are going after a four stage multi, and the second stage is missing, thats it. You might as well go home. If you are going after four single stages, and the second one you look for is muggled, you can just keep going and find the rest.

 

Actually I DO see your point. But what is the difference in finding a single cache missing....so you "just keep going" and look for the rest of the caches you might be going for. ??? I don't see a difference there. In either case, if there has been a problem, you won't find the cache. You log a DNF or maintenance note for the owner.

Edited November 13, 2007 by PlantAKiss

[+C&C+COMPANY]

...

Back in the day I did them all. Then I had a couple of multi caches where I didn't manage to finish for various reasons. Worse I never got back to them. A few of those and I lost interest in doing multi caches because for me, part of the fun is the completion of the cache. No completion, no sence of satisfaction of having done the job.

 

Now there are so many caches that I can avoid all multi caches and not run out of caches to find.

 

Now a multi would have to become a legendary cache to make it stand out enough to do the cache. Every multi cache I've ever done had nothing more going for it than a single cache did.

 

Although, I do find that most multi's in my neck of the woods are still above average cache experiences. I've been getting the feeling that some are placed solely to bust the seekers chops or artificially make the cache harder.

I agree with you on that

[+Team GeoBlast]

I DO understand not every cache is for everybody. But I am shocked and disappointed to see all the bias against multis. I didn't realize that...

 

In my area, it seems almost every new cache listing is a micro. They are breeding faster than bacteria in a ripe petri dish. I just wanted to get down some regular containers with swag but with a nice walk involved (exercise!). One way to do that is to "guide" the cachers along a specific route by way of stages. I spent months looking for a "free" (non-cache saturated area), camo'ing containers, being creative, looking for the a-typical/interesting hide.

 

I would say now it was wasted effort EXCEPT...*I* enjoyed doing it and at least some people, according to the logs, have enjoyed my multi. I guess there will be few who will see what I see, hear what I hear and experience what I experience when I walk through the woods. I had hundreds of geese fly overhead in giant, classic V formations, so low you could literally hear their wings whistling. I heard two owls who-whoo-ing to each other. I've seen an old rusted shovel head sticking straight up out of the ground in the middle of a forest. I've seen a cable looped completely throught a tree as if the tree tried to eat a hoola hoop. I've seen a gigaaantic tree with a hollow so big you could use it for a room! If all that's not worth "just one smiley"...I don't know what is! But that's just me.

 

 

I think you are missing the point here. If you are going after a four stage multi, and the second stage is missing, thats it. You might as well go home. If you are going after four single stages, and the second one you look for is muggled, you can just keep going and find the rest.

 

Actually I DO see your point. But what is the difference in finding a single cache missing....so you "just keep going" and look for the rest of the caches you might be going for. ??? I don't see a difference there. In either case, if there has been a problem, you won't find the cache. You log a DNF or maintenance note for the owner.

 

I'd just encourage you to place any multi that you think would be fun for others to find. Then do your best to develop a reputation for keeping it up. Not only do recent finds encourage me to try a certain multi but owner maintenance logs are almost a sure sign that stages are intact.

[+Baron Von Cache]

I love Multi Caches, but I agree it seems they're unpopular. In my opinion, I think the majority of people avoid them because they can only log one "find" after finding all of the caches in a multi - where as they could search for just as many traditional caches and get a bunch more log-able finds.

[+tozainamboku]

I DO understand not every cache is for everybody. But I am shocked and disappointed to see all the bias against multis.

I've avoided a response to this thread because to me it obvious that every cacher has their own reasons for geocaching. Some are into numbers, others prefer a difficult challenge. Some like PNGs, others prefer hikes. Some like micros while others abhor micros.

 

I have never felt the need to ask why people avoid my puzzle caches. I know that some people don't like puzzles. I know that some will look at a puzzle and if they don't see how to solve it right away it goes on their ignore list. Yet I still hide puzzle caches.

 

If you enjoy multi-caches then continue to hide them. Don't feel you have to appeal to the most cachers. There are plenty of people who like multis.

 

Multis are like any other cache types in that there are some "good" multis and some "bad" multis. I put "good" and "bad" in quotation marks because these may be different for different people. I like multis that point out interesting places. A walking tour of historical sites in town where you collect information to find the final cache or an offset from a marker or other object that would have made a good virtual are a good use of the multi-cache. I've also enjoyed some multis that took me along a hiking route. If the cache page gives a idea of how long it will take it is fun to start out at trailhead not knowing exactly where it will take me. Of course if there are other caches on that trail system the multi may lead me away from them but that just means I can come back to hike some more a different day. Another kind of multi I like are ones that use clever methods to hide the coordinates. There are some real masters at camouflaging the stages of multis and I like to find their caches because of the challenge.

[+elmuyloco5]

Well this gets more depressing as it goes along.

 

It is not because of numbers, but rather, as other have noted, the frustration of the missing intermediate stage.

 

That's kind of assuming multis will have a missing stage. Why do multis have stages go missing more often than a single cache gets muggled or destroyed in some fashion? No one gives up on singles if they find out the cache they went after was missing. I don't get it...I'm missing something here about the ever-present "missing multi-stages."

 

I guess I need to start slinging some Gladware under bushes. That'll be some quick and easy finds.

 

I agree completely with you. I don't understand the "missing stage" issue. What it appears that people are saying is that it is because the second or third, etc. that is missing, so it took them a little more time, and that bugs them. I guess they wouldn't care if the first was missing as then it would be no different than a traditional cache being gone (equal effort).

 

But, I think the blame is being laid in the wrong place. People who place multis shouldn't be punished as a whole for the members who don't maintain their caches. Chances are the people who own the multis with missing stages, also own tradtional caches that need maintenance as well. It's a shame that the general mentality is to punish those who place multis.

 

And for those who say that most multis are no better than a tradtional, I'm not sure why they need to be? Is there are requirement for multis and puzzles to be better than traditionals because you have to put forth more effort??? I thought that the point was to make something more challenging? It seems then that the whole "it's about the hunt, not the numbers" adage is just hypocritical.

 

Now, multis do allow you to place along a beautiful area and point out specific things to see that a traditional would not be able to due to the proxiimity rules, but I fail to see why they have to in order to be considered worth doing? Lord knows I've seen plenty of tradtionals that are just missing a point altogether, but that never stops people from going to them. Infact, I have seen plenty of "oh gee, that was so great" being logged on a cracked gladware piece of junk that's soaked with water and tossed under a pile of trash in a bush along the freeway.

 

I guess I must be missing what the consensus is on a good cache. Personally, I would rather go on a 5 mile long multi hike in the woods with every stage an impossible nano than find the 1/1 piece of geotrash along a roadside. But I guess, that I'm in the minority of cachers....go figure.

 

I confess that I didn't read all of the replies to your post. But I didn't see any posts that mentioned my reasons for avoiding multi's. I took up geocaching, primarily, as a way to spend more time with my kids. While they are 10 and 12, for them, it's about the treasure at the end of the hunt. They want to trade stuff. They don't like micros or nanos either. They get tired of looking, after a while, without the opportunity to trade.

 

When I cache alone, I usally look for caches that will get me some exercise and/or are of the smaller variety.

 

TKOFaith

 

I think this must depend on the kid. My three (6, 7, and 9) sure love their treasure, but they also love the hunt. They really like the multi because you have to keep going for extra clues, it's much more like a real treasure hunt that way. Just think of National Treasure (one of my kids favorite movies)....they had to keep working to figure out where the treasure is.

[+Too Tall John]

Although, I do find that most multi's in my neck of the woods are still above average cache experiences. I've been getting the feeling that some are placed solely to bust the seekers chops or artificially make the cache harder.

Maybe I'm just stuck on the word, but how can you artificially make a cache harder? Either it is or it isn't harder. Perhaps you mean unnecessarily harder? I have to agree with your first statement, the multis around here are first rate.

I guess I need to start slinging some Gladware under bushes. That'll be some quick and easy finds.

Thanks. Aside from making me laugh, you've made a good point here. A multicache typically has at least some thought put into it, in fact I've never seen a multi that can be described as "Gladware under bushes." Maybe that's one of the reasons I like multis.

I took up geocaching, primarily, as a way to spend more time with my kids. While they are 10 and 12, for them, it's about the treasure at the end of the hunt. They want to trade stuff. They don't like micros or nanos either. They get tired of looking, after a while, without the opportunity to trade.

I work at a camp and conference center. I deal with lots of kids. I sometimes take them geocaching. Typically, we'll hit the multi (placed by me) that is on camp property. I find that the stages usually build their anticipation for the swag at the end. They love it.

[+PlantAKiss]

I've avoided a response to this thread because to me it obvious that every cacher has their own reasons for geocaching.

 

Not being as experienced as you, I was simply unaware that multis are unpopular until someone made mention of it somewhere. Having just published a multi, I was curious as to why... that's all. It never occurred to me that multi's would be viewed so differently than singles that people would avoid them. I can understand why people might not like puzzle caches so I was aware that feeling exists as well as the never-ending pros/cons of micros.

 

that some are placed solely to bust the seekers chops or artificially make the cache harder

 

I thought "busting chops" is the point of caches with high difficulty ratings and I don't know how you artificially make a cache difficult.

 

As long as I think I can make stages interesting and fun, I will continue to place multis but ONLY if/when I think they fit well in an area. I wouldn't add stages just for the sake of...well...adding stages. Maybe that's what you mean by making a cache artificially harder.

 

Thanks Too Tall. I think you understand me. And like you, when I have taken someone "new" to show them geocaching, I have used a multi in a nearby park because it shows the variety of methods of hiding coordinates and it was fun to "keep going" and not have just one "find." Everyone has loved it. I think the multi gave more of a sense of geocaching than a single would have. So I like it as a "demonstration" type cache.

Edited November 13, 2007 by PlantAKiss

[+Alan2]

I would do more multi's if there distance and stages were listed so I could have an idea of what I was getting into. Interestingly, most of the caches I hid are multi's but of a different nature. Instead of hiding a container at each stage, the stages are specific and identifiable points like covered bridges like this one. sample

 

The road and walk distances are listed - there's even a map.

 

I think if multi's were changed from hiding containers at the intermediate stages to just answering questions from the areas were the coordinates are, more people might do the multi. Another negative I find with the traditional multi hides is the tremendous tme you spend looking for the containers, often little micors, just to get the coordinates for another micro container stage. It's boring. And where they are hidden is boring too. Why not create something else that's interesting to find at the intermediate stage to arrive at the final coordinates for the one container at the end? I use covered bridges as the interest. You could use a question like;"Stage 2: coords listed for the spot. Question: "looking northeast about 250 feet, what's there? (A. a lake B. a farmhouse C. A waterfall. ) The correct answer provides some of the correct coordinates for the final where the actual conntainer is hidden. This way you don't get hung up for an hour looking for each internediate and you can actually see something that's pretty interesting. It kinda combines multi with puzzle with offset.

[Neos2]

I wouldn't let this thread discourage you from placing multis, if that is what you like to place. It sounds terribly negative, but remember you asked people why they didn't do multis--so the replies you got were about all the things that can discourage visits to a multi.

 

I don't think anyone was implying that all multis are 'undesirable" just because they are multis.

 

Personally, the few multis I have done (or attempted) were fun, and I enjoyed them. They have some things in common:

 

* Every stage was a really interesting place in its own right

* The containers were varied and sometimes were very unique

* They said how many stages there were in total and

* They gave an estimate of the time to complete, or at least the total distance

* They didn't make me keep walking past the same place for no apparent reason

* They had a history of being well-tended

* They had a theme and it really wouldn't have been as interesting as single caches --not even a series of singles

* They had lots of logs that said how much the visitors enjoyed the entire experience

 

You might consider some of things people have said here and use them to create the kind of multi that will get good reviews from the people who visit. You will probably still get fewer visitors, but a good multi will certainly get more visits than a poor multi--and the logs will be more enjoyable to read!

[+fox-and-the-hound]

This is a great thread and a really good series of questions and answers from all so far. We're definitely in the smaller camp of cachers who always go for Multis first. When we scout out a new area, our list starts with multis first, followed by long hikes, larger containers, puzzles, small containers and lastly to micros. We've placed a few caches and the most challenging and exciting work has always been our multis and puzzles. The others get hit more often, but how excited can you get about reading another "TFTC" log? We'll keep placing multis and looking forward to reading the logs of trial, tribulation and triumph with enthusiasm. The irony of the maintenance problems is that you can check every stage on a single hike instead of driving to 5 different locations to check on 5 different single stage caches so we feel like we have the advantage. Multis tend to get molested less often and keep a higher quality of swag, too (at least ours do compared to our other caches). The most helpful things we've done are giving a rough distance, time and confirmation that it can all be reached from one parking area to encourage people to take on the challenge. In the last two years, the only caches to give us problems were single stage caches so don't give up placing them. We may be few, but some of us live for the long hike, the hard search and great stories.

[+VirginiaGator]

 

That's just evil! LOL! Multis are my least favorite to look for. They take too much time, they have evil micros like this as one of the stages in some cases, I don't want to walk back and forth from one end of a park to another and back again. In most cases, I'm not even sure how many stages there are to it since many people don't provide that information on the cache page. Would be helpful if they had to choose a number when setting up the page!! It's not worth it to me to hunt an hour and a half to earn one smilie.

[+VirginiaGator]

I've been getting the feeling that some are placed solely to bust the seekers chops or artificially make the cache harder.

 

That's a great description of micros in our area...my second least favorite to search.

Edited November 18, 2007 by VirginiaGator

[+J Loran]

My husband & I got into caching because it gets us out of the house and exploring new areas during our limited free time. We are not number cachers, happy to log 3-10 finds on a weekend, but we plan our day's hunt by Google mapping a location we haven't visited before then looking first at the multis and/or puzzles hidden there. It's a great way to see more of a new (to us) site and gives us a lot more satisfaction in the find than finding 30 urban micros.

We would have lost interest in this game if all caches were single stage swag containers since we don't hike with children and we love the distance and brain work involved in multiple stage hides. So my point is, I greatly appreciate a well-thought out multi and hope people won't be deterred from putting them out just because the visits are fewer. Know that the people who take the time to visit your cache will have enjoyed the fruits of your labors.

Fortunately, the world is big enough for all styles of Geocaching. I don't envy the huge numbers of the people who care about that, but I'm glad that there are enough of the things they like out there to keep them happy and out of my way while I enjoy a nice long walk in the woods!