Why are multis less popular?

[+fizzymagic]

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).

I agree that you don't understand the missing stage issue.

 

It has nothing to do with how much time it takes to discover that the cache is un-doable. It has to do with the overall chance that the cache is un-doable. It is simple math.

 

Let's assume a simple probability model where the probability that a cache container is missing or destroyed is P. In a multi, each stage is like a separate cache, so the probability of each stage being available is 1-P. For a multi, the probability of all the stages being available is (1-P)^N, where N is the number of stages.

 

Notice that the more stages, the higher the chance that at least one will be missing.

 

Now plug in the numbers. Assume a 5-stage multi, and a probability of each stage missing as 10%. Now the probability that you will be unable to complete the cache is about 40%. Not very good odds.

[+elmuyloco5]

And you could take a sample of any traditional caches that you've chosen to do and have the same probability. The logs reflect missing stages in both cases. It still comes down to the fact that a finder doesn't want to put out the effort to look for more than one cache if the search must end due to a lost cache. The feelings towards multis would most likely be different if the first stage was the one that was always missing, which clearly shows it's not all about the hunt. We personally have NEVER found a missing stage in a multi, but have found several traditionals missing. Granted, we haven't been caching long, but I think it has more to do with the fact that we read EVERY single cache description prior to putting the cache on our list of things to do, than it does with our lack of numbers. For us, it's the hunt that is fun......not how many smilies we see. I can't even tell you how many we've done cause we just don't care.

[+boda]

And you could take a sample of any traditional caches that you've chosen to do and have the same probability. The logs reflect missing stages in both cases. It still comes down to the fact that a finder doesn't want to put out the effort to look for more than one cache if the search must end due to a lost cache. The feelings towards multis would most likely be different if the first stage was the one that was always missing, which clearly shows it's not all about the hunt. We personally have NEVER found a missing stage in a multi, but have found several traditionals missing. Granted, we haven't been caching long, but I think it has more to do with the fact that we read EVERY single cache description prior to putting the cache on our list of things to do, than it does with our lack of numbers. For us, it's the hunt that is fun......not how many smilies we see. I can't even tell you how many we've done cause we just don't care.

Wow! The sentence I bolded may explain your problem. In traditional caches, there are no stages. If I start a multi, I expect to finish all the stages and get to a goal that the owner wants me to get to. If I have to stop, I suffer from cacheus interuptuss and that is not good. If a traditional is missing I still have all the coords and information on the remaining traditionals. I can go find them and see what their owners want me to see.

[Dinoprophet]

Maybe I'm nuts, but most of my favorite caches have been multis. Oh, I've done many that left me wondering why it was a multi. But a well-crafted one can be like reading a novel versus reading bunch of short stories. When there's a reason the hider is leading you along a particular path, with each stage building on the previous, it feels to me like a more complete adventure. I also like when themes or stories are incorporated into a multi -- possible with a series, but less effective in my opinion.

[+fizzymagic]

And you could take a sample of any traditional caches that you've chosen to do and have the same probability.

Um, no.

 

Maybe you haven't done any multi-caches. Typically, each stage of a multi will have the coordinates of the next stage. If any of the stages is missing, the cache is un-doable.

 

As I showed, the probability that a multi-cache will have all stages working is less than is the case for a single-stage cache. It's very basic math.

[+Scare Force One]

When I go out most of the time it's on the fly. Between classes, after dinner, or on my way home. I just don't have time to stop for a 2 hour excersion to find a multi. I know that you can find them stage by stage but I must admit, I like them satisfaction of the find and having to do that over 3 or 4 days just does not do it for me.

 

~.~Scare Force One

[+Scare Force One]

When I go out most of the time it's on the fly. Between classes, after dinner, or on my way home. I just don't have time to stop for a 2 hour excersion to find a multi. I know that you can find them stage by stage but I must admit, I like them satisfaction of the find and having to do that over 3 or 4 days just does not do it for me.

 

~.~Scare Force One

[+uxorious]

People who place multis shouldn't be punished as a whole for the members who don't maintain their caches.

 

How exactly are people who place multis being punished? If someone doesn't care for a type of hide and doesn't go look for it, they are not "punishing" anyone. Not all caches can or will be found by everyone. And if I don't look for your cache it shouldn't be looked at as either punishment nor an insult.

 

There does seem to be an undercurrent of elitism on this forum. Not intentional, but there non the less.

 

People who like Multis tend to sound like they think people that don't, just don't get it. People who like puzzles can not relate to those who don't. Many who like to, (and are still healthy enough to) hike five or ten miles for a cache, sound like they think they are superior to those that like a quick local park cache.

 

I know without a doubt, the numbers have nothing to do with why I don't do a lot of Multis, but I somehow feel insulted when some say that's the reason. I believe for some that is the reason, and for them it is a very good reason. It is the way they want to play the game.

[+Kealia]

Forgive me for not reading the three pages of this thread before answering as I'm sure it's been said already.

 

More effort, more time = less reward (in some people's eyes).

 

We've become a society of instant gratification and a sense of entitlement to everything under the sun. If the average person can't find a cache quickly and get their smiley they are not going to put in the effort.

 

A broad generalization I know, but it's a broad question.

 

I love a good multi as they are generally wel lthought out, planned for and executed. Most I find have a story or some type of historical tie to them as well which makes them even better IMO.

[+BlueDeuce]

More effort, more time = less reward (in some people's eyes).

 

I enjoy the act of caching more than the smiley. There are many times, and I'm serious here, that I will only look for part of a multi just so I can come back and search another day. My work location has much more caches than my home area so I typically cache during my lunch hour. If a multi is in a particularly nice park/nature reserve I would rather make the walk twice rather than get through it all in one fell swoop. We've all seen the logs "I love this place, I plan on coming back again sometime". Well, when I think the same I give myself the best incentive to do just that.

 

Now if I'm traveling a distance I'll probably go with a traditional before a multi*. This is because with the traditional I'll know sooner that it isn't a cache I care to continue searching for. And of course there is the 'get as many caches as I can in an area I won't likely soon visit again' factor as well. (I didn't say I hated smilies)

 

Not trying to change opinions, that's just how I do it.

 

*(Unless I know the multi happens to be a good one)

[+elmuyloco5]

And you could take a sample of any traditional caches that you've chosen to do and have the same probability.

Um, no.

 

Maybe you haven't done any multi-caches. Typically, each stage of a multi will have the coordinates of the next stage. If any of the stages is missing, the cache is un-doable.

 

As I showed, the probability that a multi-cache will have all stages working is less than is the case for a single-stage cache. It's very basic math.

 

And it's also basic math that there are exponentially more traditional caches than there are multis, which makes your point moot. There is a greater probability of traditional caches being missing altogether than there is just a stage of a multi.

 

People who place multis shouldn't be punished as a whole for the members who don't maintain their caches.

 

How exactly are people who place multis being punished? If someone doesn't care for a type of hide and doesn't go look for it, they are not "punishing" anyone. Not all caches can or will be found by everyone. And if I don't look for your cache it shouldn't be looked at as either punishment nor an insult.

 

There does seem to be an undercurrent of elitism on this forum. Not intentional, but there non the less.

 

People who like Multis tend to sound like they think people that don't, just don't get it. People who like puzzles can not relate to those who don't. Many who like to, (and are still healthy enough to) hike five or ten miles for a cache, sound like they think they are superior to those that like a quick local park cache.

 

I know without a doubt, the numbers have nothing to do with why I don't do a lot of Multis, but I somehow feel insulted when some say that's the reason. I believe for some that is the reason, and for them it is a very good reason. It is the way they want to play the game.

 

I think you misunderstood why I was saying people who place multis are being punished. It had nothing to do with them not being visited as much or people disliking them in general. It was in reference to the comment about multi-stages being missing. I said that there is a good chance that the owner of a cache of a missing multi probably has traditional caches that are missing or in need of significant repair as well. I don't think it's fair to the average multi cache owner to be viewed in the same light as owners who don't take of their caches. People either take care of them or they don't, irregardless of the type of cache they place.

[+uxorious]

I don't think it's fair to the average multi cache owner to be viewed in the same light as owners who don't take of their caches. People either take care of them or they don't, irregardless of the type of cache they place.

 

 

 

I guess I did misunderstand you, because I absolutely agree with you on this point.

[+fizzymagic]

As I showed, the probability that a multi-cache will have all stages working is less than is the case for a single-stage cache. It's very basic math.

And it's also basic math that there are exponentially more traditional caches than there are multis, which makes your point moot. There is a greater probability of traditional caches being missing altogether than there is just a stage of a multi.

That seriously doesn't make sense. The number of traditional vs multi-caches has nothing to do with the probability that a given one is or is not do-able.

 

That's why we use the word "probability."

 

But never mind. There's no point in trying to discuss something like this with one who does not want to understand.

[+elmuyloco5]

Oh good grief. I'm sorry you can't see how you can statically compare the two. I'm not going to lower myself to your level and insult you. I find it helps no one to be rude, and this argument will serve no one in any way caching. Have fun doing math the way you'd like to.

[cezanne]

And you could take a sample of any traditional caches that you've chosen to do and have the same probability.

Um, no.

 

Maybe you haven't done any multi-caches. Typically, each stage of a multi will have the coordinates of the next stage. If any of the stages is missing, the cache is un-doable.

 

I do not agree with you although I have visited much more multi caches than you.

All what you write is based on a type of multi-cache where each intermediary stage consists of a container providing the next coordinates. There are many multi caches where all or some of the intermediary stages are of the "question to answer" type. (The precentage of such multi-caches within the whole set of all multi-caches varies considerably depending on the region under consideration.) Certainly it can also happen in such cases, that the situation changes, but this is typically much less likely than the event that a cache container disappears.

 

As I showed, the probability that a multi-cache will have all stages working is less than is the case for a single-stage cache. It's very basic math.

 

I think that you need to formulate your statements more carefully. You used a model which considers only a subset of the set of all multi-caches and applied it to all multi-caches which is infeasible. What you did was faulty reasoning not basic mathematics.

 

 

Cezanne

[+The Jester]

Now plug in the numbers. Assume a 5-stage multi, and a probability of each stage missing as 10%. Now the probability that you will be unable to complete the cache is about 40%. Not very good odds.

You make it sound much worse than it is. By "pulling" the number 10% out of the air you made simple math say what you want.

[+paulandstacey]

Even with the magical 10% chance of a missing stage, each stage is independent, statistically speaking.

 

If I flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, I still have the same odds (1/2 or 50%) of getting a heads on the next flip.

[+fizzymagic]

I understand that statistics is not an intuitively easy thing for many people, but even so, I am completely floored by the responses to my argument. Astonishingly, every single one[/i] is incorrect, at least in the point they are making.

 

1.) The probability a particular cache being missing is not related to the number of that type of cache in existence. Having a million times as many single-stage caches as multi-stage caches has no impact on the probability that a particular single- or multi-stage cache is missing.

 

2.) It doesn't matter what kind of multi it is; as long as it has a final, then (all else being equal) it by definition is less likely to be do-able than a single-stage cache. The difference is smaller (even negligibly small) for some kinds of multis, but it is always less.

 

3.) 10% was an illustration. The particular number does not matter to the argument. Use another number of you like.

 

4.) The specific math I used assumes that the stages being independent. Thus, pointing out that they are independent does not affect the conclusion. In actual fact, stages are not independent, which probably weakens my argument somewhat, but not enough to invalidate it.

 

I haven't spent much time in the forums of late; I had forgotten how willing people are to write in public about things they don't understand.

 

I apologize for having brought up a statistical argument; I can see it is inappropriate in this forum. I won't respond further.

[4wheelin_fool]

Now plug in the numbers. Assume a 5-stage multi, and a probability of each stage missing as 10%. Now the probability that you will be unable to complete the cache is about 40%. Not very good odds.

You make it sound much worse than it is. By "pulling" the number 10% out of the air you made simple math say what you want.

But does it matter if it is 10 percent? A chain is only as strong as one of it's links. The more links there are, the more likely you will not find one, or it may be missing.

[4wheelin_fool]

Even with the magical 10% chance of a missing stage, each stage is independent, statistically speaking.

 

If I flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, I still have the same odds (1/2 or 50%) of getting a heads on the next flip.

Each stage is actually dependent on the fact that you need to find a previous stage. The likelyhood of flipping a "tails" increases the more times you flip it.

And if you do flip "tails", then that is your last flip, isnt it?

Edited November 22, 2007 by 4wheelin_fool

[cezanne]

2.) It doesn't matter what kind of multi it is; as long as it has a final, then (all else being equal) it by definition is less likely to be do-able than a single-stage cache. The difference is smaller (even negligibly small) for some kinds of multis, but it is always less.

 

Here is my reply:

 

(i) The type does matter. In a multi-cache where all intermediary stages are of a virtual type and are done in a way that it is close to impossible that something changes there (meaning that in a real-world calculation one would use 0 as failure probability), the chances that the cache is undoable (NB: undoable is something different than just meaning that a cacher gives up because he makes a mistake at a stage - undoable means that something is wrong with the stage) are the same as for a single stage cache.

 

(ii) Your calculation with (1-p)^n where n is the number of stages of the multi-cache was based on the assumption that each stage is subject to the same failure probability which is wrong. The probability that say the colour of the roof a 600 years old church will change within the next few months is neglibible in most cases.

 

4.) The specific math I used assumes that the stages being independent. Thus, pointing out that they are independent does not affect the conclusion. In actual fact, stages are not independent, which probably weakens my argument somewhat, but not enough to invalidate it.

 

Refrain from writing down formulae which are wrong and are based on invalid assumptions.

 

There is something else which you overlooked: Often a cache is turned into a multi-cache (by some sort of offset) to allow for a hideout which is located at a less populated place instead of hiding a traditional cache directly at places which attract the attention of many people. In my experience, caches disappear less frequently if they are hidden at less public places.

(Of course, this is nothing which can be built into a model as it relies on empirical evidence.)

 

I haven't spent much time in the forums of late; I had forgotten how willing people are to write in public about things they don't understand.

 

I am convinced that you do not have a deeper understanding of the subject you are writing about here than I do have. I would not have objected against your argument if you had refrained from coming up with formulae and trying to create the impression that what you write is based on exact rules from mathematics without any influence of your personal

assumptions.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 22, 2007 by cezanne

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I attribute my ability to find caches fairly quickly to the assumption that cachers are, overall, lazy, and will take the easiest path in and easiest hide location.

 

Since I am quite lazy myself, I just look for it in the easiest place... you would be amazed how often it's there!

 

If presented with bushwhacking or difficult terrain, I assume there is an easier way and look for it - most often, there is!

 

This laziness applies to puzzles and multis being the least hunted, and for the proliferation of micros!

 

Take the numbers out of the picture and we'll still go after five P&Gs rather than a multi!

 

Sure, there's lots of hikers among us, but my experience says they are the minority.

 

It ain't about the numbers, it's about being easy!

[GeoPirates2007]

laziness, laziness,laziness

[+The Jester]

3.) 10% was an illustration. The particular number does not matter to the argument. Use another number of you like.

The particular number does matter - when you start putting hard numbers in the formula! You used an example that multi's have a 40% chance of being undoable - that sounds bad. But that number is false, as the 10% number was pulled out of the air. If you used 1% then a multi has a 4% chance of being undoable - which is hardly more than the 1% chance a trad cache is undoable (comparison example only, I have no data on the chances of a cache/stage being missing). I wasn't arguing about the formula or math (yes, a multi will have a higher chance of a stage or final missing), just the hard numbers that you used as an example. I've taken enough statistics to know that you can use them to "prove" just about anything - depending on what your assumptions/postulates are. Give me real, hard data on the percentage of undoable caches, then we can start discussing the numbers.

[+elmuyloco5]

What he also forgot was that there are many many more traditional caches out there than multis in the first place. Now if you take all the traditionals and all of the multis and compare the percentages of missing caches within each type, I'm pretty sure that you'll find there are many more tradtionals missing. So that brings me back to my comment that I don't understand the "reason" used that most multis are missing stages, as a reason not to like multis. The reason is just incorrect. And the missing tradtionals never stopped people from caching....seems like a weak excuse to me.

[no pinch and yllw jkt]

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.

 

We believed that the primary purpose of Geocaching is to take others to a place they may not otherwise reach. Our belief is that sometimes the journey is equally important as the destination. Since Multis require more of a journey they are not of interest to those who only focus on the destination. So be it. For those of us who still enjoy the journey, keep the Multis coming.

[CoyoteRed]

So that brings me back to my comment that I don't understand the "reason" used that most multis are missing stages, as a reason not to like multis. The reason is just incorrect.

Maybe I'm missing something. Are you saying that no one shies away from multis because of the higher possibility of hidden maintenance issues? Or are you saying it's not the reason?

 

I know of folks who won't go on a hunt where a traditional has not been found in a couple of years without asking for the owner to go check on it to see if it's still there. Plenty of folks must have a guaranteed find. I'm sure the higher possibility of failure dues to maintenance issues with a multi than a traditional comes into play when these folks are making there lists.

 

Personally, I still think the major component of all the reasons boils down to convenience. Out of the way, yet easy, traditionals get visited less often than harder multis that are nearby.

 

Another component is popularity or reputation. Sissy's Snarky Walk #1 gets found more often than #2 even though #1 is a 5/5, takes some gear to complete, takes longer to complete, makes you face some fears, you're likely to get wet, and both start from the same parking lot. The thing is #1 gets talked up more and gives folks the opportunity to bag a 5/5.

[+Happy Humphrey]

If I'm some distance away from home, I'll tend to avoid taking on big multicaches for the reason that Fizzymagic was trying to explain (I think!). There's a good chance that either one of the stages is missing, or I can't find it.

 

Why should that put me off? An analogy is that I find five traditional caches then fail on the sixth, and there's a new rule that all the previous finds of the day are cancelled. Would that be annoying? Yes! But that's just what happens in a multicache situation.

[+Indotguy]

In most cases Multis are logged less simply because they take longer. It's the same with forest caches which require a long hike. Find it, log it, mark it off the list and move on to the next. It's all about instant gratification.

[+elmuyloco5]

So that brings me back to my comment that I don't understand the "reason" used that most multis are missing stages, as a reason not to like multis. The reason is just incorrect.

Maybe I'm missing something. Are you saying that no one shies away from multis because of the higher possibility of hidden maintenance issues? Or are you saying it's not the reason?

 

I know of folks who won't go on a hunt where a traditional has not been found in a couple of years without asking for the owner to go check on it to see if it's still there. Plenty of folks must have a guaranteed find. I'm sure the higher possibility of failure dues to maintenance issues with a multi than a traditional comes into play when these folks are making there lists.

 

Personally, I still think the major component of all the reasons boils down to convenience. Out of the way, yet easy, traditionals get visited less often than harder multis that are nearby.

 

Another component is popularity or reputation. Sissy's Snarky Walk #1 gets found more often than #2 even though #1 is a 5/5, takes some gear to complete, takes longer to complete, makes you face some fears, you're likely to get wet, and both start from the same parking lot. The thing is #1 gets talked up more and gives folks the opportunity to bag a 5/5.

 

What I was trying to get at is that people were commenting that they didn't want to do multis because they are more likely to be missing (in their opinion). If you look at the overall numbers of traditionals vs. the much smaller number of multis, the traditionals are much more likely to be missing (simply because there's so many more traditionals out there). But, this fact doesn't deter anyone from going to traditionals. I'm not saying that multis don't go missing, I'm just saying that the logic that multis are some how more likely to have be missing is incorrect when looking at the big picture. And I doubt anyone would ever have an issue with multis being missing if the first stage was always the missing item, as then it would be no different than a traditional gone missing. IMHO, it sounds more like the people who don't like multis don't want to put forth the extra effort it takes to do multiple stages. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's more honest and realistic than the previous reason.

[Neos2]

What I was trying to get at is that people were commenting that they didn't want to do multis because they are more likely to be missing (in their opinion). If you look at the overall numbers of traditionals vs. the much smaller number of multis, the traditionals are much more likely to be missing (simply because there's so many more traditionals out there). But, this fact doesn't deter anyone from going to traditionals.

I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, there is a difference between not being able to finish a cache because one part of several parts is missing and not finding a cache because it is missing. For me it's a matter of being "done" with what I start.

 

In the case of a single stage traditional cache: I go look for it and either I find it or I don't. If I don't find it, I log my DNF, and now I am either done with it 'forever' or I can go back later if it was just missing. I usually get close to where it should have been, and I know whether I enjoyed the journey enough to go back to find it after it's replaced by the owner. In either case, I log my DNF and I am done for that round.

 

In the case of a multi: If I start hunting the various stages of a multi and get shut down somewhere in the middle, I feel I'm in limbo with the cache---If I start something, I want to finish it, not stop in the middle and go back some other time to see if I can finish it. It seems like it's always an early stage and never the final stage that is missing.

 

I just prefer the cut-and-dried "I looked but I didn't find it" of the traditional single stage cache. You can say that's just laziness on my part if you like, but I've gone after some single stage traditionals that took me hours to get to or repeated trips back to figure out how to get to the cache once I got there, while there are some multis I won't attempt that I could probably do in 15 minutes total. I'll still pick the single stage caches over the multis any day.

 

I can't see any reason why a stage of a multi would have less chance of being damaged or missing than a traditional cache. Common sense says if there are more pieces, there are more chances for one of those pieces to be missing/damaged. So a multi-stage cache has more chances than a single stage traditional for something to be wrong at any given time.

[+Wild Thing 73]

Multi's are just plain stupid and I have one....They are a waste of a good container/s and you only get one (1) SMILIE.

[+Renegade Knight]

...And it's also basic math that there are exponentially more traditional caches than there are multis, which makes your point moot. There is a greater probability of traditional caches being missing altogether than there is just a stage of a multi.

...

 

Fizzy nailed it. You are also right in your assertion that the math applies to traditional caches as well. However you have missed the larger point on the "problem".

 

Lets say 1 in 10 caches is missing from a sample of 100 cache containers. Every 10th cache for the sake of simplicity.

 

The containers are 50 Traditional and 5, 10 leg multi caches. 100 containers total.

 

Given the math, I can complete 45 traditional caches, have 5 DNF's and a lot of success.

However if I attempt the multi caches. Each of the 5 will have a missing stage and that's zero finds. No completion and less fun.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, there is a difference between not being able to finish a cache because one part of several parts is missing and not finding a cache because it is missing. For me it's a matter of being "done" with what I start.

 

In the case of a single stage traditional cache: I go look for it and either I find it or I don't. If I don't find it, I log my DNF, and now I am either done with it 'forever' or I can go back later if it was just missing. I usually get close to where it should have been, and I know whether I enjoyed the journey enough to go back to find it after it's replaced by the owner. In either case, I log my DNF and I am done for that round.

 

In the case of a multi: If I start hunting the various stages of a multi and get shut down somewhere in the middle, I feel I'm in limbo with the cache---If I start something, I want to finish it, not stop in the middle and go back some other time to see if I can finish it. It seems like it's always an early stage and never the final stage that is missing. ...

 

I know what you are saying.

 

With the traditional, you either found it or you didn't. However the outcome is clear.

With a multi it's just frustrating. You could find it, but something is blocking you and there is more to the cache, and you can't attempt it because you are blocked. Frustration is frustrating.

[+Renegade Knight]

In most cases Multis are logged less simply because they take longer. It's the same with forest caches which require a long hike. Find it, log it, mark it off the list and move on to the next. It's all about instant gratification.

 

Since we all enjoy caching, it's all about gratification anyway.

[Dinoprophet]

Even with the magical 10% chance of a missing stage, each stage is independent, statistically speaking.

 

If I flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, I still have the same odds (1/2 or 50%) of getting a heads on the next flip.

Yes, each stage is independant, but you need to look at the odds overall. For your coin analogy, you have to look not at whether a given flip comes up heads, but whether any one of the flips comes up heads. There are 2^10, or 1024, equally probable outcomes in 10 coin flips (HTHHTTHHTH, HTHTTTHHHT, HTHHHHTHTH,...), and in only one of those cases (TTTTTTTTTT) is there no heads. So the odds of flipping no heads in 10 flips is 1 in 1024. Note that the odds are reduced exponentially as flips are added (two flips = 1 in 4, three flips = 1 in 8, four flips = 1 in 16,...)

 

But I still prefer multis.

[+elmuyloco5]

...And it's also basic math that there are exponentially more traditional caches than there are multis, which makes your point moot. There is a greater probability of traditional caches being missing altogether than there is just a stage of a multi.

...

 

Fizzy nailed it. You are also right in your assertion that the math applies to traditional caches as well. However you have missed the larger point on the "problem".

 

Lets say 1 in 10 caches is missing from a sample of 100 cache containers. Every 10th cache for the sake of simplicity.

 

The containers are 50 Traditional and 5, 10 leg multi caches. 100 containers total.

 

Given the math, I can complete 45 traditional caches, have 5 DNF's and a lot of success.

However if I attempt the multi caches. Each of the 5 will have a missing stage and that's zero finds. No completion and less fun.

 

I understand the frustration in a missing stage, and I can see how it might be more frustrating that a missing traditional (but I think that depends on how quickly you can reach that tradtional, for instance a 5 mile hike to a missing cache might be considered just as frustrating as a missing stage....especially if the hike wasn't to somewhere nice). But, what I was getting at is the probability of a missing cache period. When you sit and compare a traditional to a multi cache, sure the multi is more likely to be missing one of it's parts. But the logic fails when you look at the entire group of traditionals vs. the multis.

 

Look at this way....

Let's say we take a sample of 1000 caches (no puzzles included), a percentage of them will be multicaches (let's say 25%....that may be high or low compared to reality, but the idea is still the same). So that would make 750 caches traditional and 250 caches multi. The reasons for a cache to be missing, whether it's the main cache or a stage of one are pretty much the same, muggles or environmental issues. So we can then guess that the percentage of each type of cache are pretty much the same. Let's use 10% to make things easy. That would make 75 caches of the traditional type missing and 25 of the multicaches. Even if you want to include multiple stages of the multicaches as seperate caches, you wouldn't come up with multicaches being missing more often than traditional ones ( I didn't include it in my math as they have different numbers of stages and I couldn't even venture a good guess as to an average number of stages across all multis. For this to equal out, each stage of that 250 would have to 3 stages, and then it would only be equal, not more). I sure wish that I had exact numbers, but GC.com doesn't track that sort of thing.

 

I'm not trying to say that it's not more frustrating, just simply that multicaches are not more likely to be missing than tradtional ones. There are far too many more traditionals for that to be true. If it's not true, then the reason isn't valid. They are only more likely if you compare only one traditional to one multi. But that wouldn't be representative of the whole lot.

 

I get that people want the smiley, but just say it then. Just say "because it takes more work to get the smiley, it makes me mad when I work harder to get one and something is missing", and be done with it. But don't say it's all about the hunt and not the smiley when the reasons are clear that the statement isn't true (not aimed directly at you Renegade, people answering in general).

 

A missing cache is a missing cache. The environment (animals, weather,etc) and muggles aren't targeting multis more than they are traditionals. Bad owners who don't perform proper maintenance on their caches aren't more likely to own multis, nor are they only failing to take care of their multi caches. It's plain and simple, the people who don't do multis, either just don't like them, they get more frustrated when the cache is missing because they had to put forth more work, or they are all about the numbers. But, it's not because they are more likely to be missing, because until the numbers of multis rise to meet that of traditionals, they can't be.

[Dinoprophet]

<snip>

 

Look at this way....

Let's say we take a sample of 1000 caches (no puzzles included), a percentage of them will be multicaches (let's say 25%....that may be high or low compared to reality, but the idea is still the same). So that would make 750 caches traditional and 250 caches multi. The reasons for a cache to be missing, whether it's the main cache or a stage of one are pretty much the same, muggles or environmental issues. So we can then guess that the percentage of each type of cache are pretty much the same.

No, the odds are not the same, that's the point.

 

Let's use 10% to make things easy. That would make 75 caches of the traditional type missing and 25 of the multicaches. Even if you want to include multiple stages of the multicaches as seperate caches, you wouldn't come up with multicaches being missing more often than traditional ones

<snip>

You have to count them separately. You have to look at the odds a given container is missing.

 

For simplicity's sake, let's say the odds of a container being missing is 1/2, a coin flip. The odds of being able to complete a traditional cache are then 1 in 2. The odds of being able to complete a 2-stage multi would be 1 in 4. There would be four equally possible outcomes.

Cache 1 Available, Cache 2 Available

Cache 1 Missing, Cache 2 Available

Cache 1 Available, Cache 2 Missing

Cache 1 Missing, Cache 2 Missing

 

Hopefully it's clear the the situation is the same no matter the real odds -- the more stages, the more likely the cache cannot be completed.

[+Miragee]

Some of my fondest caching memories I have are of doing Multi-caches. Some Multis I have done have much less chance of having a stage missing because the information is on a permanent structure, like the date a bridge was constructed, or numbers from a sign. Other Multis have had clever, cammoed containers with the coordinates hidden inside.

 

Some of my favorite Multi-caches include these:

 

Beyond the Bridge

 

Sticks and Stones

 

Snakes and Ladders -- This one is often used for a "Milestone" cache

 

Discovery This

 

Ancient Oak Tree Cache

 

This last cache has been Archived, which is too bad. The final took you to this place:

 

 

It is too bad people don't take the time to do Multi caches . . . but that is the way it is. I have an two-stage Multi located in an easy-to-access suburban area where Traditional caches are found all the time. At the first stage, you get the numbers for the final coordinates from a permanent structure. It hasn't been found since May 20th . . .

[+elmuyloco5]

 

You have to count them separately. You have to look at the odds a given container is missing.

 

For simplicity's sake, let's say the odds of a container being missing is 1/2, a coin flip. The odds of being able to complete a traditional cache are then 1 in 2. The odds of being able to complete a 2-stage multi would be 1 in 4. There would be four equally possible outcomes.

Cache 1 Available, Cache 2 Available

Cache 1 Missing, Cache 2 Available

Cache 1 Available, Cache 2 Missing

Cache 1 Missing, Cache 2 Missing

 

Hopefully it's clear the the situation is the same no matter the real odds -- the more stages, the more likely the cache cannot be completed.

 

You don't have to count them seperately when looking at the whole picture. You don't even have to get in to statistical math. There are more traditionals.....LOTS more....more of them will be missing. It doesn't matter that multis have more stages, the facts are that more tradtionals out there are missing. Which means, you have a greater chance of going to a tradtional and having it gone than if you go to a multi. No one is complaining that multis have more than one stage missing, this is the only time that you would use your formula. One missing stage ruins the cache so it doesn't matter how many stages there are in them. And multis are so varied in their design, that no one formula will fit the problem. One would have to look at many factors to determine the true probability of missing caches or stages. The point is a simple one though, the reasons something goes missing are the same. So you can guess the same percentage will be gone from both. Actually, maybe less of a percentage on the part of the traditionals as Miragee mentioned that many mutis don't contain more than one physical cache. That's like someone saying a virtual would go missing, just not going to happen.

 

Every time you set out to do a cache there is a chance that it is gone. Even if that cache was there yesterday, someone could have taken it 10 minutes after the finder left. It's a chance we all take when we cache. But so is the chance that we'll die or get injured just stepping out of our front door.....or getting out of bed for that matter. These are silly things to worry about. You take measures in life to help ensure your safety, and you can do the same thing to increase your odds of the cache being there. Read the logs. If it hasn't been reported missing, there's a good chance it isn't. Will it be 100%? Of course not, but what is in life besides taxes?

 

The whole point of this argument is, it may "feel" like more multis are missing, but in reality they're not. And either way, if a missing multi bothers you, why wouldn't a missing tradtional, or puzzle? For those of you who use this reason, have you stopped caching altogether? Of course you haven't because you're on here talking about your caching. So then the reason must be different. It must be one of the ones I gave in my last post. If I'm missing one, let me know.

Edited November 26, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+Renegade Knight]

...I'm not trying to say that it's not more frustrating, just simply that multicaches are not more likely to be missing than tradtional ones. There are far too many more traditionals for that to be true. If it's not true, then the reason isn't valid. They are only more likely if you compare only one traditional to one multi. But that wouldn't be representative of the whole lot. ...

 

With your example I can now see where you are thinking differently than Fizzy on the math.

 

If 1/3rd of all caches are missing and you have 100, Traditional and 100 Multi caches. You are saying there are 67 of each to find. You are counting a listing as a cache.

 

However what Fizzy is saying is that if it's 1/3 of all cache containers are missing. Then that would mean that 67% of all 3 part multis are broken. That means 67 traditional that can be found, but only 33 Multi's. This reality doesn't change if there are 99 traditionals for every multi. Proportionally more multi's will have issues than traditionals. It's going to work out to be 67% and 33% in regardless of how many of each there are to start.

 

The bottom line though is that Fizzy has said with Math what others have said without it. Multi's having legs creates more potential problems and problems do crop up more often and that takes some of the fun out of working on multi caches.

 

Murphey's law applies to multi caches more often because they have more legs to have things go wrong with.

[+elmuyloco5]

...I'm not trying to say that it's not more frustrating, just simply that multicaches are not more likely to be missing than tradtional ones. There are far too many more traditionals for that to be true. If it's not true, then the reason isn't valid. They are only more likely if you compare only one traditional to one multi. But that wouldn't be representative of the whole lot. ...

 

With your example I can now see where you are thinking differently than Fizzy on the math.

 

If 1/3rd of all caches are missing and you have 100, Traditional and 100 Multi caches. You are saying there are 67 of each to find. You are counting a listing as a cache.

 

However what Fizzy is saying is that if it's 1/3 of all cache containers are missing. Then that would mean that 67% of all 3 part multis are broken. That means 67 traditional that can be found, but only 33 Multi's. This reality doesn't change if there are 99 traditionals for every multi. Proportionally more multi's will have issues than traditionals. It's going to work out to be 67% and 33% in regardless of how many of each there are to start.

 

The bottom line though is that Fizzy has said with Math what others have said without it. Multi's having legs creates more potential problems and problems do crop up more often and that takes some of the fun out of working on multi caches.

 

Murphey's law applies to multi caches more often because they have more legs to have things go wrong with.

 

But the problem is Fizzy isn't taking into account the multi caches that don't have physical stages. The problem with the logic is overall picture of it. If I say that I don't like multis because they are more likely to go missing, but then I've been to more traditional caches than I have multis and therefore have come across more missing traditionals than I have missing multis, where is my argument? It's fine to say that a multi can have more problems because it has more parts, but it doesn't take away the fact that these cachers aren't experiencing more problems with multis than they are with the average traditional cache. So why the mentality that the multis are somehow worse? The only truthful explanations that fit are the ones I gave. Maybe there's something I'm not thinking of, but it certainly can't be because they've been to more missing multis, unless all they are doing are mulits. And it all has an easy fix, read the logs. Then you are no more likely to look for a multi cache that is missing than you are a tradtional, as all physical caches have an equal opportunity to be muggled or detroyed as the next.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Which means, you have a greater chance of going to a tradtional and having it gone than if you go to a multi.

 

My point was, that if a stage in a multi is missing (or even just too difficult to find), then all the preceding stages count for nothing.

 

What's the chances that you find two traditional caches, fail on the next, and then the two you previously found cannot be logged? Low, I'd say. Not the case if you've decided to seek a multicache.

 

As an example, let's say that in a given area that you're going to find four in five caches on average.

 

If you failed on one in five traditional caches, then you get to log four. Not too bad. If instead you went for a traditional cache and a four-stage multi but failed on the third stage, you only get to log one cache even though you actually found three. Plus, another cache becomes unfindable.

 

Isn't that an obvious disadvantage in the multi v trad cache argument? Isn't that a good reason to avoid the multicache if time is tight?

 

If there's plenty of time, though, it can actually add excitement to the search, as the more time you invest in the cache the more determined you are to finish it.

[Dinoprophet]

You don't have to count them seperately when looking at the whole picture. You don't even have to get in to statistical math. There are more traditionals.....LOTS more....more of them will be missing. It doesn't matter the likelyhood, the facts are that more tradtionals out there are missing. Which means, you have a greater chance of going to a tradtional and having it gone than if you go to a multi.

If I pick a random cache from the world, there is a greater chance that it is a traditional than a multi. That is true. But if you take any one multi and any one traditional, the multi is more likely to be incomplete.

 

Multis are so varied in their design, that no one formula will fit the problem. One would have to look at many factors to determine the true probability of missing caches or stages. The point is a simple one though, the reasons something goes missing are the same. So you can guess the same percentage will be gone from both. Actually, maybe less of a percentage on the part of the traditionals as Miragee mentioned that many mutis don't contain more than one physical cache. That's like someone saying a virtual would go missing, just not going to happen.

A virtual absolutely could go missing. There's a multi just up the road from me that's disabled right now because the Blue Star Highway sign that one of the stages uses is gone. I myself had a multi that used the plaque on a bench. A few months after it went online, I had to change it to a traditional because the park removed the bench. The chances are smaller, true, but there is always a chance, and even the smallest chance increases the odds that you can't finish a multi.

 

Every time you set out to do a cache there is a chance that it is gone. Even if that cache was there yesterday, someone could have taken it 10 minutes after the finder left. It's a chance we all take when we cache.

Right, and that goes for every stage of a multi.

 

Let's put it this way: imagine a group of traditional caches. What happens when one goes missing? One cache is not available, but you still get to find the other four. Now imagine a multi made up of the exact same caches. What happens when one goes missing? The cache cannot be completed. If it's the final that's missing, at least you still got to find the other four, but if it's an earlier one that's missing, you don't get to find the rest at all. Your whole day may be shot if the first stage is missing.

 

But so is the chance that we'll die or get injured just stepping out of our front door.....or getting out of bed for that matter. These are silly things to worry about. You take measures in life to help ensure your safety, and you can do the same thing to increase your odds of the cache being there. Read the logs. If it hasn't been reported missing, there's a good chance it isn't. Will it be 100%? Of course not, but what is in life besides taxes?

But then, the time between logs is greater on a multi, meaning there's more time for a stage to disappear, which means it's more likely again.

The whole point of this argument is, it may "feel" like more multis are missing, but in reality they're not. And either way, if a missing multi bothers you, why wouldn't a missing tradtional, or puzzle? For those of you who use this reason, have you stopped caching altogether? Of course you haven't because you're on here talking about your caching. So then the reason must be different. It must be one of the ones I gave in my last post. If I'm missing one, let me know.

Actually, as I've said a few times here (I haven't read all of every post here either, so I'm not being accusatory ), I prefer multis. But the fact remains, when I head out on a multi, the chances are greater that I won't be able to finish it than they would be on a traditional. I don't worry about it or change what I want to look for because of it. But this thread seems to have become a debate over whether it is true, and it is true.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[+Renegade Knight]

...But the problem is Fizzy isn't taking into account the multi caches that don't have physical stages. The problem with the logic is overall picture of it. If I say that I don't like multis because they are more likely to go missing, but then I've been to more traditional caches than I have multis and therefore have come across more missing traditionals than I have missing multis, where is my argument? It's fine to say that a multi can have more problems because it has more parts, but it doesn't take away the fact that these cachers aren't experiencing more problems with multis than they are with the average traditional cache. So why the mentality that the multis are somehow worse? The only truthful explanations that fit are the ones I gave. Maybe there's something I'm not thinking of, but it certainly can't be because they've been to more missing multis, unless all they are doing are mulits. And it all has an easy fix, read the logs. Then you are no more likely to look for a multi cache that is missing than you are a tradtional, as all physical caches have an equal opportunity to be muggled or detroyed as the next.

 

The math works even when you simplify the problem to discuss it in the forums. That's all Fizzy has done. Yes some multi caches use existing signs etc. Some don't. More legs either way. Multi caches have more issues. More likely to have a leg missing. More likely to take more time. More likely to have something interrupt your search, More chances to get questioned by the police and if we are lucky, more fun if you finish it. But more likely to not finish them for a number of reasons.

 

Worse only comes into play if you happen to like finding caches. That's why I cache. I don't cache for the DNF of it.

 

What you are missing is the angle. Your observations are accurate, there are more traditionals than multi's, more traditionals are missing at any one time etc. However your conclusions though don't flow from your observations because of the angle you are looking at things at (or vice versa, the angle we are seeing it from). The odds of any one cache (and we only seek them one at a time...)having a problem of some kind is higher the more complex the cache. Multi's start out more complex because of the legs. Problems ensue. Most of us have noticed this and adapted our cache hunting habits to keep our fun meters as high as possible.

 

Using my prior example. If you take away 1/3 of the containers on 3 part multi caches. You would have to take away 2/3 of the containers on traditional caches to have exactly the same odds of a DNF when you go to find a random cache.

==================================

Completly changing the angle. Think in terms of machines.

If you have two machines that both do the same thing, but one has less moving parts. The one with less moving parts will break down less often. Entirly because it has less parts to break. That makes it more likely to be working at any time you may walk up to it.

[+elmuyloco5]

Which means, you have a greater chance of going to a tradtional and having it gone than if you go to a multi.

 

My point was, that if a stage in a multi is missing (or even just too difficult to find), then all the preceding stages count for nothing.

 

What's the chances that you find two traditional caches, fail on the next, and then the two you previously found cannot be logged? Low, I'd say. Not the case if you've decided to seek a multicache.

 

As an example, let's say that in a given area that you're going to find four in five caches on average.

 

If you failed on one in five traditional caches, then you get to log four. Not too bad. If instead you went for a traditional cache and a four-stage multi but failed on the third stage, you only get to log one cache even though you actually found three. Plus, another cache becomes unfindable.

 

Isn't that an obvious disadvantage in the multi v trad cache argument? Isn't that a good reason to avoid the multicache if time is tight?

 

If there's plenty of time, though, it can actually add excitement to the search, as the more time you invest in the cache the more determined you are to finish it.

 

I understand exactly what your getting at. And that's why I said that I can see why it's more frustrating, but the reason that it bothers you isn't that it is missing, it's that you're not getting your smiley for each stage. If you were upset only because the cache was missing, it would be equally upsetting for you to come across a missing traditional. And for that matter, if the multi caches always had the first stage missing, there would be no difference between them and a traditional, which only proves my point that it's because of the effort that must be put forth and the lack of smiley potential that is the true issue.

 

And while I can feel for the frustration of the fact it takes more work to find a multi, you can easily compare that to the work it takes to find a traditional on a hike. What I'm getting at is for those who say it's because the multis go missing, what they are really saying is that the multis take more time, and therefore more effort. More effort and time for a missing or uncompletable cache is what is keeping people from the multis. I understand the feelings that people have towards this, eventhough I don't personally have them. What I've been trying to get across is that the comments made that "more multis are missing" is invalid. It's just not a true statement. Is it more likely to go missing, well sure, there's more stages. But ARE there more missing ones, no. So then at any given caching expedition, are you more likely to run across a multi or a traditional missing? The answer is a traditional, and yet this fact doesn't keep people from caching for traditionals. So the argument about missing multis doesn't work when you look at the overall picture.

 

 

A virtual absolutely could go missing. There's a multi just up the road from me that's disabled right now because the Blue Star Highway sign that one of the stages uses is gone. I myself had a multi that used the plaque on a bench. A few months after it went online, I had to change it to a traditional because the park removed the bench. The chances are smaller, true, but there is always a chance, and even the smallest chance increases the odds that you can't finish a multi.

 

Ok, yes this is true, but really how often are signs going to mysteriously disappear, vs. being muggled. It's such a rare occurance, it's extraneous to the discussion. Just as I didn't mention all of the traditionals that require some electical or mechanical component and those breaking down, or batteries dying. What about those that require tools that you don't know about until you get there. We could go on and one about every variable that can cause a problem with a cache, but those issues are small and very infrequent.

 

Your whole day may be shot if the first stage is missing.

 

How is the first stage of a multi, missing, any different than an entire traditional missing? And with this logic, since there are more tradtionals missing altogether, how do you know that all 5 of your traditionals aren't going to be gone? Seems like that's a day ruiner to me too.

 

But then, the time between logs is greater on a multi, meaning there's more time for a stage to disappear, which means it's more likely again.

 

Only true because of the failed common logic that more multis are missing apparently.

 

 

...But the problem is Fizzy isn't taking into account the multi caches that don't have physical stages. The problem with the logic is overall picture of it. If I say that I don't like multis because they are more likely to go missing, but then I've been to more traditional caches than I have multis and therefore have come across more missing traditionals than I have missing multis, where is my argument? It's fine to say that a multi can have more problems because it has more parts, but it doesn't take away the fact that these cachers aren't experiencing more problems with multis than they are with the average traditional cache. So why the mentality that the multis are somehow worse? The only truthful explanations that fit are the ones I gave. Maybe there's something I'm not thinking of, but it certainly can't be because they've been to more missing multis, unless all they are doing are mulits. And it all has an easy fix, read the logs. Then you are no more likely to look for a multi cache that is missing than you are a tradtional, as all physical caches have an equal opportunity to be muggled or detroyed as the next.

 

The math works even when you simplify the problem to discuss it in the forums. That's all Fizzy has done. Yes some multi caches use existing signs etc. Some don't. More legs either way. Multi caches have more issues. More likely to have a leg missing. More likely to take more time. More likely to have something interrupt your search, More chances to get questioned by the police and if we are lucky, more fun if you finish it. But more likely to not finish them for a number of reasons.

 

Worse only comes into play if you happen to like finding caches. That's why I cache. I don't cache for the DNF of it.

 

What you are missing is the angle. Your observations are accurate, there are more traditionals than multi's, more traditionals are missing at any one time etc. However your conclusions though don't flow from your observations because of the angle you are looking at things at (or vice versa, the angle we are seeing it from). The odds of any one cache (and we only seek them one at a time...)having a problem of some kind is higher the more complex the cache. Multi's start out more complex because of the legs. Problems ensue. Most of us have noticed this and adapted our cache hunting habits to keep our fun meters as high as possible.

 

Using my prior example. If you take away 1/3 of the containers on 3 part multi caches. You would have to take away 2/3 of the containers on traditional caches to have exactly the same odds of a DNF when you go to find a random cache.

==================================

Completly changing the angle. Think in terms of machines.

If you have two machines that both do the same thing, but one has less moving parts. The one with less moving parts will break down less often. Entirly because it has less parts to break. That makes it more likely to be working at any time you may walk up to it.

 

I get what you're saying. But I wasn't trying to address that they are necessarily more likely because "more likely" doesn't matter. If I set out to do 10 caches and 5 are multi and 5 are traditional, sure the multis are more "likely" to be missing, but the fact of the matter is, since more tradtionals are, they are the ones that probably will be. So there's really no point to the argument. If you want to look at by thinking about machines, look at it this way: You buy two computers, one is a name brand with lots of extra bells and whistles that can break down, but it's repair history shows that fewer of this brand need to be fixed. And the next computer you bought is an off-brand with a poor repair history. Sure the first computer is more likely to need repairs if you look at the fact that it has more parts. But the second has a record of breaking down. Which would you buy?

 

One last thing that hasn't been addressed is that you all are looking at this situation as just the number of stages. But in the real world, there are other things that can effect a cache besides numbers. Think about what causes these caches to be lost, environment and muggles. Multi caches by no means are always small within the stages, but most are. There are certainly a large number of traditionals that are small, but in comparison (again looking at the overall picture) because there are more traditionals than multis, there are also more of them that are larger containers. Smaller containers just by nature of being small are less likely to be seen. Therefore, less likely to muggled or destroyed by an animal. Next, because they are smaller, they also don't contain as much swag. Less swag equals less items that contain a scent which equates to less damage from an animal. And, also less swag means less of an enticement for muggles to steal. When we start taking in these factors, are multis really more likely to end up missing? Who knows. The point is, we can argue all day about a simple math equation, but the fact is, that equation doesn't fit the real world application. There are way too many variables to look at within both types of caches. Avoiding multis does nothing to help ensure you will come across less missing caches, it only ensures that you have less caches to do. Looking at past logs is the only thing that will consistantly help you.

 

It's a shame that multis are seen in this light, but it's also a shame that caches along a hike aren't visited much either. The average human is lazy and like to get rewarded for least amount of effort possible.

Edited November 26, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[Dinoprophet]

 

A virtual absolutely could go missing. There's a multi just up the road from me that's disabled right now because the Blue Star Highway sign that one of the stages uses is gone. I myself had a multi that used the plaque on a bench. A few months after it went online, I had to change it to a traditional because the park removed the bench. The chances are smaller, true, but there is always a chance, and even the smallest chance increases the odds that you can't finish a multi.

 

Ok, yes this is true, but really how often are signs going to mysteriously disappear, vs. being muggled. It's such a rare occurance, it's extraneous to the discussion. Just as I didn't mention all of the traditionals that require some electical or mechanical component and those breaking down, or batteries dying. What about those that require tools that you don't know about until you get there. We could go on and one about every variable that can cause a problem with a cache, but those issues are small and very infrequent.

I agree that it is rarer, but it still increases the likelihood that something is wrong.

 

Your whole day may be shot if the first stage is missing.

 

How is the first stage of a multi, missing, any different than an entire traditional missing?

Because if the first stage is missing, you can't even try the rest, and you might as well go home. With a traditional, you just move on to the next cache.

And with this logic, since there are more tradtionals missing altogether, how do you know that all 5 of your traditionals aren't going to be gone? Seems like that's a day ruiner to me too.

You don't know, but you can at least look for all five, and visit all five locations the hiders wanted to show you. And to reverse the question, what if only the first one is missing but the rest are all fine? It doesn't matter with a multi, you can't get there.

 

And never mind a cache being missing. Maybe it's just hard to find. Can't find stage three of five? Go home. Can't find cache three of five? Move on to the next one. Now, sometimes, that's part of the thrill of a multi. In Michigan, we still talk about the infamous Stage Four of a well-loved multi from years ago. But it's not true for all multis, and it's not for everyone.

 

Regarding virtual stages, while I do prefer multis, I don't like ones where there is a chance of going to the wrong coordinates because you didn't crunch numbers correctly (I don't mind unambiguous ones). So in that way, virtuals have a greater chance of something going wrong, if not missing.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[+elmuyloco5]

 

Because if the first stage is missing, you can't even try the rest, and you might as well go home. With a traditional, you just move on to the next cache.

 

How does a missing first stage not allow you to keep on moving to the next cache of the day? If the first stage is missing, you put forth no extra effort for the cache and no more time. It is no different than a tradtional missing.

 

You don't know, but you can at least look for all five, and visit all five locations the hiders wanted to show you. And to reverse the question, what if only the first one is missing but the rest are all fine? It doesn't matter with a multi, you can't get there.

 

You've gotten to the first place they wanted you to get to in a missing first stage multi. That's no different than the first and only place they wanted you to get to on a traditional. And furthermore, if you have gotten to the third stage of a multi, you've already seen two more spots than you would see on a traditional. What you're saying is assuming that a multi only has the purpose to take you to the final stage, which is completely untrue for alot of them. Sounds more like an argument as to why multis are better, they take you to see more places.

 

a well-loved multi from years ago[/url]. But it's not true for all multis, and it's not for everyone.

 

 

How is this different than a hard tradtional you can't find? Both are unfound. You see what is underlying in all of your statements is that it's the extra effort taken to do the multi, not the other stuff you've been saying. The other stuff is equal in both cases. There's nothing wrong with using the reason of "extra effort", but don't try to hide it behind the other points. I have no problem with people who are all about numbers, or anything else for that matter. I only have problems when they try to pretend their not. There's no reason to be ashamed that you don't want to put forth the extra effort and then not find the cache, why not just say that's your reason?

 

The real problem behind this whole discussion is that the math doesn't necessarily fit the real world application. Does a car made of few parts mean that it breaks down less? If that were true we'd have Consumer Reports on which cars have the fewest parts, not consumer ratings of dependability. Do you shop for the TV or stereo made of the fewest parts? Certainly not. Just because something has more parts doesn't mean it will be the mostly likely to break down in reality. A statistical analysis doesn't always tell us the real truth. The incidence of rape increases with the increase of ice cream sales (this is actually true). But does this tell us that rapist like ice cream, or any other variable we could assume from it? No. Statistics are one way to look at a situation, but it just doesn't always give an accurate picture of everything. And rarely gives a good picture of something that is so subjective to human interaction.

Edited November 26, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+tozainamboku]

I get what you're saying. But I wasn't trying to address that they are necessarily more likely because "more likely" doesn't matter. If I set out to do 10 caches and 5 are multi and 5 are traditional, sure the multis are more "likely" to be missing, but the fact of the matter is, since more tradtionals are, they are the ones that probably will be.

I don't quite follow this reasoning. Perhaps if you say you set out to do 6 caches. One is a 5 part multi and the the other five are traditional. Then you are correct in saying you are more likely to find one or more traditionals missing than to find you can't complete the multi because one of its stages are missing. Of course, with the exception of the final, each stage of the multi may be less likely to be missing than a traditional given that stages of multis are more likely to be micros or perhaps virtual stages. In addition, since the multi is found less often (given the premise of this thread) there is less chance that a cacher has compromised any of the stages by searching while a muggle was around or leaving the stage exposed. Finally, there is the possibility that people who hide multis tend to take better care of their caches than hiders of traditionals on average. Knowing that fewer people will look for a multi that hasn't been found in awhile (because they believe that a stage is more likely to be missing during that time), some multi owners are likely to do some maintenance to be sure all the stages are there. My gut feel is that in fact, I'm more likely to DNF a traditional (given I'm looking for a traditional) than to DNF a multi (given that I'm looking for a multi). When I get home this evening I will try to confirm this with the data I have in GSAK. Of course, when I look at the caches I hunted over the Thanksgiving weekend, I DNF's all three multis while finding all the traditionals I looked for.

 

Here's another thought. Suppose the all stages of the multi are as likely to be there as a traditional is. The stages of the multi are often micros or some hard to find tag with the coordinates on it. Isn't it more likely that people just have a harder time finding these than traditionals. So it is likely that for many multis the odds of a DNF go up quickly as more stages are added. If all of the traditionals were hard to find micros, you might argue that you're still more likely to DNF 1 in 5 than you are a 5 part multi. But compare that multi to any one traditional - the multi will be significantly harder to find.

[+elmuyloco5]

 

But compare that multi to any one traditional - the multi will be significantly harder to find.

 

We weren't discussing which is harder to find, but what has more missing. I don't agree though that a multi will be harder to find, however it will take more time given the same distance and terrain. A 1/1 multi is much easier to find than a 5/5 traditional.