Why are multis less popular?

24.7k · November 26, 2007

....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....

What you just said here, is the crux of the matter.

If I only have time for a few caches I'm going to pick the ones I'm most likely to have fun at. At the last I'm going to ignore the ones I'm least likely to enjoy. Since I like to find caches and not DNF them it's simple. "More likely to have less fun" matters a lot. Because of that, traditional caches win and that's what I'm going to look for.

The fact that there are more traditional caches than multi's has no part in the decision. Nor does it change the math. If there were more multi caches than traditional I'd still seek the traditional caches for the same reasons. The multi caches have more problems that get in the way of my fun.

November 26, 2007

....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....

What you just said here, is the crux of the matter.

If I only have time for a few caches I'm going to pick the ones I'm most likely to have fun at. At the last I'm going to ignore the ones I'm least likely to enjoy. Since I like to find caches and not DNF them it's simple. "More likely to have less fun" matters a lot. Because of that, traditional caches win and that's what I'm going to look for.

The fact that there are more traditional caches than multi's has no part in the decision. Nor does it change the math. If there were more multi caches than traditional I'd still seek the traditional caches for the same reasons. The multi caches have more problems that get in the way of my fun.

I agree MORE FUN! Everything in life should be more fun. And if that's the reason you use, it's fine. But it doesn't make it an accurate depiction of reality. i don't dispute that you see it that way, rather that the way you see it is incorrect. You are assuming that because there are more parts that it is more likely to be missing. Like I said, the math might be right, but it's application to reality is not. Doesn't matter to me why you chose not to go, it only makes less for you to go. I'm not the OP on this thread, just pointing out that there are less missing multis so the reason is invalid, and also that the math might work on paper, but not out on the trail.

24.7k · November 26, 2007

...I agree MORE FUN! Everything in life should be more fun. And if that's the reason you use, it's fine. But it doesn't make it an accurate depiction of reality. i don't dispute that you see it that way, rather that the way you see it is incorrect. You are assuming that because there are more parts that it is more likely to be missing. Like I said, the math might be right, but it's application to reality is not. Doesn't matter to me why you chose not to go, it only makes less for you to go. I'm not the OP on this thread, just pointing out that there are less missing multis so the reason is invalid, and also that the math might work on paper, but not out on the trail.

My experience on the trail is exactly what fizzy's math explains. I did not stop likeing Multi caches because Fizzy emailed me his calculations. I stopped because I kept getting frustrated while out looking for multi caches.

When you say reality is different from the discussion, that's where we don't agree and my actual on the ground experience is different from your discussion.

November 26, 2007

...I agree MORE FUN! Everything in life should be more fun. And if that's the reason you use, it's fine. But it doesn't make it an accurate depiction of reality. i don't dispute that you see it that way, rather that the way you see it is incorrect. You are assuming that because there are more parts that it is more likely to be missing. Like I said, the math might be right, but it's application to reality is not. Doesn't matter to me why you chose not to go, it only makes less for you to go. I'm not the OP on this thread, just pointing out that there are less missing multis so the reason is invalid, and also that the math might work on paper, but not out on the trail.

My experience on the trail is exactly what fizzy's math explains. I did not stop likeing Multi caches because Fizzy emailed me his calculations. I stopped because I kept getting frustrated while out looking for multi caches.

When you say reality is different from the discussion, that's where we don't agree and my actual on the ground experience is different from your discussion.

I can see your point of view, and I'm not debating your experience. unfortunately, we can't take just one member's experience, mine has been the opposite, so you can see how that just doesn't work out. Maybe my view of the situation is completely wrong, the only way we would ever know is to look at the archived caches (although that in and of itself can have it's problems as it's only viewing those that have been archived. Unfortunately, we couldn't look at all the active ones because too many owners alter their past logs) but since we can't obtain that info, we can't really see what the numbers say. It would be interesting though to see if real world applications differ from the theorized math.

Here's another reason that the math doesn't always work to the situation (again not debating what you have personally seen). If you take a look at my profile, you will find alot of quick stop and grab caches. One might think then that those are the type we like. If you did a statistical analysis on my numbers, it would suggest that your assumption is so. But, it's quite the opposite. We are admittedly new to caching and we started with our state challenge caches. We like caching with a point. Because they are scattered all over the state, it requires a lot of time to get to each one. We have jobs and such, so we are understandably on a time limit to do those caches. So the caches that we did along the way had to be quick. Just because we did many fast ones though, you couldn't accurately assume that it means that we LIKED them better than ones that took longer. That's where paper math doesn't meet reality. I understand what you have observed in your area to be true, but just in that statement there are a ton of variables that might make it completely different from what others have seen. Many members have stated in this thread that they don't have the same observations as you do. So who's to say who is correct?

I will say that we haven't done as many multis for a reason that hasn't been mentioned (it's kinda a chicken or the egg sort of thing). There aren't as many available for us to, so they are less likely to be in an area we will be caching.

I have to disagree with your feelings on fun though too. I'm not saying that it's not how you have fun, but that it's not necessarily how everyone has fun. To me, and my caching family, it would be more fun to DNF a great multi that takes us to a beautiful spot 5 times, than to find another tupperware under a bush. I like finding the cache too. I've said several times in the forums that hints should be added and proper maintenance should be done as the point of caching is to FIND the cache (and hopefully one in good repair). But even feeling like that, I still have more fun DNFing a bunch of cool caches that have a point to them than going to the run of the mill cache in a bush.

8k · November 26, 2007

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.

First I agreed with you that in fact a multi may in fact be no less likely to have a missing stage than an individual traditional cache may be missing. But this is only because multis are not the same as traditionals. A multi may be hunted less offten making it less likely that a stage has been compromised when a muggle saw a cacher looking for it and also because it might be the case that a multi hider will take better care of their cache on average than a traditional hider. There are probably some other difference between multis and traditional that make fizzymagic's analysis flawed. If each stage of a multi were as likely to be hidden in a manner and location as any single traditional cache and hunted just as often, then it is clear that mulits would have a missing stage at least as often as the traditional would be missing. But I believe there are other parameters that should be considered and as I said my gut feeling is that most multis are no more likely to have a missing stage than for a traditional to be missing.

Then I proposed another reason that some people might not want to find a multi. That reason is that some people say they have a hard time finding micros or the often well hidden tag with coordinates on it. For these people many (though not necessarily all) multis are significantly harder to find than an individual traditional cache. That in fact may make multis more popular to some people who prefer a more challenging find. But many people will chose the easier cache between two caches. A 1/1 multi is probably misrated; using Clayjar's Geocache Rating System a multi-leg cache should have difficulty of at least 3 stars. Of course you may have a multi with obvious easy to find virtual stages where there is no complicated formula needed to compute the final stage so other than the extra time it takes may be no harder than the final stage, but this is the exception. Unless someone knows before hand that the stages are all going to be easy to find, most people assume you're going to have to look for some number of micros or other hard to find coordinates. If they feel that they are not good at finding these they are going to pass on the doing the multi.

3.1k · November 26, 2007

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 can find other caches, but you can't find the rest of that cache. And if it's the only cache in the area, tough luck.

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.

That's one place. What about the other four?

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.

Not if they were all traditionals and I did them all.

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.

If all the points are interesting, then that means I'm missing out on multiple places.

Sounds more like an argument as to why multis are better, they take you to see more places.

No more than several traditionals in the same locations.

a well-loved multi from years ago. 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 don't get to even try to find the caches beyond it.

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.

Huh? My whole point is that you have to stop early if you can't complete a multi, whereas you can keep going if you're looking for a bunch of traditionals. How is stopping early "extra effort"?

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?

Okay, I thought this was going civilly, but now you're putting words in my mouth and assigning me characteristics that are not true.

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.

I dropped the math and probability a few posts back. Common sense tells me that one of five caches is more likely to disappear than one of one.

I'll try putting it one more way: suppose I want to find a missing traditional (by which I mean any non-multi type). Is it more likely I'll find one if I check five caches or if I check one?

Edited November 26, 2007 by Dinoprophet

November 26, 2007

First I agreed with you that in fact a multi may in fact be no less likely to have a missing stage than an individual traditional cache may be missing. But this is only because multis are not the same as traditionals. A multi may be hunted less offten making it less likely that a stage has been compromised when a muggle saw a cacher looking for it and also because it might be the case that a multi hider will take better care of their cache on average than a traditional hider. There are probably some other difference between multis and traditional that make fizzymagic's analysis flawed. If each stage of a multi were as likely to be hidden in a manner and location as any single traditional cache and hunted just as often, then it is clear that mulits would have a missing stage at least as often as the traditional would be missing. But I believe there are other parameters that should be considered and as I said my gut feeling is that most multis are no more likely to have a missing stage than for a traditional to be missing.

Then I proposed another reason that some people might not want to find a multi. That reason is that some people say they have a hard time finding micros or the often well hidden tag with coordinates on it. For these people many (though not necessarily all) multis are significantly harder to find than an individual traditional cache. That in fact may make multis more popular to some people who prefer a more challenging find. But many people will chose the easier cache between two caches. A 1/1 multi is probably misrated; using Clayjar's Geocache Rating System a multi-leg cache should have difficulty of at least 3 stars. Of course you may have a multi with obvious easy to find virtual stages where there is no complicated formula needed to compute the final stage so other than the extra time it takes may be no harder than the final stage, but this is the exception. Unless someone knows before hand that the stages are all going to be easy to find, most people assume you're going to have to look for some number of micros or other hard to find coordinates. If they feel that they are not good at finding these they are going to pass on the doing the multi.

I apologize as I didn't mean to come across rude when I had made my statement. This thread has been about the mathematical analysis of missing stages so long that I thought your comment was in reference to that. I agree that it certainly could be harder to complete certain multis and the fact that lots of containers seem to be smaller in multis, would definitely make it so if compared to the overall picture of traditionals. However, I would have to say that any cache, traditional or otherwise, with an equal rating should be equally hard to find. If Clayjar says that a multi cache must be a difficulty of 3, then you obviously couldn't compare them to a 1/1 cache (I haven't placed my multi yet, so I wasn't aware of the Clayjar stance on that situation) But you also couldn't compare any traditionals that are 3 stars either. Whether or not the findability for each stage is harder than a comparable traditional is debatable though.

I totally agree with you though that there are many variables that can affect whether or not a multi is missing vs. a traditional cache. This is one of the main reasons I don't agree with Fizzy. His math works well on paper, but I don't think he will find the same answer in the real application. And, yes, the fact that they are not done as often has a big effect on the maintenance of the caches, as does the placement of multis. I definately think that those are points that would have to be considered in a real analysis.

November 27, 2007

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 can find other caches, but you can't find the rest of that cache. And if it's the only cache in the area, tough luck.

You can still find other caches. How does not finding one stage of a multi mean that you have to stop caching? And to say there wouldn't be any others near it, good grief. Really, this is an assumption that isn't going to happen with the majority of multi caches. What if there's no more traditionals near the one you couldn't find and you had to stop then?? Still the same situation. You can't compare one multi in the boondocks to 50 traditionals in a city. That's apples to oranges. My comments have always been about the big picture, all the traditionals compared to all of the multis, not just what you personally might find. After all we're talking about why multis in general are not as popular, not why they aren't just in your area.

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.

That's one place. What about the other four?

Sure you haven't seen the other four, but if ONE place is all you get to go to in a missing traditional, then the ONE place you get to see on the missing multi is no different. We're not talking about what might have been. What if the traditional isn't an area that you like, what if .......what if ...... we could go on and on, but it has nothing to do with the reason you gave for not liking them.

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.

Not if they were all traditionals and I did them all.

HUH? You said that you would get to see less places with a missing multi stage. You used the example of getting to the 3rd stage of the multi and having to stop. If you got to the third stage......you have seen 2 more places than the one stage that a traditional takes you to. How is this hard to understand?

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.

No more than several traditionals in the same locations.

Not so, a traditional cannot get you under 528 ft of proximity that a multi can. Therefore you may not be able to see all of the cool areas that a multi can take you if it was placed as several traditionals.

Huh? My whole point is that you have to stop early if you can't complete a multi, whereas you can keep going if you're looking for a bunch of traditionals. How is stopping early "extra effort"?

It may be that your point is that you can't go beyond to see the rest, but your comments are that you are upset that you went as far as you did without finding them. Not finding a cache, is not finding a cache. The only difference between not finding a multi and a traditional is that the multi takes more effort to find (within comparable terrain and difficulty levels) than a traditional. Just because you haven't "found" a traditional, or a multi for that matter, doesn't mean they are missing.

Okay, I thought this was going civilly, but now you're putting words in my mouth and assigning me characteristics that are not true.

I dropped the math and probability a few posts back. Common sense tells me that one of five caches is more likely to disappear than one of one.

I'll try putting it one more way: suppose I want to find a missing traditional (by which I mean any non-multi type). Is it more likely I'll find one if I check five caches or if I check one?

I'm not trying to be uncivil, and I'm truly sorry if it came across that way. I gave my opinion of your statement. To me, you say that there are all of these reasons. But the reasons that you gave don't make multis differ from traditionals in any other way than they take more effort to do. I have no problem if that's your reason for not doing them. We all do the caches that we like, or at least the ones we think we will.

And I already explained my views on why I don't agree with the numbers your presenting....I really don't want to repeat it all.

Edited November 27, 2007 by elmuyloco5

November 27, 2007

Time, Lack of taking the time to do them. I will at some time take the time :blink:

3.1k · November 27, 2007

These square brackets are getting unmanageable.

HUH? You said that you would get to see less places with a missing multi stage. You used the example of getting to the 3rd stage of the multi and having to stop. If you got to the third stage......you have seen 2 more places than the one stage that a traditional takes you to. How is this hard to understand?

But if the other stages were traditionals, you would still be able to see them. And if the third cache was missing, you could still see the other two stages. Five traditionals, you can get to all of them whether or not the caches are all there. Five stages of a multi, if any (other than the last) is missing, you cannot.

It may be that your point is that you can't go beyond to see the rest, but your comments are that you are upset that you went as far as you did without finding them. Not finding a cache, is not finding a cache. The only difference between not finding a multi and a traditional is that the multi takes more effort to find (within comparable terrain and difficulty levels) than a traditional. Just because you haven't "found" a traditional, or a multi for that matter, doesn't mean they are missing.

I'm not trying to be uncivil, and I'm truly sorry if it came across that way. I gave my opinion of your statement. To me, you say that there are all of these reasons. But the reasons that you gave don't make multis differ from traditionals in any other way than they take more effort to do. I have no problem if that's your reason for not doing them. We all do the caches that we like, or at least the ones we think we will.

Well, I may have taken it wrong, but I took it as "you're just lazy, admit it". But really, the underlying motives have nothing to do with effort. It has to do with two things, both of which others have mentioned. One is precious, rare caching time. Not everyone has hours every week to cache. Some are lucky to have a couple of hours a month. The other thing -- and I think this may be the real disconnect we're having --is being able to finish a cache. The two go hand in hand. If I have two hours for caching, I can go for a multi, knowing it is possible I'll get stuck halfway through and not have time to do other caches, or I can plan to do several traditionals, knowing even if I DNF one (or more) at least some will probably be finds (And again, for the record, I'd probably go for the multi myself).

Note that "finishing" is not the same as "getting a smiley" or "increasing your count". It's not even the same as "finding", as someone said. Not finishing a multi is like getting halfway through a movie and the power goes out. Not finding a traditional is like watching a good movie with a sad ending.

And I already explained my views on why I don't agree with the numbers your presenting....I really don't want to repeat it all.

In that case, let's play cards sometime. :blink:

Edited November 27, 2007 by Dinoprophet

November 27, 2007

But if the other stages were traditionals, you would still be able to see them. And if the third cache was missing, you could still see the other two stages. Five traditionals, you can get to all of them whether or not the caches are all there. Five stages of a multi, if any (other than the last) is missing, you cannot.

One is precious, rare caching time. Not everyone has hours every week to cache. Some are lucky to have a couple of hours a month. The other thing -- and I think this may be the real disconnect we're having --is being able to finish a cache. The two go hand in hand. If I have two hours for caching, I can go for a multi, knowing it is possible I'll get stuck halfway through and not have time to do other caches, or I can plan to do several traditionals, knowing even if I DNF one (or more) at least some will probably be finds (And again, for the record, I'd probably go for the multi myself).

Note that "finishing" is not the same as "getting a smiley" or "increasing your count". It's not even the same as "finding", as someone said. Not finishing a multi is like getting halfway through a movie and the power goes out. Not finding a traditional is like watching a good movie with a sad ending.

And I already explained my views on why I don't agree with the numbers your presenting....I really don't want to repeat it all.

In that case, let's play cards sometime.

First off, I want you to know that I was in no way trying to call you lazy. I don't think it's lazy to not want to put forth the effort to do a multi. It's simply a choice in how to cache. I'm sorry that it came off that way, it was not my point. What I was trying to say, and hopefully better this time, is that I read alot of reasons that people do or do not cache, and yet they contradict their reasons in their explanation. It seems as if the majority of them are saying what they think people want to hear, rather than saying the real reason behind their comment. I just say, don't be afraid to say the real reason. Everyone caches differently, and that's what makes this game/sport/whatever great. It wouldn't be as fun if we all did things the same way. To me, your reasons contradicted what you were stating and it appeared that you weren't giving the true reason you have problems with multis.

I can see the frustration in a missing multi, but only if it's past the first stage. For me, it doesn't matter, but I can see how it could for others.

The statistics behind cards has little to do with a comparison with these caches. You don't have the same level of variables in cards that you do with caches. I fully understand the math that Fizzy has posted. The problem I have with it, is that he has forgotten all the other variables that come into play when it's applied in a real world situation. I, and a few others, have suggested just a few of those variables in earlier posts. I know you're trying to be funny with the card comment. I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that other things affect the numbers of missing caches. On this, I think we all agree, missing caches are not fun. But, ignoring multis because you think they might be missing, only lessens the numbers of caches you can fun on, it won't ensure you will stop coming across missing caches.

6.1k · November 27, 2007

.........math works well on paper, but I don't think he will find the same answer in the real application. And, yes, the fact that they are not done as often has a big effect on the maintenance of the caches, as does the placement of multis. I definately think that those are points that would have to be considered in a real analysis.

Calm down, you've only found one multi. Go out and find a bunch and then report back about real applications and analysis. :blink:

November 27, 2007

I like the numbers but oberall with me its about what my slogan is "It's All in the Hunt." So I prefer caches in the woods and if they happen to be a multi so be it.

I have placed one multi it is 5 stages and 10 miles worth of driving and only a few have found it. Those who have like it as it is all about history. But my placed P&G's are found on a regular basis.

November 27, 2007

.........math works well on paper, but I don't think he will find the same answer in the real application. And, yes, the fact that they are not done as often has a big effect on the maintenance of the caches, as does the placement of multis. I definately think that those are points that would have to be considered in a real analysis.

Calm down, you've only found one multi. Go out and find a bunch and then report back about real applications and analysis.

I am calm, not sure why you think I'm not. And how does me only doing one have anything to do with it? Sorry, I didn't see the "unless you've found x numbers of caches you can't have an opinion" clause. I wasn't aware that there were only 55 multis in the whole world and that made you the multi cache authority. We should all be so honored by your presence with us here today.

Being new, as I clearly stated in my posts, doesn't mean I'm wrong. I personally don't care if you like multis, or anyone else. I've never tried to get anyone to change their minds about multis, I've only addressed the idea that there were more missing multis. It's a false statement....doesn't matter how many I've done. Thanks for trying to express your perceived superiority though, it says alot about your personality.

Edited November 27, 2007 by elmuyloco5

3.1k · November 27, 2007

First off, I want you to know that I was in no way trying to call you lazy. I don't think it's lazy to not want to put forth the effort to do a multi. It's simply a choice in how to cache. I'm sorry that it came off that way, it was not my point. What I was trying to say, and hopefully better this time, is that I read alot of reasons that people do or do not cache, and yet they contradict their reasons in their explanation. It seems as if the majority of them are saying what they think people want to hear, rather than saying the real reason behind their comment. I just say, don't be afraid to say the real reason. Everyone caches differently, and that's what makes this game/sport/whatever great. It wouldn't be as fun if we all did things the same way. To me, your reasons contradicted what you were stating and it appeared that you weren't giving the true reason you have problems with multis.

I can see the frustration in a missing multi, but only if it's past the first stage. For me, it doesn't matter, but I can see how it could for others.

The statistics behind cards has little to do with a comparison with these caches. You don't have the same level of variables in cards that you do with caches. I fully understand the math that Fizzy has posted. The problem I have with it, is that he has forgotten all the other variables that come into play when it's applied in a real world situation. I, and a few others, have suggested just a few of those variables in earlier posts. I know you're trying to be funny with the card comment. I get it, but it doesn't change the fact that other things affect the numbers of missing caches. On this, I think we all agree, missing caches are not fun. But, ignoring multis because you think they might be missing, only lessens the numbers of caches you can fun on, it won't ensure you will stop coming across missing caches.

I understand that's not what you meant, it's cool. And yes, the card thing was a joke. I'm glad it didn't go wrong as they sometimes do.

Back to my original post in this thread, I prefer multis. They can be more problematic, but they also tend to be more rewarding as a complete adventure. Multis that are among my all-time favorite caches:

Polly Takes the Plunge, best cache I've done, and it could only work as a multi (it's archived here but you can seek it elsewhere...)

Get Smart - Tequila Mockingbird (better classified as a puzzle really)

Bill & Gary's Excellent Adventure I, II, III, and IV

Soy-Based Biodegradable Pixie Dust

Where is the Armory at Ford Lake?

Mike's Barton Runaround 2.0

umc's 6th cache

There's also the Not Tellin' series, which were listed as puzzles but mostly were just really hard multis (though tame by today's standards).

And my own:

Hop To It, my first hide (island hopping on a small lake, archived due to a change in placement guidelines)

I Hid It On Principle, the bench one I mentioned, which really was only a multi to prevent bushwhacking, and archived for that reason.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Dinoprophet

2.5k · November 27, 2007

It is occurring to me that there is a whole lot of energy being put into deciding if a multcache is statistically more likely to be missing than a regular cache.

As far as the topic goes, I have to wonder if it really matters? The topic is "Why are multi's less popular?" Regardless of the statistics, if the general perception is that multis are more likely to have such problems, then that is one of the reasons people won't do them. It doesn't matter if it is true or not.

Perception is reality.

Personally, I think multis are less popular because, as I recently read somewhere else in these forums, many geocachers are generally lazy. That's ok, but I'm not placing multis for the lazy ones. Heck, most of my caches aren't for the lazy. My only "Park 'n' Grab" encourages people to park a mile away & hike up to it. :blink:

8k · November 27, 2007

Ok. Back at home I checked my personal stats and it does turn out that I'm more likely to DNF a multi than a traditional cache. However since the multis I have done are on average more difficult than the average traditional I'm not sure what it proves.

I have found 144 multi-caches. I have logged 38 DNFs when looking for a multi-cache. So when I look for a multi-cache I DNF [38 / (144 + 38)] = 20.88% of the time

I have found 3336 traditional caches. I have logged 475 DNFs when looking for traditional caches. So when I look for a traditional cache I DNF [475 / (3336 + 475)] = 12.46% of the time

If I look just at traditionals with difficulty greater or equal to 2, I have found 1154 and logged 228 DNFs so the percent of time I DNF a traditional with difficulty greater or equal 2 goes up to 16.5 still less than the multis.

I have to look at traditionals with a difficulty of 2.5 or more (found 285, logged DNF 110 times for a DNF percentage of 22.22%) to make traditionals show up as hard to find as multis.

I would guess that if caches are rated correctly with all but the easiest multis having a difficulty of at least 2.5 or 3, that the odds of not finding a multi are about the same as similarly rated traditional. Of course I don't know if the multis were harder to find because a stage was missing or it's just harder to find several micros in a row than just one. I suspect it's a combination of both.

Edit to add: Of the 32 multis that I DNFd at least once, I eventually found 20 or 62.5%. Of the 442 traditionals I DNFd at least once I eventually found 204 or 46.15%. This might indicate that I'm less likely to DNF a multi because of a missing stage than I am to DNF a traditional because it is missing, or it might indicate that a multi owner is more likely to maintain their cache when a stage does go missing.

Edited November 27, 2007 by tozainamboku

November 27, 2007

Wow. I hadn't checked my thread in a while. Seems its ballooned into a math lesson! Oy! The math gives me a headache.

I guess I don't see the difference between going for a traditional and finding it missing and a missing stage of a multi. Or a traditional cache not being tended by its owner. In either case, you don't get to "complete" your hunt and have the satisfaction of a smiley. :shrug: I wonder if cachers who see an incomplete hunt as being frustrating and unsatisfactory would post their DNFs. Isn't that how one notifies an owner that there is a problem so they can go fix it :blink: ?

I DO see where I made some newbie assumptions concerning multis:

1) Most of them have some kind of reward in visuals or experience (i.e. nice hike in the woods)

2) Cache hiders make an effort to make each stage interesting

3) Cachers LIKE to spend time hunting for a cache (whether its 15 min. or an hour)

4) Cache hiders take responsibility in maintaining their caches (whether its a single or a multi)

5) My own, albeit limited, experience did not include any multis with missing stages

6) An inability to understand why anyone would not LOVE a moderate hike on a clear path in beautiful woods where you can soak yourself in Mama Nature

I realize not everyone, including myself, has a ton of time to spend hunting EVERY time they go out. Sometimes I go for one on my home from work...sometimes I go out for an afternoon of caching and it doesn't matter how many I might find (or not!) as long as I'm having fun looking. I might plan to go for 6 but only have time to find 3. Unfortunately my caching time is limited. It didn't occur to me that bagging a smiley would be more important than the location and hunting itself. Well larn sumthin' new 'bout this here geogaching every day!

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."

My first and only cache has gotten nothing but great reviews so far. I'm pleased.

I did note the number of stages in my listing. I also noted conditions. I don't think I listed the distance specifically but I think its clear its located in one area (don't have to drive to stages) and its somewhat discernable from the map on the listing page. I've already been out and replaced the second stage to a more stable situation. My second stage has a unusual camo and the third stage is placed in an atypical way. I've even posted photos of some of the neat things I've seen there to entice folks. I do know there are 2 DNFs not noted but both cachers cared enough to return to complete the hunt. So these things tell me I did a decent job on pleasing cachers who like that type of hunt.

It's certainly been an interesting thread...

Well...having read all this...I was questioning the wiseness of putting down yet another of those dadgum multis in the same dadgum park. But then I decided, that while it wouldn't please ALL cachers, I think it just might please the cadre of cachers who want to go to one area--one they might not have even known existed--and just cache their butts off all afternoon whilst experiencing nature as it was made to be experienced: easy and hard, green and sticky, buggie and leafy, viney over snaking creeks, amazing tree shapes and fungus, hawks and owls....all beautiful and flawed (like us all). That all sounds too tough. Most cachers want the neat and easy P&G...no fuss no muss. But you know what...we would each be happy with what we found! Me with my grand hours seeing wild things and you with your coat of many numbers. We would both be happy. But we'd have to find something to do with cachers just walking around hmmmphing because a stage was missing...

Edited November 27, 2007 by PlantAKiss

3.7k · November 27, 2007

I guess I don't see the difference between going for a traditional and finding it missing and a missing stage of a multi. Or a traditional cache not being tended by its owner. In either case, you don't get to "complete" your hunt and have the satisfaction of a smiley. :shrug: I wonder if cachers who see an incomplete hunt as being frustrating and unsatisfactory would post their DNFs. Isn't that how one notifies an owner that there is a problem so they can go fix it ?

As you don't have a problem with spending an afternoon searching for several caches and finishing up logging none (despite having found a few), then I can understand why you'll regard a multi the same as a traditional.

But I believe that most geocachers like to feel that they've "achieved" something, as it gives a certain satisfaction. So they'd tend to try and improve the chance of having something to tick off, hence the preference for a set of traditional caches rather than a single multi.

I'm speaking from a position of considerable experience here, depite a relatively modest number of caches found! I "own" a few multi caches, include one of sixteen stages, and have twice spent two days hunting a single multi: and both times I had to take flights to get to the cache area.

7.2k · November 27, 2007

.........math works well on paper, but I don't think he will find the same answer in the real application. And, yes, the fact that they are not done as often has a big effect on the maintenance of the caches, as does the placement of multis. I definately think that those are points that would have to be considered in a real analysis.
Calm down, you've only found one multi. Go out and find a bunch and then report back about real applications and analysis.

I am calm, not sure why you think I'm not. And how does me only doing one have anything to do with it? Sorry, I didn't see the "unless you've found x numbers of caches you can't have an opinion" clause. I wasn't aware that there were only 55 multis in the whole world and that made you the multi cache authority. We should all be so honored by your presence with us here today.

Being new, as I clearly stated in my posts, doesn't mean I'm wrong. I personally don't care if you like multis, or anyone else. I've never tried to get anyone to change their minds about multis, I've only addressed the idea that there were more missing multis. It's a false statement....doesn't matter how many I've done. Thanks for trying to express your perceived superiority though, it says alot about your personality.

Well, it's like this. You experience something once and only as a finder. You don't have experience as a hider of a multi. You're claiming knowledge or insight that others are refuting. These others are experienced in the topic matter, have been around for a while, and a few are some pretty smart cookies. How do you think they should respond?

Personally, I stopped reading your complete posts as it appears to me you're just being stubborn. Fizzymagic's math may be a simplification, but it is still valid. Sure, P is a static number and doesn't take into account the varying ways a stage may be create thus changing the likelihood if it ever going missing. In reality, I don't think that matters at all. Folks haven't done the cache so they don't know nature of the stages. They can only go with their past experiences. They'll probably average the likelihood of a missing stage based on the multis they've found in the past.

Regardless of whether you want to accept FM's math or use a more abstract view, the fact of the matter is multis have more locations where something might go wrong, more physical objects that might disappear, and ways for clues to become obscured. Math, logical thinking or just plain common sense should tell you that folks who are looking for a sure thing as a reason to pick certain caches for their outing will likely push multis down further on their list.

It might not be the reason, but it is a reason.

3.1k · November 27, 2007

I guess I don't see the difference between going for a traditional and finding it missing and a missing stage of a multi. Or a traditional cache not being tended by its owner. In either case, you don't get to "complete" your hunt and have the satisfaction of a smiley. :shrug:

There's a big difference between not getting to the end and getting to the end but not finding the cache. Having to stop in the middle of a multi is not the same as not finding a traditional. It's more like going for a traditional and then half way there, finding the trail closed. I said above, "finishing" is not the same as "getting a smiley" or "increasing your count". Every cache has a final destination. A broken multi prevents you from getting there, a broken traditional does not.

I wonder if cachers who see an incomplete hunt as being frustrating and unsatisfactory would post their DNFs. Isn't that how one notifies an owner that there is a problem so they can go fix it ?

Of course they do. Why wouldn't they?

38.2k · November 27, 2007

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.

Well said!

The entire argument about the likelihood of stages of a multi going missing is proof that it is largely about the numbers. If I find 2 stages of a multi then run into a missing 3rd stage, how is that any different from finding 2 traditional caches then DNFing a third? I still enjoyed 3 searches and saw 3 unique places. If it is about the journey, the fun and the hunt, the result is the same.

I've had some of my most enjoyable geocaching experiences during hunts where I came up empty. If people

let the increased possibility of a multi cache stage missing deter them from hunting it, then that's their loss. Or did I miss the memo that said that said the smiley was mandatory for it to be fun?

3.1k · November 27, 2007

The entire argument about the likelihood of stages of a multi going missing is proof that it is largely about the numbers. If I find 2 stages of a multi then run into a missing 3rd stage, how is that any different from finding 2 traditional caches then DNFing a third? I still enjoyed 3 searches and saw 3 unique places. If it is about the journey, the fun and the hunt, the result is the same.

It's not any different up to that point. Where it does differ is in the fact that you don't get to see what the hider had in store for the rest of the multi. If all the stages were traditionals, you still could. If it's about the journey, well, the journey is over prematurely.

Edited to acknowledge that with the best multis, it should be that way. They have a building-on from stage to stage, creating an experience you wouldn't get from finding the stages individually.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Dinoprophet

6.1k · November 27, 2007

.........math works well on paper, but I don't think he will find the same answer in the real application. And, yes, the fact that they are not done as often has a big effect on the maintenance of the caches, as does the placement of multis. I definately think that those are points that would have to be considered in a real analysis.

Calm down, you've only found one multi. Go out and find a bunch and then report back about real applications and analysis.

I am calm, not sure why you think I'm not. And how does me only doing one have anything to do with it? Sorry, I didn't see the "unless you've found x numbers of caches you can't have an opinion" clause. I wasn't aware that there were only 55 multis in the whole world and that made you the multi cache authority. We should all be so honored by your presence with us here today.

Being new, as I clearly stated in my posts, doesn't mean I'm wrong. I personally don't care if you like multis, or anyone else. I've never tried to get anyone to change their minds about multis, I've only addressed the idea that there were more missing multis. It's a false statement....doesn't matter how many I've done. Thanks for trying to express your perceived superiority though, it says alot about your personality.

There really is no substitute for experience. Yes, I've found 55 multis, but for some reason the number I havent found, or been able to complete is much more than that. Missing stages, stages that are eaten by bugs, or unreadable, or ones that I just cant find are the norm. Out of those 55 there are over 2 dozen that I've had to do in more than a few trips because I just cant locate the stages. But dont get me wrong, I like multis. It just takes me much longer to complete and thats all there is to it. (real world application)

Edited November 27, 2007 by 4wheelin_fool

November 27, 2007

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.

Well said!

The entire argument about the likelihood of stages of a multi going missing is proof that it is largely about the numbers. If I find 2 stages of a multi then run into a missing 3rd stage, how is that any different from finding 2 traditional caches then DNFing a third? I still enjoyed 3 searches and saw 3 unique places. If it is about the journey, the fun and the hunt, the result is the same.

I've had some of my most enjoyable geocaching experiences during hunts where I came up empty. If people

let the increased possibility of a multi cache stage missing deter them from hunting it, then that's their loss. Or did I miss the memo that said that said the smiley was mandatory for it to be fun?

Thank you! I've been trying this whole time to show why the "reason" that the caches are "missing" is bogus. A missing cache is a missing cache, and if it really bothers you, you would be equally upset about a missing traditional. For some of us it is about the journey, but other's it's clearly not. I don't have issue with those who don't care about the journey, I just wish they'd have the guts to say it!

Coyote and 4wheel: I know I'm new, I never pretended I wasn't. I'm not stubborn, and I even said in my posts (that is, if you read all of them), that my view of things might be wrong. The thing is, we all have no way of knowing who is right because we don't have the data to prove anything. Without data, we're all just guessing. You think that you are right, but if you've read the whole thread, you would see that there were plenty of people who have stated that they don't share in those same experiences. They have seen where multis are usually cared for better than traditionals and are muggled less. So, I can respect your experience (and alot more when people aren't rude about it like 4 wheel), but when someone else has just as much experience but doesn't agree with you, both opinions are left null and void. Fizzy's math is simple, and it doesn't fit a real world application. If were speaking in imaginary situations, Fizzy has is right down. But life isn't imaginary and someone confident in their answer would have no problem including what would happen in the real world. Since we're not all living in an imaginary place (although some may be :anicute: ) it's real world math that matters. If I'm being stubborn about being accurate, well I guess it's just the perfectionist in me.

24.7k · November 27, 2007

...I've only addressed the idea that there were more missing multis....

By itself that statement is probably accurate in light of the total number of caches.

The difference is that any single multi is more likely to have an issue than any single traditional. It's as simple as that. I think where you get lost in Fizzy's logic is when you move from the total number of caches to a single cache. Since we hunt them one at a time, that's the important factor.

24.7k · November 27, 2007

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.

Well said!

The entire argument about the likelihood of stages of a multi going missing is proof that it is largely about the numbers. ...

It's about finding the cache. If it was truly the journey, people would not exclaim "wow, I have found areas that I didn't know about and I like that about caching!" They could have done the journeys without the caches but never did. It's the caches that got us off the couch and into the world to see these new things.

Because it's the cache, in addition to the journey, finding the cache is part of the fun. The challenge of the hunt is the fun. The sence of triumph when you find it. These things are part of the fun, the reason we cache. Hunting for a cache that's not there? What's the point? That's not caching, that's futlity.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Renegade Knight

3.1k · November 27, 2007

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.

Well said!

The entire argument about the likelihood of stages of a multi going missing is proof that it is largely about the numbers. If I find 2 stages of a multi then run into a missing 3rd stage, how is that any different from finding 2 traditional caches then DNFing a third? I still enjoyed 3 searches and saw 3 unique places. If it is about the journey, the fun and the hunt, the result is the same.

I've had some of my most enjoyable geocaching experiences during hunts where I came up empty. If people

let the increased possibility of a multi cache stage missing deter them from hunting it, then that's their loss. Or did I miss the memo that said that said the smiley was mandatory for it to be fun?

Thank you! I've been trying this whole time to show why the "reason" that the caches are "missing" is bogus. A missing cache is a missing cache, and if it really bothers you, you would be equally upset about a missing traditional. For some of us it is about the journey, but other's it's clearly not. I don't have issue with those who don't care about the journey, I just wish they'd have the guts to say it!

It's not the missing cache that is bothersome! It's the fact that you can't move on to the next one!

Wanting to look for the next cache does not mean you don't care about the journey. Quite the contrary, it's exactly because I take the entire hunt as a big adventure that a broken multi is more frustrating than a broken traditional. My lengthy quest is interrupted. The multi is broken, the journey is over. With a broken traditional, at least you get to the ending. I'm willing to risk that frustration for a great-sounding multi, but if I am frustrated, it's not because I don't get to log a smiley or didn't appreciate the hike.

Now, if you want to say I'm picky because I don't gladly hop to the next nearest cache, no matter what it is, and I want to finish the ones that sound interesting to me, then I confess.

24.7k · November 27, 2007

...Thank you! I've been trying this whole time to show why the "reason" that the caches are "missing" is bogus. A missing cache is a missing cache, and if it really bothers you, you would be equally upset about a missing traditional....

Most ever one who has debated with you in this thread would agree that a missing cache of any kind is fustrating. That's not the issue at all. I know you understand what we are getting at, you have even used examples that prove our case, you just haven't made the connection to a cache.

If you want to think of it in terms of Reliablity.

Traditional caches are more reliable than mutli caches. My expectation when seeking a cache is to find the cache. It's part of the fun of caching. My expectation for a car is that it does the job. My Pontiac has fallen short, my Toyota shines. I trust my Toyota to work better than my Pontiac, I trust a traditional cache to be a cache I can find more than I trust a multi.

24.7k · November 27, 2007

The entire argument about the likelihood of stages of a multi going missing is proof that it is largely about the numbers. If I find 2 stages of a multi then run into a missing 3rd stage, how is that any different from finding 2 traditional caches then DNFing a third? I still enjoyed 3 searches and saw 3 unique places. If it is about the journey, the fun and the hunt, the result is the same.

It's not any different up to that point. Where it does differ is in the fact that you don't get to see what the hider had in store for the rest of the multi. If all the stages were traditionals, you still could. If it's about the journey, well, the journey is over prematurely.....

Very nice.

November 27, 2007

...I've only addressed the idea that there were more missing multis....

By itself that statement is probably accurate in light of the total number of caches.

The difference is that any single multi is more likely to have an issue than any single traditional. It's as simple as that. I think where you get lost in Fizzy's logic is when you move from the total number of caches to a single cache. Since we hunt them one at a time, that's the important factor.

Not lost, again the logic is not complete without all the variables. Fizzy was missing them....that's my point. No reason to rehash why, it's all up there in many posts above.

November 27, 2007

...Thank you! I've been trying this whole time to show why the "reason" that the caches are "missing" is bogus. A missing cache is a missing cache, and if it really bothers you, you would be equally upset about a missing traditional....

Most ever one who has debated with you in this thread would agree that a missing cache of any kind is fustrating. That's not the issue at all. I know you understand what we are getting at, you have even used examples that prove our case, you just haven't made the connection to a cache.

If you want to think of it in terms of Reliablity.

Traditional caches are more reliable than mutli caches. My expectation when seeking a cache is to find the cache. It's part of the fun of caching. My expectation for a car is that it does the job. My Pontiac has fallen short, my Toyota shines. I trust my Toyota to work better than my Pontiac, I trust a traditional cache to be a cache I can find more than I trust a multi.

But you used the analogy earlier that more parts of something equals more trouble all the time ( that's the basis of Fizzy's math). That must mean then that your Toyota is made of less parts than your Pontiac. My point was that no one buys things according to how many parts they are made of. I doubt many of know the part number difference of most things we choose btwn. Other factors must then play into why some items are more reliable......that's real world math. Since that's where were livin, that's what we gotta use.

I never said being frustrated was the issue, I was saying that I can understand their frustration.....nothin wrong with that.

24.7k · November 27, 2007

...But you used the analogy earlier that more parts of something equals more trouble all the time ( that's the basis of Fizzy's math). That must mean then that your Toyota is made of less parts than your Pontiac. My point was that no one buys things according to how many parts they are made of. I doubt many of know the part number difference of most things we choose btwn. Other factors must then play into why some items are more reliable......that's real world math. Since that's where were livin, that's what we gotta use.

I never said being frustrated was the issue, I was saying that I can understand their frustration.....nothin wrong with that.

Less parts are better. A Toyota with less parts would be more reliable than a Toyota with more moving parts. Quality kicks in when you compare a Toyota with a Chevy with the same number of parts.

People buy based on reliablity (and cost). They don't always look at the number of parts, but parts numbers do play into reliablity which they do pay attention to. That brings things back to when I seek multi's I encounter more problems and in time that kept happening to where I avoid them and prefer traditionals.

If Fizzy ran more complicated real world math, the result would still be that any one multi would be more likely to have a problem.

6.1k · November 27, 2007

I apologize as I didn't mean to come across rude when I had made my statement...

Ditto. :anicute:

2.5k · November 27, 2007

But you used the analogy earlier that more parts of something equals more trouble all the time ( that's the basis of Fizzy's math). That must mean then that your Toyota is made of less parts than your Pontiac.

The Toyota vs Pontiac analogy has nothing to do with parts. It has to do with one's personal experience. If my Nissan has never been to the garage for more than an oil change, but I'm always waiting for my Volvo to be fixed, which do you think I'm taking on a long trip? The Nissan, and not just because the Volvo has parts splayed across the mechanic's workbench. Despite what actual statistical track records might be for the two companies, I'm going to go with what has worked for me in the past.

My point was that no one buys things according to how many parts they are made of. I doubt many of know the part number difference of most things we choose btwn. Other factors must then play into why some items are more reliable......that's real world math. Since that's where were livin, that's what we gotta use.

I never said being frustrated was the issue, I was saying that I can understand their frustration.....nothin wrong with that.

Frustration is the issue, though.

If people are going to be frustrated with a certain type of cache, that type of cache is going to be less popular. Despite one of your earlier posts saying that the topic is about statistics, the topic at hand is, in fact, why multi's are less popular.

Since this is a thread about popularity, the only statistic that counts is how people perceive a cache. I think if you count the number of posters that disagree with your view, that is a pretty telling statistic.

Even if your logic is correct (which I don't think it is), the fact is that most people will perceive that a multi cache is more likely to frustrate. If they decide they don't have time to be frustrated, they will pass it by.

8k · November 27, 2007

It is true that multis are harder to find because you may DNF any one stage and thus not be able to complete the multi. Yet most would agree that you're more likely to DNF a 3 or 4 star difficulty traditional that is really well hidden (or perhaps is a needle-in-the-haystack nano) than a two part multi where you get numbers off a sign at the first part and then find an ammo can hidden under a pile of sticks. If rated correctly success at completing a multi should be roughly comparable to finding as similarly rated traditional.

The assumption that a multi is more likely to have a missing stage may not be correct. Examine why caches go missing - the main reason is that muggles find them. One reason muggles find a cache is that they see cachers looking for the cache or putting it back. Another reason is that a geocacher didn't put the cache back correctly so it is now more visible. Or there might be a geotrail to the cache caused by many visits. Since multis are more difficult and tend to take more time, they are not hunted as often. This greatly reduces the chances that any stage is compromised to muggles. Other than final, stages tend to be small and unobtrusive to be less prone to muggling, or they may be virtual so there is nothing for a muggle to take. The hider make take greater care in hiding the final than they would for a traditional. Given that they could use the stages of the virtual to take you to the "interesting" places, they may feel more free to place the final in a location that is less muggle prone. In order to make the argument that a multi is more likely to have a missing stage than a traditional, you have to make a whole bunch of assumptions on the individual hides, the number of visits, and other factors (experience of hider, likelihood of hider to do maintenance, etc.) being independent of the cache type. Think about the multis you've found and decide if you can really make these assumptions.

November 27, 2007

The fact that there are more traditional caches than multi's has no part in the decision.

I just counted my last PQ (the one which I use for actual geocaching): 99 traditionals, 401 multicaches. Would you hold up your "numbers don't matter" position in this scenario?

November 27, 2007

The entire argument about the likelihood of stages of a multi going missing is proof that it is largely about the numbers. If I find 2 stages of a multi then run into a missing 3rd stage, how is that any different from finding 2 traditional caches then DNFing a third? I still enjoyed 3 searches and saw 3 unique places. If it is about the journey, the fun and the hunt, the result is the same.

I've had some of my most enjoyable geocaching experiences during hunts where I came up empty. If people let the increased possibility of a multi cache stage missing deter them from hunting it, then that's their loss. Or did I miss the memo that said that said the smiley was mandatory for it to be fun?

What he said. :anicute: Thank you!

I just can't grasp any significant difference between a missing stage and a missing single. In each case, either you enjoyed looking for it or you didn't. If you didn't find it, you should write about your experience in the log ("I had a great time hunting for this but couldn't find it; owner might want to check on it." OR "I was very disappointed in not finding this cache. Wasn't worth my time.") and log a DNF so the owner knows there is a problem. Seems to me if cachers are logging their DNFs, the owners will know to check their caches or stages. There will always be irresponsible cache owners, multi or single.

BTW...how does one always know a stage is MISSING vs. you simply couldn't FIND it? :unsure:

Of course they do. Why wouldn't they?

If someone gets so disgruntled over a missing stage that they avoid multis in general (because they don't get a smiley for their "work"), it would just seem that perhaps, in their disgust , they would not bother to make the time to do a log for it.

3.1k · November 27, 2007

I just can't grasp any significant difference between a missing stage and a missing single. In each case, either you enjoyed looking for it or you didn't. If you didn't find it, you should write about your experience in the log ("I had a great time hunting for this but couldn't find it; owner might want to check on it." OR "I was very disappointed in not finding this cache. Wasn't worth my time.") and log a DNF so the owner knows there is a problem. Seems to me if cachers are logging their DNFs, the owners will know to check their caches or stages.

You've quoted me, so I assume you've read at least some of my posts. Let me repeat the parts where I explained the difference:

But if the other stages were traditionals, you would still be able to see them. And if the third cache was missing, you could still see the other two stages. Five traditionals, you can get to all of them whether or not the caches are all there. Five stages of a multi, if any (other than the last) is missing, you cannot.

There's a big difference between not getting to the end and getting to the end but not finding the cache. Having to stop in the middle of a multi is not the same as not finding a traditional. It's more like going for a traditional and then half way there, finding the trail closed. I said above, "finishing" is not the same as "getting a smiley" or "increasing your count". Every cache has a final destination. A broken multi prevents you from getting there, a broken traditional does not.

Where it does differ is in the fact that you don't get to see what the hider had in store for the rest of the multi. If all the stages were traditionals, you still could. If it's about the journey, well, the journey is over prematurely.

It's not the missing cache that is bothersome! It's the fact that you can't move on to the next one!

There will always be irresponsible cache owners, multi or single.

Irresponsible owners are just another reason for a cache to be broken. The point is that because multis are made up of multiple caches, it's that much more likely part of it will be broken.

BTW...how does one always know a stage is MISSING vs. you simply couldn't FIND it?

In my case, I put caches I don't find on my watchlist to see whether I should go back or it needs to be fixed. Among my 63 DNF logs, there isn't one where I can't tell you whether it was missing or I just didn't find it.

If someone gets so disgruntled over a missing stage that they avoid multis in general (because they don't get a smiley for their "work"), it would just seem that perhaps, in their disgust , they would not bother to make the time to do a log for it.

I guess if someone were that disgusted. But no one here has said they get disgruntled or disgusted. Nor has anyone said they don't still have fun. Going caching and finding a cache is pretty much always more fun than going caching and not finding a cache. "Some of my best stories involve DNFs". Yes, well, I bet more of them involve finds.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Dinoprophet

5.6k · November 28, 2007

I just can't grasp any significant difference between a missing stage and a missing single. In each case, either you enjoyed looking for it or you didn't. If you didn't find it, you should write about your experience in the log ("I had a great time hunting for this but couldn't find it; owner might want to check on it." OR "I was very disappointed in not finding this cache. Wasn't worth my time.") and log a DNF so the owner knows there is a problem. Seems to me if cachers are logging their DNFs, the owners will know to check their caches or stages.

You've quoted me, so I assume you've read at least some of my posts. Let me repeat the parts where I explained the difference:

But if the other stages were traditionals, you would still be able to see them. And if the third cache was missing, you could still see the other two stages. Five traditionals, you can get to all of them whether or not the caches are all there. Five stages of a multi, if any (other than the last) is missing, you cannot.

There's a big difference between not getting to the end and getting to the end but not finding the cache. Having to stop in the middle of a multi is not the same as not finding a traditional. It's more like going for a traditional and then half way there, finding the trail closed. I said above, "finishing" is not the same as "getting a smiley" or "increasing your count". Every cache has a final destination. A broken multi prevents you from getting there, a broken traditional does not.

Where it does differ is in the fact that you don't get to see what the hider had in store for the rest of the multi. If all the stages were traditionals, you still could. If it's about the journey, well, the journey is over prematurely.

It's not the missing cache that is bothersome! It's the fact that you can't move on to the next one!

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see things the same way. To me an unfinished hunt, is an unfinished hunt - it makes no difference if it's the middle of a multi, the end of a multi, or a traditional, I still didn't find the cache. So I move on to the next cache and hope to come back and complete the DNF another day.

One question came to mind while reading your thoughts about "finishing" - do you ever go back and find traditionals that you DNF'd? You've "finished" the journey, so is there any need to go back and find the cache? This question doesn't have much to do with the discussion, just a personal curiosity.

I went and looked at the multi's I've DNF'd. Most of them I wasn't finding the final. So my experience is somewhat different than others - I don't perceive multi's as fraught with problems with stages. And lumping all multi's and viewing them as the same isn't right. Not all multi's lead you from stage to stage, some have all stages listed and you have to gather info at each to find the final. So if there is a stage you don't complete, only that one and the final are missed (and a few times I've been able to work out the final without all stages - good guesses and deductive thinking), the rest of the journey is available.

---

BTW...how does one always know a stage is MISSING vs. you simply couldn't FIND it?

My thought too. Is the problem with the stage, or with you?

---

When I'm traveling I generally don't do multi's due to time constraints. If I'm driving long distances, I'm using caches for a break to get out and move a little. Unless the multi is all in one small area, the direction may be in the wrong direction - if I get the the final co-ords and find I have to backtrack...

But if I'm going to be in the area for a while, I'll hunt them.

7.2k · November 28, 2007

Without data, we're all just guessing.

No data? Hmmm... When someone says they don't like to go after multis because they feel they are more likely to be missing, then that's the only data you need. It's their opinion, their decision, and there's not much you can say about it no matter how you want to deny it it being true or not. That's my point.

It wouldn't be any different than if someone said they didn't like micros because [fill in the reason]. You can't turn around and say that their reason in invalid because you think micros are fun.

Additionally, it is my opinion garnered through my experience both as a finder and an owner that multis require more maintenance than a traditional. Regardless of the "data" logic should tell you if you have more locations to maintain then you have more opportunities for something to go wrong.

If none of these concepts sink in then there's not much more I can say.

7.2k · November 28, 2007

The entire argument about the likelihood of stages of a multi going missing is proof that it is largely about the numbers.

I can see your point if someone doesn't go on a multi because of the increased likelihood of a missing stage. However, wanting to complete a multi, for us, is more about the satisfaction of following through to the end. It's also probably why we'll stay a bit longer in the search.

However, if folks don't like the idea of an increased chance of not having that satisfaction, regardless of the numbers, then that's their decision to make and their opinion to have.

After all, how many folks need that cache at the end of the trail in order to get them out there? For many, caching is what got them out there on the trails to begin with.

3.1k · November 28, 2007

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see things the same way. To me an unfinished hunt, is an unfinished hunt - it makes no difference if it's the middle of a multi, the end of a multi, or a traditional, I still didn't find the cache. So I move on to the next cache and hope to come back and complete the DNF another day.

That's fair. I'm just different -- when I set out on a cache, the cache I chose usually appealled to me for some reason, and I wanted to do that one. Sometimes I'm really excited about a particular cache. If I can't finish it, that's a disappointment. If I then find out it was missing, that it wasn't a fair challenge in the first place, that's a real bummer.

One question came to mind while reading your thoughts about "finishing" - do you ever go back and find traditionals that you DNF'd? You've "finished" the journey, so is there any need to go back and find the cache? This question doesn't have much to do with the discussion, just a personal curiosity.

If I felt it was worth revisiting, sure, sometimes. You can make multiple journeys with different endings. Looking at my DNFs, I see some that I really want to go back to, and others where I think, "You know, there's really no reason to try that one again".

I went and looked at the multi's I've DNF'd. Most of them I wasn't finding the final. So my experience is somewhat different than others - I don't perceive multi's as fraught with problems with stages. And lumping all multi's and viewing them as the same isn't right. Not all multi's lead you from stage to stage, some have all stages listed and you have to gather info at each to find the final. So if there is a stage you don't complete, only that one and the final are missed (and a few times I've been able to work out the final without all stages - good guesses and deductive thinking), the rest of the journey is available.

I checked mine, too, and my experience is exactly the opposite. My DNFs are almost always an early stage. And of the ones where the cache was broken (6 times for multis) the problem was the final only one time. So you can see why I would feel differently about all this.

While I'm looking at that, I've encountered a missing traditional only one time. You can see that in my experience, broken caches are actually quite rare. Perhaps that's why I still prefer multis, despite the evidence that they're more likely to be broken (for roughly every six multis I try, one is broken; for every 200 traditionals I try, one is broken).

BTW...how does one always know a stage is MISSING vs. you simply couldn't FIND it?

My thought too. Is the problem with the stage, or with you?

I answered that, at least the way I know. I can tell you right now what happened with every one of my DNFs (that's why I can tell you I've encountered 6 broken multis and 1 broken traditional). While any DNF is disappointing, I can at least say when it wasn't missing that I had a fair shot at meeting the challenge.

By the way, disappointment or frustration does not equal lack of fun. Some people here -- not necessarily the quoted -- don't seem to get that. It's disappointing if your team loses but it's still fun to watch the game. It's disappointing to go hunting or fishing and come home empty, but you probably still had a good time. You can camp in the rain and still have a good time, but I think most people would prefer nice weather. Caching is always fun, but it's more fun when I find the cache (so after hashing it out here, I guess yes, I would rather have a smiley than a frownie. My filthy, repressed secret is out). If someone truly didn't get more pleasure out of finding a cache than not finding it, I'd have to ask why they bothered looking for the caches.

November 28, 2007

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.

I would rather do 1 multi, then 10 regular park and grabs.

8k · November 28, 2007

Without data, we're all just guessing.

No data? Hmmm... When someone says they don't like to go after multis because they feel they are more likely to be missing, then that's the only data you need. It's their opinion, their decision, and there's not much you can say about it no matter how you want to deny it it being true or not. That's my point.

It wouldn't be any different than if someone said they didn't like micros because [fill in the reason]. You can't turn around and say that their reason in invalid because you think micros are fun.

Additionally, it is my opinion garnered through my experience both as a finder and an owner that multis require more maintenance than a traditional. Regardless of the "data" logic should tell you if you have more locations to maintain then you have more opportunities for something to go wrong.

If none of these concepts sink in then there's not much more I can say.

I agree that it doesn't matter much if some says the prefer a particular type of cache over another. But several people have given a response that they don't like to do multis because there is a chance that one of stages is missing and they won't be able to complete it. It seems legitimate to discuss whether this perception is correct or not.

Some point out that there is a chance you won't find a traditional either. Does that stop you from looking for traditionals? I do know some cachers who not only skip multis but skip traditionals which haven't been found in a while or where the last log is a DNF. If you wish to skip caches that might be missing because finding the cache is part of the fun and you want to maximize your fun then that is a good reason.

I did look at data. The data was the record I keep of my personal finds and DNFs in GSAK. From my experience, I do see that I DNF multis more often than traditionals. However multis, if properly rated, have a higher average difficulty than the traditionals I've done. When adjusted for difficulty, I find that I'm as likely to DNF a traditional cache as a multi. My data only tells me the likelihood of completing a cache, not whether a stage of a cache is missing. I don't know if a stage was missing or I just couldn't find it.

Several people, including some who I would normally defer to on issues of logic and statistics, seem to think that the odds of any one stage of a multi being missing is roughly the same as the odds of a traditional being missing, and therefore the odds that at least one stage of a multi is missing is greater than the odds of a traditional being missing. This logic is flawed because it assumes that the factors that lead to a cache or stage going missing are the same for each stage of a multi as for a traditional cache. These factors include

how often the cache is visited
how well the cache/stages are hidden or camouflaged
commitment of the owner to maintain the cache
commitment of the finder to take care retrieving and replacing the cache

I think you can see that on these factors will be different for the average multi vs. the average traditional. It is far from obvious that multi is more likely to have a stage missing than a traditional to be missing.

24.7k · November 28, 2007

....I can see your point of view, and I'm not debating your experience. unfortunately, we can't take just one member's experience, mine has been the opposite, so you can see how that just doesn't work out. ....I have to disagree with your feelings on fun though too. I'm not saying that it's not how you have fun, but that it's not necessarily how everyone has fun. To me, and my caching family, it would be more fun to DNF a great multi that takes us to a beautiful spot 5 times, than to find another tupperware under a bush. I like finding the cache too. ...

You have to understand statistics to know that you could cache all your life and have a 100% beautiful expereince with multi caches and that's entirly possible. Meanwhile most people won't. It's the nature of things that there is variation. It's how you can say "I just have not seen it to be as Fizzy says" and yet Fizzy is still right.

As for the fun, you said you didn't agree and then you said that you like finding the cache. That's all I said. For me a DNF can be fun, but a key component is that there is an expectation that if I'm up to the challenge I will find the cache. Not that there is no cache to find.

That's like trying to make a full court basket ball shot. Hard, but you can have fun trying. But you can't have fun trying if there is no hoop. When I'm hunting a cache I don't know at the time, but later if I find out "oh the cache was missing, sorry" grrrr... Plus no matter how much fun I had while looking, an actual find beats a DNF any day of the week. Just like that full court shot that hits nothing but net makes your day.

8k · November 28, 2007

....I can see your point of view, and I'm not debating your experience. unfortunately, we can't take just one member's experience, mine has been the opposite, so you can see how that just doesn't work out. ....I have to disagree with your feelings on fun though too. I'm not saying that it's not how you have fun, but that it's not necessarily how everyone has fun. To me, and my caching family, it would be more fun to DNF a great multi that takes us to a beautiful spot 5 times, than to find another tupperware under a bush. I like finding the cache too. ...

You have to understand statistics to know that you could cache all your life and have a 100% beautiful expereince with multi caches and that's entirly possible. Meanwhile most people won't. It's the nature of things that there is variation. It's how you can say "I just have not seen it to be as Fizzy says" and yet Fizzy is still right.

While fizzy is usually right when it comes to statisical analysis, I think he is off the mark in this case. He has to make a lot of assumption about the similarity between multis and traditionals that I think are just plain wrong. The whole premise of this thread - that multis get visited a lot less than traditionals - is just onde of the differences that will effect the likelihood of a stage being missing. This may a false premise for deciding not to look for multis. What is probably true is that multis are generally more difficult and take more time to find than traditionals. This is the more likely reason you DNF multis more often than traditionals.

As for the fun, you said you didn't agree and then you said that you like finding the cache. That's all I said. For me a DNF can be fun, but a key component is that there is an expectation that if I'm up to the challenge I will find the cache. Not that there is no cache to find.

That's like trying to make a full court basket ball shot. Hard, but you can have fun trying. But you can't have fun trying if there is no hoop. When I'm hunting a cache I don't know at the time, but later if I find out "oh the cache was missing, sorry" grrrr... Plus no matter how much fun I had while looking, an actual find beats a DNF any day of the week. Just like that full court shot that hits nothing but net makes your day.

elmuyloco says she doesn't mind DNFing a cache that takes her to an interesting place. She says she would rather keep going back there than finding a simple traditional like tupperware in a bush in a locale that doesn't have much else to offer. Just the fact that some multis are used to take you to a place that can no longer be submitted as a virtual may mean that multis are more likely to take elmuyloco to the places she enjoys visiting than a traditional.

Unlike throwing a basketball full court to a missing hoop, missing caches are part of the game. I agree that the game relies on cache owners doing maintenance on their caches and this means checking out DNFs and even checking on their caches if there hasn't been a log in a while to verify its still there. But caches do go missing and it's hard to blame the cache or even the cache owner when this happens. If multis are more of a problem is may be that some people don't log a DNF when they DNF a stage of multi. I have a multi where I've noticed that sometimes people will email me if they are having trouble finding a stage instead logging a DNF. If it takes me a few days to get out to check on that stage it is certainly possible that someone else is looking for the cache who wouldn't have if they saw the last log was a DNF.

Edited November 28, 2007 by tozainamboku

24.7k · November 28, 2007

...Unlike throwing a basketball full court to a missing hoop, missing caches are part of the game....

Missing nets are part of the game. Even so, which hoop would you rather use? The one with a net or the one without? If you know a certain court has issues with missing nets and another one doesn't which would be your choice?

Fizzy's math just put numbers to what people have noticed. You can look at another angle. Time. People have limited time. Given that this is true in general you would expect park and grabs to have more finds than caches that require a larger time commitment. I bet the math would hold true here as well and the result would also work against multi caches.

None of this means people don't like multi's. Just they have to pick and choose and multis come out on the losing end when the choices get made on which cache to seek more often than traditionals.

24.7k · November 28, 2007

...But you used the analogy earlier that more parts of something equals more trouble all the time ( that's the basis of Fizzy's math)....

I think it's worth clarifying this. More parts means more likely to have a problem. It doesn't mean a problem every time. Someone can by a lemon of a Toyota and a Gem of a Pontiac. There is variability and I think this is a lot of what you are getting at.

By the way. You have accorded youself well in this debate. Kudos. It's been fun.

3.1k · November 28, 2007

Properly rated (ie Clayjar), no multi can be less than 3-star difficulty. While it may generally be true that it's harder to find several caches than to find one, I don't think it's true that a multi made up of two or even three 1-1/2 star difficulty hides is harder than one 3-star traditional.

Why are multis less popular?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment