Disposable Caches

[+Tequila]

This should spark some interesting conversation.

 

I spent this morning adjusting my PQ's and noticed some interesting facts.

 

1. In my area (Greater Toronto), we are averaging 500 new caches within 150 km every 6 - 8 weeks for the last two years.

 

2. Of those new caches in the last two years, the archival rate is over 10%.

 

3. The archival rate of caches over 4 years old is less than 2%.

 

I mentioned this to a friend and he used the term "disposable caching". I found it rather amusing but there seems to be a certain ring of truth to it.

 

Are other areas seeing the same trends?

[Dinoprophet]

While they're interesting stats, the implication that caches used to be hidden better does not necessarily follow from them. For all we know, caches hidden five years ago had a 50% archival rate; it's only those that survived that have a 2% archival rate today.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+sbell111]

While they're interesting stats, the implication that caches used to be hidden better does not necessarily follow from them. For all we know, caches hidden five years ago had a 50% archival rate; it's only those that survived that have a 2% archival rate today.

Agreed.

 

It's not an indicator taht anything has changed, it's just proof that those caches that are likely to disapeer quickly, alread have.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I was going to be surprised that the archival rate was only 10% but then I realized this was for all new caches not just the kind I'd consider "disposable" (chuck a micro out the window every 528 feet or mark the location of every Starbucks)

[+Tequila]

I was going to be surprised that the archival rate was only 10% but then I realized this was for all new caches not just the kind I'd consider "disposable" (chuck a micro out the window every 528 feet or mark the location of every Starbucks)

 

That is a good point. My stats actually don't take into consideration some of those because I tend to put them on my Ignore List as soon as they appear. So they don't show up in my PQ's.

 

I doubt the archival rate was close to 10% for older caches shortly after they were published but only GS could provide that kind of analysis.

 

It would be reasonable to expect caches in a high muggle area are more vulnerable and there are probably a lot more "muggle area" caches now than there was 5 years ago.

[Dinoprophet]

The reason for archiving would also have to be considered to draw any conclusions. For instance, a large park system near me hides 3-4 caches in each of their parks every year, and the previous year's get archived. Self-imposed time limits like this obviously wouldn't apply to caches that are over four years old.

 

On the other hand, looking at my early finds, many of the ones that have been archived were due to parks discovering them and not wanting them there. That doesn't happen nearly as often now because most park systems have some sort of policy -- either the caches are allowed so they stay, or they're banned and aren't placed to begin with.

 

In other words, the reasons a four year old cache might get archived today are different than the reasons a brand new cache might.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+NYPaddleCacher]

[

 

It would be reasonable to expect caches in a high muggle area are more vulnerable and there are probably a lot more "muggle area" caches now than there was 5 years ago.

 

It might also be reasonable to expect that because there are a lot more geocachers now out looking for caches the odds that they are going to get noticed by muggles has gone up. It would be interesting to take a look at the find rates (how often a cache is found) to see what impact (other than environmentally) it's having on the game.

[+pebrswel]

I am a lone geocacher myself (except for the rest of my family team) and have not done any events or belong to a local organization. I have not been looking at archivals but in a large multi park area about 30 miles northwest of me, there are over 8 new caches a week. I wonder if some of the geocaching groups tend to archive and replace with new hides in slightly different locations to allow more finds in a smaller geographical area for the local cachers. I see nothing wrong with that. Just an observation that might answer the question.

[+Unkle Fester]

I am a lone geocacher myself (except for the rest of my family team) and have not done any events or belong to a local organization. I have not been looking at archivals but in a large multi park area about 30 miles northwest of me, there are over 8 new caches a week. I wonder if some of the geocaching groups tend to archive and replace with new hides in slightly different locations to allow more finds in a smaller geographical area for the local cachers. I see nothing wrong with that. Just an observation that might answer the question.

Interesting point, never thought of that.

 

The ones I see sometimes are when a cache pops up in a park after the old one being muggled and you see things like "I really enjoyed the last 5 caches placed in this park, please be considerate of others and rehide well". Areas like that need to sit for a while, once muggles find a cache, some of them keep an eye out for the replacement (kids usually).

 

I think you have a certain archival rate in the first year of caches being published, I think in the last year I've archived 10-15% of my hides, some just don't work out as well as you would like - or think.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hmmm... From my limited experience, there do seem to be a lot more throw downs these days. A lot less thought to placement. The film cannister in the bushes at Applebys is not going to last very long. Nor in the guard rail, or next to the tree in the park. These seem destined to fail. Read the discussion from the cacher who hid the silver electrical plate on the brown lamp post in the parking lot. It stood out like a sore thumb from seventy feet away! He was surprised when it got muggled. I wasn't.

Then, yes. You have the cachers who hide lots of caches, and never do maintenance on any of them! 27 of 34 caches archived for lack of maintenance is not a good record. Some of them were actually pretty good! But maintenance was never performed. Why bother?

I have also seen the recycling. Cache has been out six months. Time to archive it, and put a new one in the same spot, so people can get a new smiley.

And the Three-Day Wonders. Yes. They've always been around. Find one cache. Hide three take-out food containers under rocks. They can actually last a month!

I'd say the modern problem is lack of thought in placement. Too many poorly placed surburban micros. It's as if they didn't plan for them to last, and don't care.

[+Knight2000]

Geocaching has evolved. Throw any old container anywhere and collect a smiley. It's all about the smileys.

[+WRASTRO]

The OP and some of the comments got me curious so I went and checked the caches I found during my first year of caching (2004). Of the 141 caches found 87 have been archived which is a 61.7% archival rate. Next I checked the caches I have found in the last twelve months. Of the 526 caches found 30 have been archived which is a 5.7% archival rate. This would indicate older caches are more than 10 times more likely to be archived than newer caches.

 

Of course this logic is even more flawed than that used in the OP, but at least it looks at some additional historical data. I did not attempt to setermine the active life of each listing, which to me would be a more interesting number. Statistics can be used to attempt to advance pretty much any theory or argument as long as you choose the statistics that support said theory or argument.

 

I would expect that 5% to 10% of caches are archived each year and they are probably a lot like electronic components. The failure rate is high early on and then is reduced significantly after the first few days, weeks or months. I doubt this has anything to do with the throwdown argument.

[Skippermark]

I have no idea to know, but based on how many come out each week and how many get archived, I'd guess that we're 10% archival rate.

 

The guidelines say that caches shouldn't be temporary and have at least a 3 month lifetime. Personally, I think 3 months is a little "light," and try to place caches that will last a few years.

[+sbell111]

Geocaching has evolved. Throw any old container anywhere and collect a smiley. It's all about the smileys.

People have been lamenting about this 'change' in the game for at least the last half dozen years.

[+Knight2000]

Geocaching has evolved. Throw any old container anywhere and collect a smiley. It's all about the smileys.

People have been lamenting about this 'change' in the game for at least the last half dozen years.

I am sure of it. It had changed before we started two years ago.

[+sbell111]

Geocaching has evolved. Throw any old container anywhere and collect a smiley. It's all about the smileys.

People have been lamenting about this 'change' in the game for at least the last half dozen years.

I am sure of it. It had changed before we started two years ago.

My point was that there never was an actual 'change'.

 

How much maintenance do you think the first cache received by it's owner? Why wasn't it in a scenic location? Why was a subpar container chosen? Why was it filled with junk? Isn't it true that it was placed for the sole reason because it is cool to find something in real life using nothing but coordinates off the internet (In other owrds, for the smiley)?

[+Castle Mischief]

PQs that I run today contain only the archived caches that I've found. How did you account for all the archived caches that you never found?

 

Sounds like you're missing a large chunk of data.

[+StarBrand]

...

My point was that there never was an actual 'change'.

 

...

You and I have debated this before to no avail but I'll repeat the local argument again here.

 

Caches placed pre 2006 in the local area had about 10% micros.

 

As of early this year - a bit over 40% of the local caches are micros.

 

If you cannot see the change. I can.

 

As for the OP - I think a small but growing percentage of caches are put out with disposability in mind. I know on my recent trip I found several containers with no swag and made out of items normal disposed of in the trash. While there has always been a few of those - I feel like more and more are going out. No proof yet but it I tend to agree with the premise in the OP.

[+Unkle Fester]

I vote for disposable cachers, ones we can throw away when we are tired of the TFTC logs.

 

Just a thought.

[+sbell111]

...

My point was that there never was an actual 'change'.

 

...

You and I have debated this before to no avail but I'll repeat the local argument again here.

 

Caches placed pre 2006 in the local area had about 10% micros.

 

As of early this year - a bit over 40% of the local caches are micros.

 

If you cannot see the change. I can.

Changes to the average cache size is not the topic of this thread.

As for the OP - I think a small but growing percentage of caches are put out with disposability in mind. I know on my recent trip I found several containers with no swag and made out of items normal disposed of in the trash. While there has always been a few of those - I feel like more and more are going out. No proof yet but it I tend to agree with the premise in the OP.

When I started caching, there were six caches listed in my area.

 

Two of them were 'long term' caches that still exist today.

 

One of them was a vacation cache that was hidden in a good container, has since been adopted locally and still exists.

 

The other three were disposable caches hidden in subpar containers. One was damaged badly when I found it, one was all but destroyed, and the other was completely gone. The cache owner archived them without making any attempt to remove them. I did a CRM on one and someone else went out and got the remains of the other.

 

By my math, that puts the disposable cache percentage way back then to be 66%. If there has been a change, I would argue that we have gotten better about making caches more permanent.

Edited August 13, 2009 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I vote for disposable cachers, ones we can throw away when we are tired of the TFTC logs.

 

Just a thought.

If you get tired of TFTC logs on your caches, you are free to archive them and throw them away.

[+Tequila]

A local cacher just archived a whole series of caches they placed in mid-June. The reason: They had a good run.

 

Didn't realize good runs were measured in weeks.

[+Renegade Knight]

This should spark some interesting conversation.

...

Are other areas seeing the same trends?

 

You have to look a bit deeper for true meaning. If a new cache survives to be 4 years old will it's archive rate drop to match or remain high?

 

The one trend I've notied is that in my finds list, the furter you go back the more caches that are archived.

[+geodarts]

If there are more cachers, there will be more archived caches. Not every location works out. Not every person maintains an interest in the game. I would rather the cache get archived, than the owner simply walk away and not maintain it or respond if there are problems with it.

[+Unkle Fester]

I vote for disposable cachers, ones we can throw away when we are tired of the TFTC logs.

 

Just a thought.

If you get tired of TFTC logs on your caches, you are free to archive them and throw them away.

I asked for that, didn't I... and for the record, I am

 

But even my good hides get the TFTC and nothing else, it really doesn't bother me, just an observation. Last I checked, about 6.8% of my finds have been archived, but about 15% of my DNFs were and another 40% +/- were replaced for being missing.

[+sbell111]

A local cacher just archived a whole series of caches they placed in mid-June. The reason: They had a good run.

 

Didn't realize good runs were measured in weeks.

It's very possible that there is more to the archival reason than is described on the cache page.

[+Unkle Fester]

A local cacher just archived a whole series of caches they placed in mid-June. The reason: They had a good run.

 

Didn't realize good runs were measured in weeks.

If there is obvious geo trails or other damage occuring, then it's smart to archive them. If it's just to replace a cache with 200 finds so people get another smiley, that's a different thread.

[+Spraginator]

I vote for disposable cachers, ones we can throw away when we are tired of the TFTC logs.

 

Just a thought.

 

If you hide your cache well and make it durable, people will apprectiate it more and stop putting logs that just say "TFTC"

 

In my view, when you hide a cache, you're basically saying "Hey, I think this place is cool and you should see it too." If your cache lives up to that, then you won't get "TFTC" logs. Also, you won't want to get rid of it because you will want to continue to share the place with others.

[+Chrysalides]

Geocaching has evolved. Throw any old container anywhere and collect a smiley. It's all about the smileys.

People have been lamenting about this 'change' in the game for at least the last half dozen years.

And will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Heck, in another couple of years, if I'm still geocaching, I'd be able to say "why, back in my days..."