One Multi-Cache or Several Separate Listings?

[+hudsonfam]

I haven't placed a cache yet, but I'm working on getting it together. I would like it to be a multiple step process - from what I'm thinking so far, it would be a total of 6 steps. Maybe 7.

 

I've seen some similar multi-stage caches in my area listed separately, and then some send you to 2-4 locations on the same cache listing.

 

Which do you think would be the best way for me to handle this? Are true multi-caches usually in the same general area? If I want to spread them out, should they be listed separately? And if I list them separately, should there be a "cache" reward at each one, or is it ok for it to simply contain coordinates to the next step?

 

I'm interested in 2 kinds of answers: 1: which is the proper way to handle this and 2: which way the typical geocacher would PREFER to do a multi-cache like this.

[+L0ne.R]

Which do you think would be the best way for me to handle this? Are true multi-caches usually in the same general area? If I want to spread them out, should they be listed separately? And if I list them separately, should there be a "cache" reward at each one, or is it ok for it to simply contain coordinates to the next step?

 

If you list them separately, a series of related caches rather than one multi, you'll get more visitors.

[sdarken]

If your intention is that these 6 or 7 stages be done in one visit then it's probably a true multi. Each stage only needs the coordinates to the next stage.

 

If this is more of a series of locations that are not physically located near each other then 5 or 6 traditionals (each containing a code for a mystery-type final cache) might be a better choice.

 

A 6 stage multi will get very few visitors compared to 6/7 traditionals.

[+bunkerdave]

I don't do a lot of multi caches, but it's mostly because the last few times I have tried them, I have come across missing stages. If you do something like this, it's helpful to make it known. You kind of have to promote them as "something special" and get some cachers out there doing it, then talking about it. It's a lot of fun to own a unique hide, because of the comments and feedback you get from finders, but you sometimes wait a long time between visits. If you want to spread them out over some distance, then you might even want to set up your own webpage to engage seekers a little more, if you have that expertise. I have seen some very cool adventures done this way.

[knowschad]

I haven't placed a cache yet, but I'm working on getting it together. I would like it to be a multiple step process - from what I'm thinking so far, it would be a total of 6 steps. Maybe 7.

 

I've seen some similar multi-stage caches in my area listed separately, and then some send you to 2-4 locations on the same cache listing.

 

Which do you think would be the best way for me to handle this? Are true multi-caches usually in the same general area? If I want to spread them out, should they be listed separately? And if I list them separately, should there be a "cache" reward at each one, or is it ok for it to simply contain coordinates to the next step?

 

I'm interested in 2 kinds of answers: 1: which is the proper way to handle this and 2: which way the typical geocacher would PREFER to do a multi-cache like this.

 

1) Stages of a multicaches can be miles away, but finders should be warned ahead of time, in my opinion, or else they can be frustrated when they spend the time to find the first stage(s) but are not prepared to take the trip to the final.

 

2) Single stage, by far.

 

Before you place a multi-cache, ask yourself "why a multi-stage?" What is gained by creating a multi over a traditional? Of course, "why?" is always a good question before creating any cache, but especially so with a multi.

[+bittsen]

With one multi you will get one log and the logs will be few and far between.

With 7 traditionals you will get (at least) 7 times as many logs and much more because people will search for traditionals when they won't search for multi's.

 

I decided to place a "series" of caches instead of a multi. I think it's better that way.

[+hudsonfam]

Thank you for the replies so far. Here's a few more details in response to some of the comments made so far.

 

1. Why? Because it will be based on a favorite movie of mine and it will be an adventure, collecting clues from each step to solve the final puzzle and, essentially, "save the Universe."

 

2. I would like people to go through the series in order. Getting to step #4 before #2 wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. How can I do that if it's not a multi-cache? Is there a way to prevent people from skipping steps?

 

3. There's no specific reason for me to spread them out over a large distance except that I would like for this to be something that people have to work on for a bit and enjoy the adventure. Rather than making finding the actual cache difficult, I would rather make the puzzle to get there more difficult.

 

4. I am also not sure that I know of one area large enough to accommodate all 6 or 7 steps without overlapping pre-existing caches, which I know is not allowed.

 

Still thinking. I realize I may not get as many people who want to attempt this one, but the P&Gs are a dime a dozen around here and for those few who really enjoy a good adventure (like we do!), I think they deserve something more involved.

 

Our family recently finished stage 2 of a 3 part multi and it's one of the most enjoyable cache hunts we've been on. We're super excited to get out there and finish it this weekend!

[Clan Riffster]

but the P&Gs are a dime a dozen around here

Based on just this line, I think you already have your answer. I am an advocate of multi caches. I think they're a hoot. I'm the kind of cacher who would rather spend all day earning one, well conceived smiley, than spend a day bouncing from film can to hide-a-key, nabbing 50 smileys. I think, judging by how much you enjoyed your recent multi cache experience, that you may have similar feelings. (I hope so!) As such, I think you would gain a lot more satisfaction from being the owner of a well thought out multi. As others have mentioned though, due to time constraints, concerns over missing stages and/or simple laziness (to mention a few reasons), your cache will be getting fewer logs than a bunch of traditionals. Personally, I'm OK with that. Most of my hides are what the locals refer to as "lonely".

[+JackQuest]

A multi-stage cache with any kind of distance is not going to get the volume of traffic. My multi-stage caches are straight forward go to location and get coordinates to next an so on. No mysteries , no puzzles (maybe a UTM coordinate here and there) and stage coordinates are in a traditional (which in my world is no mini micro nano thingy) size caches. If a cacher is willing to invest a couple of hours then I will try my best to reward their efforts with good swag and hopefully a trek with some challenge. A benefit to the out of the way cache has been it is "safer" so the quality of swag can be stepped up. I enjoy setting up a multi-stage so that it can be reached by a normal trail hike but you will put some distance on the boot leather or there will be decision points where there just might be a direct route but won't be easy or obvious. But I always give a rough idea of the distance and some verbage or clues in the cache description or hints that at first seem meaningless but once out on the trail make more sense and help with strategy. I also increase maintenance visits so that stage coordinates are present, clear and in good shape.

 

As an experiment I recently placed a single cache but still with a decent hike required. My theory is that it will also have low traffic, because I think the majority now prefer the quick grabs and numbers. The park now has quite the variety of caches and it is interesting to watch what draws the traffic.

 

I have thought about the super-multi-stage spread out over big distance or more than one day to complete but haven't figured out a motivating way to do it. But I would definitely warn in advance that this was the case.

[+hudsonfam]

Thank you for the replies so far. Here's a few more details in response to some of the comments made so far.

 

1. Why? Because it will be based on a favorite movie of mine and it will be an adventure, collecting clues from each step to solve the final puzzle and, essentially, "save the Universe."

 

2. I would like people to go through the series in order. Getting to step #4 before #2 wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. How can I do that if it's not a multi-cache? Is there a way to prevent people from skipping steps?

 

3. There's no specific reason for me to spread them out over a large distance except that I would like for this to be something that people have to work on for a bit and enjoy the adventure. Rather than making finding the actual cache difficult, I would rather make the puzzle to get there more difficult.

 

4. I am also not sure that I know of one area large enough to accommodate all 6 or 7 steps without overlapping pre-existing caches, which I know is not allowed.

 

Still thinking. I realize I may not get as many people who want to attempt this one, but the P&Gs are a dime a dozen around here and for those few who really enjoy a good adventure (like we do!), I think they deserve something more involved.

 

Our family recently finished stage 2 of a 3 part multi and it's one of the most enjoyable cache hunts we've been on. We're super excited to get out there and finish it this weekend!

 

and you call me evil???? lol

i like the direction you are going with this. ok, let me throw this in. maybe a "series" of themed caches, with some of them being a multi, to help keep certain steps in order. with a piece of the final puzzle in each stop.

however you must have all of them found to put together the puzzle that leads to the final.

-d

[+StarBrand]

It defenitely sounds like a typical multicache to me.

[+L0ne.R]

... with a piece of the final puzzle in each stop.

however you must have all of them found to put together the puzzle that leads to the final.

-d

 

I wonder what percentage of people do the whole series? I'm one of those that always forgets to write down the code in the box. So frustrating, I really don't want to drive back and then trek back to the box (unless it's a very nice location). Or I write down the code then promptly lose the paper.

 

So now I don't bother with finals of a series. I'll look for the individual stages and not collect the codes. If the stages of the series are micro boxes (just placed to get the codes, not to trade trinkets, which is often the case) they get filtered out of my PQ so I don't end up looking for the series even if the final is a regular size cache.