Geocaching by plenty.

[+Snowriver]

Hi! I sometimes wonder why some people place so many geocaches along (for example) a trail, that they have to number them (up to 3-digits). It would (to me) seem better to place one good cache, with a story or something to see or experience, instead of placing many that doesn´t really mean a thing to anyone.

Snowriver.

[+Arnàutil]

Hi! I sometimes wonder why some people place so many geocaches along (for example) a trail, that they have to number them (up to 3-digits). It would (to me) seem better to place one good cache, with a story or something to see or experience, instead of placing many that doesn´t really mean a thing to anyone.

Snowriver.

 

I guess everyone enjoys the game in their way. I don't like trails much either, but I can understand some people like them, probably because it's an "easy" way to raise their numbers.

 

anyway you are not obliged to find them all :-)

[+Walts Hunting]

I agree with you but there has been a move to quantity for over five years. There are times when I am in my home area that I will not get all the caches along a trail since it means getting off my bike every 528 feet and that is annoying. One trail took me three times through to get them and I loved every trip. Remember, just because they are there doesn't mean you have to get them.

[+L0ne.R]

I don't mind them if they bring something to the table besides a smiley. I prefer the types of power trails that grow organically by different COs with a variety of cache containers, hiding styles and cache types. Those are rare. If it it's one CO or one group assembled solely for the purpose of creating a big PT, they tend to hide cheap micros because 100s of hides costs too much, even at a dollar a container that could cost a CO a couple of hundred dollars or more. So they hide free containers - film canisters, pill bottles, food containers (sometimes just a piece of paper in a baggie stuffed into crevice).

 

I know of one CO who places these types of walking trail power trails say he does it for the social aspect - to get groups of cachers out caching and chatting. He likes that aspect of the game. The cache and swag aspect is not important to him. I personally hope that COs would take into consideration that probably 50% of geocachers like a fuller caching experience and many geocachers cache alone or with children. Taking up miles and miles of a rail to trail with leaky micros means that the incentive to walk that trail to geocache is gone.

[+lamoracke]

try doing this challenge cache without a power trail, I am finding it very tough to find the #s I need, but I am trying as I refuse to do power trails. Have 82 of the 100. I know where a 83rd one is. Also was the discoverer of one of the #s I needed being muggled so that bit as I needed a cache with "56" in the title.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=5dde38a0-e05e-4bd5-ba9e-9658ce1c1668

[+fizzymagic]

I agree with you but there has been a move to quantity for over five years.

 

That is a statistical inevitability. Think about it: suppose that 90% of geocachers place very few high-quality caches and 10% place 10 times as many power-trail caches. In that scenario, 50% of the caches are "quantity" caches.

 

And then what happens is that newbies see the "quantity" caches, which tend to be the most accessible, and they think that is the kind of caches they are supposed to place, and the thing snowballs.

 

There is no good way to eliminate this effect; for the foreseeable future, the high-quality caches will always be a small fraction of the total number out there. It's not a sign of degradation of the sport; it's just math.

[+chillypenguin]

I agree with you but there has been a move to quantity for over five years.

 

That is a statistical inevitability.

[snip]

 

97.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

LOL

[+wimseyguy]

Let's stretch for a minute and compare geocaches to desserts and restaurants.

Why are there so many more cheap chain and fast food places out there compared to chef owned places who make everything from scratch? And I'm not just talking about fancy places, but the casual restaurants that get visited on Diners Dives and Drive-Ins?

Why do grocery stores sell so many more boxes of cheap bulk produced cookies than bake shop freshly made ones?

[+tozainamboku]

I agree with you but there has been a move to quantity for over five years.

 

That is a statistical inevitability. Think about it: suppose that 90% of geocachers place very few high-quality caches and 10% place 10 times as many power-trail caches. In that scenario, 50% of the caches are "quantity" caches.

 

And then what happens is that newbies see the "quantity" caches, which tend to be the most accessible, and they think that is the kind of caches they are supposed to place, and the thing snowballs.

 

There is no good way to eliminate this effect; for the foreseeable future, the high-quality caches will always be a small fraction of the total number out there. It's not a sign of degradation of the sport; it's just math.

I agree with this except for the a part that newbies are influenced by the preponderance of quick and easy caches so that they think this is the preferred cache type and hide them instead of the types of caches they would like.

 

If the percentage of cachers that like caching for number has gone up, it is because there are a lot more caches out there to find (including a lot more power trails) and the numbers cahers are happy. The people who profess to liking quality however, seem to only complain about how the these numbers caches are effecting them. Instead of using favorite points, shared bookmark lists, and other tools to find the "better" caches and weed-out the kinds of caches they don't like, they come and post complaints in the forum. Instead of hiding more caches of the type they like they stop all together. Some may eventually get fed up with the "new" geocaching and find a new hobby.

[+L0ne.R]

 

The people who profess to liking quality however, seem to only complain about how the these numbers caches are effecting them. Instead of using favorite points, shared bookmark lists, and other tools to find the "better" caches and weed-out the kinds of caches they don't like, they come and post complaints in the forum

 

That would be me. I like quality and complain in the forums.

 

My lament is that cheap micro PTs don't allow room for quality caches to be planted along a trail. Even when space opens up it's unlikely someone will plant a quality cache that appeals to the majority of cachers (swag size, water tight, real logbook - not a logsheet, well maintained) because it'll just get swallowed up by the numbers crowd who'll leave copy-and-paste comments like: "TFTC", "#35 of 100 today" and "Out with the Geo-gang for some group caching". It just seems selfish to exclude quality for quantity. When someone places quality then everyone gets a good caching experience.

[+Willie Wandering]

 

That is a statistical inevitability. Think about it: suppose that 90% of geocachers place very few high-quality caches and 10% place 10 times as many power-trail caches. In that scenario, 50% of the caches are "quantity" caches.

 

And then what happens is that newbies see the "quantity" caches, which tend to be the most accessible, and they think that is the kind of caches they are supposed to place, and the thing snowballs.

 

There is no good way to eliminate this effect; for the foreseeable future, the high-quality caches will always be a small fraction of the total number out there. It's not a sign of degradation of the sport; it's just math.

Without getting involved in what's a quality cache or not, I'm not sure any of your assumptions are right. The 90% - 10% ratio for a start, but particularly the section I've highlighted. Most people seem to rate caches that offer something different or special rather than 'accessible'... don't they?

[+captnemo]

Hi! I sometimes wonder why some people place so many geocaches along (for example) a trail, that they have to number them (up to 3-digits). It would (to me) seem better to place one good cache, with a story or something to see or experience, instead of placing many that doesn´t really mean a thing to anyone.

Snowriver.

I agree, however that not the trend. However this doesn't change the fact that I can play the game the way I want to. I would much prefer to find a couple of good hides instesd of 50 on a "power trail.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

try doing this challenge cache without a power trail, I am finding it very tough to find the #s I need, but I am trying as I refuse to do power trails. Have 82 of the 100. I know where a 83rd one is. Also was the discoverer of one of the #s I needed being muggled so that bit as I needed a cache with "56" in the title.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=5dde38a0-e05e-4bd5-ba9e-9658ce1c1668

 

Wow. Look at the number of finds by those that have logged a find on that cache. I didn't figure out the average but It looked that the average number of finds per cacher was probably over 10,000 and it has 67 find logs.

[+fizzymagic]

The people who profess to liking quality however, seem to only complain about how the these numbers caches are effecting[sic] them.

 

Logical fallacy #1: false generalization.

 

Instead of using favorite points, shared bookmark lists, and other tools to find the "better" caches and weed-out the kinds of caches they don't like, they come and post complaints in the forum.

 

Logical fallacy #2: strawman. Also logical fallacy #3: false dichotomy.

 

So many bad arguments in such a tiny little space. Impressive.

[+RobDJr]

I always thought that it had as much to do with geocaching demographics as anything else. The early geocachers seem to have been generally outdoor enthusiasts, the hikers, backpackers, hunters, kayakers, who loved roaming far and wide and would invest money in what was once an expensive gadget. Now, with increasing popularity and access to cheap GPS units, there are far more average joe and couch potato types who have little to no interest in long hikes or venturing far into the wild. There also seems to be many more who attach status to the numbers that the earlier cachers didn't. Each group tends to hide what they like.

 

I personally hope that somewhere down the line the popularity bubble will pop and the masses will move on to the next big thing. Then geocaching might settle back into comfortable sort of obscurity, once again populated mainly by those who enjoy more about the game than simply the numbers and the finding. At that time, quality hides might enjoy a revival.

[+Sol seaker]

I see people who are interested in quality coming out more and more. Being able to put favorite points on a cache has helped a lot. People in the past would often place caches for the numbers as well as find them for the numbers.

 

Lately I've seen more people saying they won't place a cache that won't get favorite points.

 

But there will always be those who cache by numbers.

[knowschad]

But there will always be those who cache by numbers.

It seems to me that, ironically, those that seem to put the most importance on high find counts also seem to care less about how they achieve those find counts. So-called "power trails", leap-frogging, throw-downs... anything that makes it fast and easy to raise that number. I don't get it. What is the word "power" doing in that phrase, "power trail", anyway, when the whole idea is fast, easy, and plentiful finds?

[+Glenn]

But there will always be those who cache by numbers.

It seems to me that, ironically, those that seem to put the most importance on high find counts also seem to care less about how they achieve those find counts. So-called "power trails", leap-frogging, throw-downs... anything that makes it fast and easy to raise that number. I don't get it. What is the word "power" doing in that phrase, "power trail", anyway, when the whole idea is fast, easy, and plentiful finds?

What I tend to see that people new to Geocaching equate caches found to the experience points that you find in most other games. They think, incorrectly, that someone with a high number of finds must also have a lot of experience Geocaching, know what they are doing, and have some cool stories to tell.

 

I'd hold my 300+ finds against anyone who got most of their 1500+ finds from a power trail. But the perception is that they have 5 times the experience that I do.

[knowschad]

But there will always be those who cache by numbers.

It seems to me that, ironically, those that seem to put the most importance on high find counts also seem to care less about how they achieve those find counts. So-called "power trails", leap-frogging, throw-downs... anything that makes it fast and easy to raise that number. I don't get it. What is the word "power" doing in that phrase, "power trail", anyway, when the whole idea is fast, easy, and plentiful finds?

What I tend to see that people new to Geocaching equate caches found to the experience points that you find in most other games. They think, incorrectly, that someone with a high number of finds must also have a lot of experience Geocaching, know what they are doing, and have some cool stories to tell.

 

I'd hold my 300+ finds against anyone who got most of their 1500+ finds from a power trail. But the perception is that they have 5 times the experience that I do.

I have looked at find counts in that way since I began caching 7 years ago. And I think it was pretty much true back then. Not so much nowadays, in many cases, though.

[+tozainamboku]

The people who profess to liking quality however, seem to only complain about how the these numbers caches are effecting[sic] them.

 

Logical fallacy #1: false generalization.

 

Instead of using favorite points, shared bookmark lists, and other tools to find the "better" caches and weed-out the kinds of caches they don't like, they come and post complaints in the forum.

 

Logical fallacy #2: strawman. Also logical fallacy #3: false dichotomy.

 

So many bad arguments in such a tiny little space. Impressive.

Fair enough. Recall I was just countering your comment that

And then what happens is that newbies see the "quantity" caches, which tend to be the most accessible, and they think that is the kind of caches they are supposed to place, and the thing snowballs.

I actually agree that overtime the percentage of "for the numbers" caches may be going up. However, I continue to believe that people tend to hide the kinds of caches they enjoy finding. Rather than blaming the trend on newbies who see more "for the numbers" caches and therefore hide more like these, I wanted to indicate this may be do to "quality over quantity" cachers giving up and spending their time complaining in the forum instead of hiding caches or encouraging newbies who enjoy "quality over quantity" to place more caches.

 

Regarding the second statement you quoted. Here I was just trying to point out that "quality over quantity" cachers can continue to enjoy geocaching by using various tools to find "quality" and weed-out caches they don't like. Of course, again I need to reiterate the many "quality over quantity" geocachers do use these tools and other methods to find the caches they are most likely to enjoy. When there is a thread from someone complaining, it may be useful to share your methods, rather than saying that it's just math that high-quality caches are always going to be a small fraction of the total number out there.

 

Some others have said that they are affected by the "for the numbers" caches because these take up places where a "quality" cache can be placed. I call these people "Lake Wobegon" cachers, because they somehow feel that every cache should be above average. (I know, it's not that there are below average caches but that "most" of them are below average).

 

The problem here is that there is no definition we can all agree on as to what wakes a quality cache. In fact, there are many cachers who find LPCs and other common and so-called uncreative hides, perfectly satisfactory and enjoyable. Similarly some geocachers really do prefer caches that are hidden in the mall parking lot or other easily accessible locations. And while is may seem unfair for someone to monopolize a hiking trail with a cache every 600 feet, coming up with a way for reviewers to determine whether to allow 5 caches or 25 caches is difficult.

Edited May 13, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+Snowriver]

Hi! I can see that this issue has some impact. However I can agree that some are happy by quantity and other by quality. And luckely we are not all the same!

To me quality comes first My geocaching-activity is a bit sporadic, mostly a holiday thing!

Snowriver.

[+Roman!]

Some days I wake up and want to go for a long hike and fine a 5 star cache at the end of it, other days I want to hop on my bike and find a cache packed trail and go for a long ride and other days I feel lazy and want to do a nice ey cache run in my car racking up some easy numbers.

 

What's really cool is that no matter how I feel there are caches/trails that suit my needs.

 

Be glad for diversity because if caches only existed if they were approved by me 46 out of 50 states would be cacheless.