"What the game once was"

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Another approach would be to use a privacy model similar to sites like fitbit.com, where each user can choose to share various statistics with everyone, with just their "friends", or with no one. That would make geocaching.com's "friends" feature more useful. And that way, those who wanted to avoid competition could play that way, those who wanted a casual competition with their "friends" could play that way, and those who wanted to compete with everyone could play that way.

 

That actually sounds like a good idea. It would take a lot of pressure off of the people (like me) who want to be able to search for caches casually, without feeling pressure from the five-digit finders. I do wonder, though, if it would still have the effect of curbing the proliferation of power trails.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

One factor that doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet is the challenge of finding a way to get to a cache. I think that the most enjoyable caches I've found have been the ones that required a certain degree of pathfinding. I see the icon on my GPS, so I know where it is, but I've still got to figure out how to get to it. Either I need to use detailed mapping software or satellite imagery, or whatever tools I have, to find the correct path to that location. When the caches are lined up in power trails, there's no mystery to it, ever. The way to the destination is obvious, only now there's no destination, only a path. Geocaching becomes no longer a destination but a journey. I'm more of a destination kind of guy. I like the feeling I get when I've finally arrived somewhere.

[Keystone]

I removed a number of off topic posts about a particular cache that was published many years ago and is considered "grandfathered." Please stay on topic and don't bring up that subject again.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

One thing I am saying though is nobody can deny the focus on numbers has increased dramatically over the past year or so.

 

If we agree that a 100 cache power trail is low quality, are those 100 caches really more, proportionally, than the low quality caches placed in 2002? Be careful: remember that the low quality caches placed in 2002 are long gone now, so they'll be hard to count.

 

I don't know what things were like in 2002, but based on my observations, powertrails and low quality cache in general certainly seem to me to be a much higher percentage of caches than they were when I started in 2007. Remember, power trails were not allowed per the guidelines prior to 2009.

[+nthacker66]

One thing I am saying though is nobody can deny the focus on numbers has increased dramatically over the past year or so.

 

If we agree that a 100 cache power trail is low quality, are those 100 caches really more, proportionally, than the low quality caches placed in 2002? Be careful: remember that the low quality caches placed in 2002 are long gone now, so they'll be hard to count.

 

I don't know what things were like in 2002, but based on my observations, powertrails and low quality cache in general certainly seem to me to be a much higher percentage of caches than they were when I started in 2007. Remember, power trails were not allowed per the guidelines prior to 2009.

 

What was the reason for allowing them? (i was on hiatus from the sport for a couple of years during this time)

[Keystone]

People who hide power trail caches found it "fun" and so did those who found them. Saying no to a series of closely spaced caches infringed on that fun factor.

 

Reviewers found it difficult to articulate a crisp, consistent definition of a power trail where they could and should say 'no' to a series of caches hidden close together. This led to bad feelings between reviewers and cache hiders.

[knowschad]

The game is what you make it.

 

 

Not really. Very few of us play it alone for very long before we get involved with the geocaching community and the ways that others are playing the game. At least, that has been my experience.

[+nthacker66]

People who hide power trail caches found it "fun" and so did those who found them. Saying no to a series of closely spaced caches infringed on that fun factor.

 

Reviewers found it difficult to articulate a crisp, consistent definition of a power trail where they could and should say 'no' to a series of caches hidden close together. This led to bad feelings between reviewers and cache hiders.

 

Eh, I have my own personal thoughts on that I will keep to myself - because again, to the contray, my original post was not a gripe nor a complaint, just merely a reminder that I wanted to talk about because someone mentioned multicahces and a time when more thought was put behind cache placement and comparison to the powertrail placement of today. The post was never meant to debate that - as I said in my first post, to each his/her own.

 

I will never stop discussing such things on these forums because certain folks don't like me or they fear I will "misrepresent" the locale. Again quite the contrary - anyone who has bothered to get to know me past forum posting know who grateful I am to live in such a diverse cache rich area as well as some of the most creative hides in the world. I have sung the praises of area cachers to people I met out at GW10 that brought people into the area because of such priases.

Edited November 20, 2012 by nthacker66

[+NeverSummer]

Not sure of your point...

Whilst I can't speak for nthacker66, I do share a similar sentiment. For me, the frustration lies not on the gazillions of, (in my opinion), uninspired, copy/paste, crappy container hides themselves. Loads of people thoroughly enjoy rushing 529', signing a soggy log and repeating, ad nauseum. Rather, being essentially lazy, my frustration lies in the amount of effort I must expend separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff. I think it is a bit trite for the numbers oriented cachers to blow off such concerns with comments to the effect of, 'The game is what you make of it', as such statements are both factually and intellectually dishonest.

 

No cacher is an island unto themselves. Ergo, the game is what we all make it. If I hide a single cache which suits my blatantly biased aesthetics, this cache is unlikely to interfere with you, (the collective you), from hunting a nearby power trail. Yet if you hide 2,000 film cans, carpet bombing a geographic region, it will be much harder for me to find a cache I might enjoy.

 

Anyhoo, just my $0.02

CR, we agree! (?!)

 

I think the best points have been said when discussing how accessible geocaching has become, and the new explosion of cachers and caches we experience. While I can "deal with" some evolution, I can't call devolution, evolution.

 

I think it would be a very interesting study to undertake on Groundspeak's behalf. A survey needs to be sent, or statistics taken from existing processes, to find out what the trends are.

-Rate of enrollment in geocaching.com

-Find rate of geocachers over time

-Placement rate of geocachers over time

-Rate of Archival over time

 

Take all of that data, and tell me if my hypotheses might be true:

"Geocachers who have joined since 2007 are more prolific hiders and finders of geocaches than those before 2007."

"Recently enrolled geocachers are more focused on find and hide rates than veteran geocachers."

 

The latter would require more inquiry and survey questions to determine, but I wonder what the results would be.

 

My anecdotal support for the latter comes from seeing posts in the forums (who demonstrates what opinion on find rates, against their "Joined" date), and personal experience (Increase in find rate of newer geocachers over old geocachers). This is, obviously, just my observation, and not meant to blanket elsewhere. I've simply mentioned a couple hypotheses, and research methods. I'd like to see factual data back up some of these "evolutions" of the game.

 

While living in one area, I experienced numerous new geocachers who were far more motivated by numbers of find and placements than quality of either. They were also more motivated for FTF "races", even when the FTF didn't involve a FTF gift, or cache containing any nice trade swag. Displaying FTFs and racing to get higher numbers on finds and hides were key, and often the focus of discussion at events. IMO, it was a drag. I would be really interested to see actual, genuine research on the game of geocaching. Any Masters students in Outdoor Recreation looking for a thesis project?

[nonaeroterraqueous]

People who hide power trail caches found it "fun" and so did those who found them....

 

Reviewers found it difficult to articulate a crisp, consistent definition of a power trail where they could and should say 'no' to a series of caches hidden close together.

 

That sounds like a perfectly rational cause for allowing power trails, and I suspect it was the right decision.

 

Incidentally, I find that a lot of arguments are lost, either because one side could not articulate a clear definition, or because someone equivocated a definition that already existed. It's an easy but fallacious argument, when we start arguing the definitions of words, when the concepts behind those words are what's really at stake. For example, there was the question of what constitutes the definition of a cache. The original idea was a container with a log book and some swag, but someone challenged the definition, and it became just a container with a log book, if I'm not mistaken, which is how we got the micro cache. Now the container is being questioned by those who want to sign the outside of some object, and so on. Similar arguments are made over the definition of a "find." Whenever a side wants to challenge the status quo in any subject, the easiest way to do it is to challenge the definition of terms, because words are only defined by more words, and all definitions are ultimately flexible. It gives the illusion of bending reality by broadening the definitions of words. Maybe we both know what a power trail is, and maybe we both know why you don't want it, especially in certain places, but when I insist that you define your terms, and if I challenge the meaning behind your terms, then the onus is on you to defend the status quo. It's risky logic, because we end up making decisions not on real concepts, but on the confusion of technical definitions.

[+Roman!]

I think the spirit of geocaching has been lost.

 

I hope you posted a NA or at least a DNF.

 

Wasn't the first geocache a park and grab?

[+snow_rules]

I think the demise of the game was with the "log only" caches. The original and probably the first couple of years of caching had containers that could hold swag. Even if you didn't always trade it was kind of interesting of seeing what other people had left. I remember even the "small" caches were able to hold beads or state quarters that could be traded. Even after finding my first "log only" cache I thought it was strange that the container couldn't hold anything but the log. And although there were some crafty and clever hides the swag became less important, writing anything in the actual log besides your name (and possibly date) become harder to do, and the game changed to be about the numbers instead of the adventure. If there was one thing that I would require a geocache to be is that it be something that could hold swag - kind of what cache actually means.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

First of all geocaching, like baseball, has always been about the numbers with Find and Hide counts prominently displayed in a cachers profile. The one that stays with me is when someone logged one of my caches back in '03 and I noticed he had 75 finds....I was blown away. Today many have found that many in one day ( no power trail involved ).

By far the biggest change is the NUMBER of caches now in play.....much more of everything....the good, bad, and the ugly.

I really am not a big fan of power trails but I don't think they crowd out areas where a GREAT cache can be placed....the ones I've seen are right along roads and I've never seen a PT that would gobble up a cache on a trail by a waterfall. We've taken many a hike to find waterfalls and the like and its always fun to have a few to find along the way, some feel that somehow that spoils the walk ( I wonder why they cache at all....hiking by itself is great if thats what you like) and yes there have been many times over the years I wondered why there was only one cache here....trails and parks are great for caches ( we don't need a lot more LPC's.)

It seems the OP has started similar threads and the bait always gets taken......I guess keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want.

[+Snoogans]

Not sure of your point...

Whilst I can't speak for nthacker66, I do share a similar sentiment. For me, the frustration lies not on the gazillions of, (in my opinion), uninspired, copy/paste, crappy container hides themselves. Loads of people thoroughly enjoy rushing 529', signing a soggy log and repeating, ad nauseum. Rather, being essentially lazy, my frustration lies in the amount of effort I must expend separating the proverbial wheat from the chaff. I think it is a bit trite for the numbers oriented cachers to blow off such concerns with comments to the effect of, 'The game is what you make of it', as such statements are both factually and intellectually dishonest.

 

No cacher is an island unto themselves. Ergo, the game is what we all make it. If I hide a single cache which suits my blatantly biased aesthetics, this cache is unlikely to interfere with you, (the collective you), from hunting a nearby power trail. Yet if you hide 2,000 film cans, carpet bombing a geographic region, it will be much harder for me to find a cache I might enjoy.

 

Anyhoo, just my $0.02

CR, we agree! (?!)

 

I think the best points have been said when discussing how accessible geocaching has become, and the new explosion of cachers and caches we experience. While I can "deal with" some evolution, I can't call devolution, evolution.

 

I think it would be a very interesting study to undertake on Groundspeak's behalf. A survey needs to be sent, or statistics taken from existing processes, to find out what the trends are.

-Rate of enrollment in geocaching.com

-Find rate of geocachers over time

-Placement rate of geocachers over time

-Rate of Archival over time

 

Take all of that data, and tell me if my hypotheses might be true:

"Geocachers who have joined since 2007 are more prolific hiders and finders of geocaches than those before 2007."

"Recently enrolled geocachers are more focused on find and hide rates than veteran geocachers."

 

The latter would require more inquiry and survey questions to determine, but I wonder what the results would be.

 

My anecdotal support for the latter comes from seeing posts in the forums (who demonstrates what opinion on find rates, against their "Joined" date), and personal experience (Increase in find rate of newer geocachers over old geocachers). This is, obviously, just my observation, and not meant to blanket elsewhere. I've simply mentioned a couple hypotheses, and research methods. I'd like to see factual data back up some of these "evolutions" of the game.

 

While living in one area, I experienced numerous new geocachers who were far more motivated by numbers of find and placements than quality of either. They were also more motivated for FTF "races", even when the FTF didn't involve a FTF gift, or cache containing any nice trade swag. Displaying FTFs and racing to get higher numbers on finds and hides were key, and often the focus of discussion at events. IMO, it was a drag. I would be really interested to see actual, genuine research on the game of geocaching. Any Masters students in Outdoor Recreation looking for a thesis project?

 

Could it be?!

 

Is this a new branch on my tree of angst? The " Geocaching would still be great if it wasn't for all the noobs screwing it up," branch?

 

I've been enjoying this thread and noting how this post or that fits on my tree of angst.

 

Of course, Riff and I don't agree. That's par for the course and proof that the world probably won't end today.

 

I'll pose a challenge to CR that I posed to another CR (Coyote Red) many years ago. Show me 5 low quality, (in your opinion) cut and paste caches that prevented an awesome cache from being hidden within 528 feet of it.

 

If you like hikes, why would you need to sort through guardrail and parking lot hides? Just drag the geocaching.com map over the place you want to hike and look for a cache to hunt in that spot. It seems simple to me. Because that's what I do. What I've always done.

 

I'm omnivorous when it comes to caches. I don't turn my nose up at anything if it's convenient to where I am.

 

But when I'm looking for real cachin' enjoyment, I will go wayyy outta my way for something worth the gas and my choice of how to spend my free time. I go for caches with good word of mouth or lots of favorites and I look at the experience of the cachers who favorite a cache I haven't already heard about. I could care less if a cache got a favorite from the FTFer, but I take notice of a caches with favorites from finders that have thousands of finds to draw upon for experience.

 

I'll go back to quietly enjoying this thread. The whole noobs and cachers with high find counts negative slant is kinda entertaining. Seeng as I'm a long term cacher who just logged his 1,200th cache yesterday. I'm feeling kind of like the cool kid here.

[+Snoogans]

I think the spirit of geocaching has been lost.

 

I hope you posted a NA or at least a DNF.

 

Wasn't the first geocache a park and grab?

 

Um yes. Yes it was.

 

Funny story. I got a PAF call from there this year. Still gives me a chuckle.

[knowschad]

I think the spirit of geocaching has been lost.

 

I hope you posted a NA or at least a DNF.

 

Wasn't the first geocache a park and grab?

 

Um yes. Yes it was.

 

Funny story. I got a PAF call from there this year. Still gives me a chuckle.

 

Park & grab by today's standards, for sure. But back then, when few even owned a GPS, much less knew how to operate one, and most people didn't even know what a GPS was... I don't think it would have been considered it a park & grab back then, although maybe one of the really old timers here will chime in about that.

[+Snoogans]

Okay one last sidebar.

 

I never stalked the OP before now and I hope he doesn't take this as a cut because I'm merely making an observation...

 

But the first moans I heard about what geocaching once was predate him by 4 or 5 years in my personal experience.

 

It was 2004 when folks really started complaining about the decline of cache quality and about micros and parking lot hides.

 

This is all covered right here:

 

 

To summarize our "Geocaching Tree of Angst" so far:

 

We have an atmosphere rich with CO2 that is represented by one atom of "Entitlement" ( C ) and two atoms of "Expectation." (O2)

 

We have a rich medium for the growth of angst in our soil, which is represented by a common/general, "unawareness that this hobby is intrinsically linked to other people."

 

The water (H2O) that nourishes the tree is either actual or perceived (H2) negative interaction (O) between geocachers.

 

Our tree is furtilized by misconception, misinterpretation, and misunderstanding (MMM) whether actual or deliberate.

 

The roots of our tree are based in actual participation and experience in geocaching as an activity.... Hiding, finding, & moving trackables.

 

The trunk of our tree emerges over time. It is actually just individual experience that expresses itself in this way, "I know better than YOU what geocaching is supposed/intended to be all about."

 

From there our "Tree of Angst" branches out in many directions. Some branches sprout from the trunk and some branches think they are attacking the trunk from the other side, but are seemingly unaware that they are part of the same tree.

 

The named branches of our tree so far:

 

The Theory of Geocaching Evolution

 

Geocaching would be more fun for me, IF

 

Perceived Staunch Defenders of Everything Perceived Lame (P.S.D.E.P.L.)

 

Geocaching was so much better way back when

 

The Theory That It's the "OTHER GUY" Who Is Just Sucking the Fun Out of Geocaching

 

The Theory of Keeping with The Highly Subjective "Spirit of Geocaching"

 

The theory that with the ease of attaining apps for smartphone and Iphones, and a geocaching.com account "Low quality cachers" are infecting this game.

 

The theory that if Groundspeak cared more, then the subjective personal caching aesthtics would rise to meet the occasion.

 

The dreaded Forum Posting Kobayashi Maru

[+Maingray]

 

The trunk of our tree emerges over time. It is actually just individual experience that expresses itself in this way, "I know better than YOU what geocaching is supposed/intended to be all about."

 

The named branches of our tree so far:

 

The Theory of Geocaching Evolution

 

Geocaching would be more fun for me, IF

 

Perceived Staunch Defenders of Everything Perceived Lame (P.S.D.E.P.L.)

 

Geocaching was so much better way back when

 

The Theory That It's the "OTHER GUY" Who Is Just Sucking the Fun Out of Geocaching

 

The Theory of Keeping with The Highly Subjective "Spirit of Geocaching"

 

The dreaded Forum Posting Kobayashi Maru

 

And yet again, The ToA shows relevance a few years later. I think that almost every branch was represented in this thread?

 

P.S. WHY does my post say Ringbone?

 

Omnivores rule.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Maingray

[+Snoogans]

I think the spirit of geocaching has been lost.

 

I hope you posted a NA or at least a DNF.

 

Wasn't the first geocache a park and grab?

 

Um yes. Yes it was.

 

Funny story. I got a PAF call from there this year. Still gives me a chuckle.

 

Park & grab by today's standards, for sure. But back then, when few even owned a GPS, much less knew how to operate one, and most people didn't even know what a GPS was... I don't think it would have been considered it a park & grab back then, although maybe one of the really old timers here will chime in about that.

Really?

 

I thought the definition of a P&G is a cache you can drive right up to or walk a very short distance to. I'd say it passes the acid test.

 

I got my Magellan GPS 2000 back in 1995. I knew lots of folks that had GPS receivers before selective availability was turned off.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Snoogans

[+Snoogans]

 

The trunk of our tree emerges over time. It is actually just individual experience that expresses itself in this way, "I know better than YOU what geocaching is supposed/intended to be all about."

 

The named branches of our tree so far:

 

The Theory of Geocaching Evolution

 

Geocaching would be more fun for me, IF

 

Perceived Staunch Defenders of Everything Perceived Lame (P.S.D.E.P.L.)

 

Geocaching was so much better way back when

 

The Theory That It's the "OTHER GUY" Who Is Just Sucking the Fun Out of Geocaching

 

The Theory of Keeping with The Highly Subjective "Spirit of Geocaching"

 

The dreaded Forum Posting Kobayashi Maru

 

And yet again, The ToA shows relevance a few years later. I think that almost every branch was represented in this thread?

 

P.S. WHY does my post say Ringbone?

 

Omnivores rule.

 

Six years later.

 

And it's still being refined.

[+Maingray]

Of course the original stash is a park and grab. You park, and well..you grab.

 

So is Mingo.

 

Beverley is a nice hike though. So is Octopus Garden. Even choice existed in the "good ole days" but we are led to believe by some folks that every old cache was a huge ammo box at the end of a 25 mile hike with wonderful views. Even the wondrous multis stated in the OP (which I thought was the point of this thread) are usually a string of (poorly maintained) micros in the woods, albeit leading to nice ammo boxes, which on normal days are usually lambasted as being well..micros in the woods. In this case, they transcend that as being part of the caching community who set them up (to the OPs correct point.... although I disagree that that "spirit" has vanished).

 

My points? General, wide strokes of the brush that state that every cache type can be categorized as generally lame are dangerous.

 

The folks that find any cache lame are simply not caching with the right people, and likely need to either 1. read the cache description better beforehand and find something more up their alley, or 2. find some better friends who laugh at the sheer silliness at it all.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Maingray

[cezanne]

 

I really am not a big fan of power trails but I don't think they crowd out areas where a GREAT cache can be placed....the ones I've seen are right along roads and I've never seen a PT that would gobble up a cache on a trail by a waterfall.

 

Unlike you I have seen several such powertrails where it might well be that you would not call them powertrail as some people do not use this term if the caches are not all along a road or if the cache density is less than a cache per each 200m.

 

Trails like the Fly so high trail

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=|chris|

and

the by now archived Speed trail

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=Heinzspeedy

definitely spoilt nice hiking areas for other caches. Even when one assumes that a potential hider is willing to solve all those mysteries to be aware of where a free spot would be available, those hiders wh hide caches I enjoy make every effort to stay away from areas which invite for powercaching as they like me are tired to get logs of the "TFTC - number 50 of 60 on tour with A, B and C" copy and paste log style. The arrival of such trails often motivates cachers with already existing caches to archive them right away.

 

 

We've taken many a hike to find waterfalls and the like and its always fun to have a few to find along the way, some feel that somehow that spoils the walk ( I wonder why they cache at all....hiking by itself is great if thats what you like) and yes there have been many times over the years I wondered why there was only one cache here....trails and parks are great for caches ( we don't need a lot more LPC's.)

 

I can provide you with my personal answer:

I do not have much time for planning and searching for information about terrain difficulties which is an important issue for me. When I do a hiking multi cache, I can make use of the planning of someone else, can ask previous visitors I know and who know me about potential challenges for me on the way and finally I can report my experiences somewhere where it is read by some people.

I have done numerous nice hikes motivated by geocaching where without their existence I simply would stayed at home. Geocaches are somehow a kind of virtual hiking companion for me - it is a bit like if someone would ask me to join him/her. It helps me in getting started.

I prefer by far doing one 10km multi cache and writing one long log in the evening to visiting 20 traditionals on the very same 10km hike and having to write 20 logs where I cannot recall any longer what happened where on the way. I could skip some of the traditionals in between, but still I would not want to report my overall experience in one of those 20 logs as none of the separate caches deserves the report for the whole hike.

 

Cezanne

[+nthacker66]

For the record, I never once said the "spirit of geocaching is lost" that was someone else who stated that. The original post was pretty clear to me and not a complaint, gripe or a moan.

Not sure how to make that any clearer.

 

Eh, but at least some will have more material to laugh at during their lunches.

Edited November 20, 2012 by nthacker66

[+Snoogans]

Of course the original stash is a park and grab. You park, and well..you grab.

 

So is Mingo.

 

Beverley is a nice hike though. So is Octopus Garden. Even choice existed in the "good ole days" but we are led to believe by some folks that every old cache was a huge ammo box at the end of a 25 mile hike with wonderful views. Even the wondrous multis stated in the OP (which I thought was the point of this thread) are usually a string of (poorly maintained) micros in the woods, albeit leading to nice ammo boxes, which on normal days are usually lambasted as being well..micros in the woods. In this case, they transcend that as being part of the caching community who set them up (to the OPs correct point.... although I disagree that that "spirit" has vanished).

 

My points? General, wide strokes of the brush that state that every cache type can be categorized as generally lame are dangerous.

 

The folks that find any cache lame are simply not caching with the right people, and likely need to either 1. read the cache description better beforehand and find something more up their alley, or 2. find some better friends who laugh at the sheer silliness at it all.

You are quite right .

 

I recently watched picture by picture as you and and a couple other CHBs did the E.T. Highway. A caching marathon that would be total torture to me alone, but I sure would have fun in similar company. You had the best seat. In the back which is where I will be if I ever get to do that one. I loved watching the car get dirtier and dustier as you went along. A buncha nerds in their rolling nerdery. Sure looked like FUN!

[+Maingray]

A caching marathon that would be total torture to me alone, but I sure would have fun in similar company.

 

Ugh, agreed. Alone, I'd rather spork my own eyes out.

[+dprovan]

One factor that doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet is the challenge of finding a way to get to a cache. I think that the most enjoyable caches I've found have been the ones that required a certain degree of pathfinding. I see the icon on my GPS, so I know where it is, but I've still got to figure out how to get to it. Either I need to use detailed mapping software or satellite imagery, or whatever tools I have, to find the correct path to that location. When the caches are lined up in power trails, there's no mystery to it, ever. The way to the destination is obvious, only now there's no destination, only a path. Geocaching becomes no longer a destination but a journey. I'm more of a destination kind of guy. I like the feeling I get when I've finally arrived somewhere.

Me, too! In fact, this is one of the things I really love about neighborhood caches. Discovering that secret path between two neighborhoods in order to get both caches in one walk really makes my day.

[+NeverSummer]

Not sure of your point...

[snip]

No cacher is an island unto themselves. Ergo, the game is what we all make it. If I hide a single cache which suits my blatantly biased aesthetics, this cache is unlikely to interfere with you, (the collective you), from hunting a nearby power trail. Yet if you hide 2,000 film cans, carpet bombing a geographic region, it will be much harder for me to find a cache I might enjoy.[/snip]

CR, we agree! (?!)

[snip]

[snip]

Could it be?!

 

Is this a new branch on my tree of angst? The " Geocaching would still be great if it wasn't for all the noobs screwing it up," branch?

[/snip]

That's the part I was agreeing with. Note the "entire geographic area" part.

 

I think it would be a very interesting study to undertake on Groundspeak's behalf. A survey needs to be sent, or statistics taken from existing processes, to find out what the trends are.

-Rate of enrollment in geocaching.com

-Find rate of geocachers over time

-Placement rate of geocachers over time

-Rate of Archival over time

 

Take all of that data, and tell me if my hypotheses might be true:

"Geocachers who have joined since 2007 are more prolific hiders and finders of geocaches than those before 2007."

"Recently enrolled geocachers are more focused on find and hide rates than veteran geocachers."

 

The latter would require more inquiry and survey questions to determine, but I wonder what the results would be.

 

I would be really interested to see actual, genuine research on the game of geocaching. Any Masters students in Outdoor Recreation looking for a thesis project?

Forgive me for be academic, but program development and evaluation are all part of a sound business model. It would be interesting to see actual data and research to create fact. Otherwise, all this is is a bunch of guessing. I'm not saying my hypotheis is right, or necessarily my complete point of view. I'd just say that since I started gps stash hunting back in 2002, what I've seen with geocaching has changed a bit. (DUH, NeverSummer) And, once I started on geocaching.com in 2005, the game was certainly different. I remember what it meant to be a "new" geocacher on the site, and had humbling and educational experinces thanks to the great geocachers I interacted with around Oregon and Washington. Now that I've lived in more states, visited more places, and met more cachers, I see how many "new" cachers have a different take on geocaching than I (we) are used to.

 

That's not a bad thing; it's just an observation.

[+dprovan]

Take all of that data, and tell me if my hypotheses might be true:

I'm actually not that interested in what the answers are, but your hypotheses bring up some interesting points.

 

"Geocachers who have joined since 2007 are more prolific hiders and finders of geocaches than those before 2007."

I doubt anyone can match Alamogul for prolificity. He's been a member since 2002. Are you sure when people joined is that important? Or would it just reflect that cachers, in general, are more prolific today than they used to be? And virtually any statistic you care to name would be significantly greater for geocachers that joined since 2007 since the vast majority of geocachers have, in fact, joined since 2007, even if you ignore that people that joined before 2007 have had more time to slow down.

 

"Recently enrolled geocachers are more focused on find and hide rates than veteran geocachers."

Well, so first of all, defined "focused". I keep hearing about all these people focused on numbers, but I haven't run into any of them. Again, Alamogul has more finds than anyone, and his rate is very high (although I don't know how it compares to others), but I've never once gotten the impression that he finds caches for any reason other than that he enjoys finding caches. And there are several other high volume cachers in my area, and I've never heard anything that suggests they do it for the numbers. Oh, I'm sure there are number crunchers somewhere, I just see no evidence that the culture is dictated by them.

 

I suppose since no new cacher can hope to compete with those kinds of numbers, no newcomers in my area make a big deal about numbers. It's hard for most people to imagine 50 caches in a normal caching day, let alone doing it day after day.

 

Even people that know little or nothing about geocaching naturally ask me how many I've found when the subject comes up. The fact that I know the answer doesn't mean I'm focused on it.

[+NeverSummer]

Take all of that data, and tell me if my hypotheses might be true:

I'm actually not that interested in what the answers are, but your hypotheses bring up some interesting points.

 

"Geocachers who have joined since 2007 are more prolific hiders and finders of geocaches than those before 2007."

I doubt anyone can match Alamogul for prolificity. He's been a member since 2002. Are you sure when people joined is that important? Or would it just reflect that cachers, in general, are more prolific today than they used to be? And virtually any statistic you care to name would be significantly greater for geocachers that joined since 2007 since the vast majority of geocachers have, in fact, joined since 2007, even if you ignore that people that joined before 2007 have had more time to slow down.

 

"Recently enrolled geocachers are more focused on find and hide rates than veteran geocachers."

Well, so first of all, defined "focused". I keep hearing about all these people focused on numbers, but I haven't run into any of them. Again, Alamogul has more finds than anyone, and his rate is very high (although I don't know how it compares to others), but I've never once gotten the impression that he finds caches for any reason other than that he enjoys finding caches. And there are several other high volume cachers in my area, and I've never heard anything that suggests they do it for the numbers. Oh, I'm sure there are number crunchers somewhere, I just see no evidence that the culture is dictated by them.

 

I suppose since no new cacher can hope to compete with those kinds of numbers, no newcomers in my area make a big deal about numbers. It's hard for most people to imagine 50 caches in a normal caching day, let alone doing it day after day.

 

Even people that know little or nothing about geocaching naturally ask me how many I've found when the subject comes up. The fact that I know the answer doesn't mean I'm focused on it.

See my comments above. I'm not saying that I think new cachers are a bain on geocaching. (I most certainly am not jumping on the bandwagon) Perhaps I should have said:

"Take all of that data, and tell me if my these hypotheses might be true:"

I didn't mean "my" as in mine, exactly. It was hypothetical, and using myself as the example.

 

I can't say that the hypotheses above are stated in the proper manner to find the "answer" one might be looking for. (Especially the case when we acknowledge that bias exists.) The hypothesis should certainly be refined. "Focus" is not an easy word to define in the academic sense, so we would have to find a measure that gets at the question that one is trying to answer. If this were to be a social science publication, it would include a definitions section, and those definitions would be rooted in other studies and accepted definitions.

 

Also, I wasn't referencing singular senses of "prolific". I think many cachers of varying join dates have high finds, hides, or both. The longitudinal study this would take (across the entire enrollment on geocaching.com) would have to be corrected for issues like inactivity, dropping out of the game, etc to have findings that are within an acceptable error.

 

There are more cachers now than there were in 2000, yes. The number has increased. However, wouldn't it be interesting to know the rate of the increase? We would also be able to correct for "inflation" if we were measuring for "prolificicity".

 

In an area with reasonably steady cache saturation would be an ideal site to use as a case study. How quickly do cachers find caches in that area? Are newer cachers finding/hiding faster than older cachers? At what level might we see this difference? Does it even exist?

 

Until we know those basics, there is nothing but guessing going on here. Anecdotal evidence, however, presents a strong feeling on the subject it seems. But, is the activity in the forum actually representative of the broader game of geocaching? I highly doubt it. I think some actual, factual research would be valuable, and eye opening. That's all.

[Clan Riffster]

Reviewers found it difficult to articulate a crisp, consistent definition of a power trail where they could and should say 'no' to a series of caches hidden close together.

Not an argument, just a question;

Wouldn't the segment of the Guidelines stating "Don't hide a cache every 600' just because you can" cover this?

It seems, if Reviewers wanted to reject a power trail, all they'd need do is cite that Guideline.

Kinda makes me curious if the Lily Pad didn't suggest ignoring that segment, as they recognized the dollar value of power trails?

[+Roman!]

Of course the original stash is a park and grab. You park, and well..you grab.

 

Just wondering how then we have lost the spirit of geocaching, wait, wait, wait......it's those darn puzzle caches that promote sitting on your butt in front of your computer, I get it now, I agree with the OP.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Roman!

[+bjmccacher]

What I enjoy about the hobby, there is something out there for every type of cacher, if you don't like power trails, then don't do them, if you dont like hiking, then don't do it, it's great to have the options to be the cacher you want to be! When I cache with friends, we hike, we climb, we search for the hard caches. When I cache with my wife, we search out some park and grabs, some short walks, it's what she likes! Now on to the numbers, I've only hit a portion of one power trail (apprx 30 caches worth) and in less then a year and a half I have 2600+ finds, big numbers are possible now even without the trails, just due to the mass amount to find now!

[+BlueDeuce]

What I enjoy about the hobby, there is something out there for every type of cacher, if you don't like power trails, then don't do them, if you dont like hiking, then don't do it, it's great to have the options to be the cacher you want to be! When I cache with friends, we hike, we climb, we search for the hard caches. When I cache with my wife, we search out some park and grabs, some short walks, it's what she likes! Now on to the numbers, I've only hit a portion of one power trail (apprx 30 caches worth) and in less then a year and a half I have 2600+ finds, big numbers are possible now even without the trails, just due to the mass amount to find now!

 

This is an honest question. As you are a very active cacher would you say that a variety of caches continue to be placed for you to find? (even if you don't try for all of the variety)

 

 

bd

Edited November 21, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+briansnat]

Rather than throwing up hands and giving up, keep placing the kind of caches out there that you enjoy finding and spread the word about the good ones you find, to set the example for others. Leave a nice note (and perhaps a favorite point) to reward the cache owner and give them positive reinforcement for hiding more caches like that one. Talk up your favorite caches at events.

 

Nice sentiment, but today that has the same affect as a raindrop in a river.

[+briansnat]

People who hide power trail caches found it "fun" and so did those who found them. Saying no to a series of closely spaced caches infringed on that fun factor.

 

Reviewers found it difficult to articulate a crisp, consistent definition of a power trail where they could and should say 'no' to a series of caches hidden close together. This led to bad feelings between reviewers and cache hiders.

 

I agree it was hard for reviewers to articulate a "crisp, consistent definition of a power trail", but I think most reviewers were able to use Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" standard. It worked well for many years. I sincerely believe that the relaxation of that standard not only destroyed the original essence of geocaching, but that it also threatens the long term viability of our sport.

[4wheelin_fool]

People who hide power trail caches found it "fun" and so did those who found them. Saying no to a series of closely spaced caches infringed on that fun factor.

 

Reviewers found it difficult to articulate a crisp, consistent definition of a power trail where they could and should say 'no' to a series of caches hidden close together. This led to bad feelings between reviewers and cache hiders.

 

I agree it was hard for reviewers to articulate a "crisp, consistent definition of a power trail", but I think most reviewers were able to use Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" standard. It worked well for many years. I sincerely believe that the relaxation of that standard not only destroyed the original essence of geocaching, but that it also threatens the long term viability of our sport.

 

The original essence was destroyed before that.

 

While in the Catskills recently, I found a micro nicely hidden in an interesting spot. The logsheet was just a list of names that I had never heard of. I signed in even though I doubted that the owner would check to see if I did, and knew that most subsequent finders would not know or care that I signed it. About 200 feet away alongside of the trail was a clear container visible with a logbook in it and a few rocks underneath of an small cave like overhang.

 

 

It was only a logbook and a pen in a clear container not listed anywhere at all on any site. However there were some 60 entries from the previous 2 months that were very entertaining. Most people took up an entire page, and some drew pictures. It reminded me of most of the early caches that I had found, and much more interesting than many caches today. Today in most caches there are only a list of names in the logbook to prove that you were there. Its not the powertrails that did it, but micros without any logbooks or trade items. Now its a game of proving that you were there to most people who will not check or care that you were. Calls to have the number of finds hidden as an option were ignored because it was more important to catch cheaters. Calls to have micros marked as different with a separate icon to be more identifiable, were also ignored. Now here we are. Everyone must sign in, but the owner or anyone else will not likely do an audit anyhow.

 

Its still fun, but not as much. Its obvious that quantity over quality is more valued by the site owners anyway. Look on a map and there are caches everywhere! Look closely and they are mostly micros. It really doesn't make much sense to hide anything other than a micro today anyway, as there are no real trade items and no real logs in the logbook. The process has even continued over to other competing sites. I'd like to hide my number of finds, but why can't I do that? If its not displayed and someone really wants to know, they can go through and check how many pages of logs I have. The number of finds does not need to be shown.

[+tozainamboku]

There is no doubt that the game has changed. What once appealed to a few outdoorsy types who happened to already own a hand-held GPS unit for hiking, backpacking, hunting, etc. it is now something that can be played by anyone with a smartphone.

 

But the game began increasing its appeal to a broader demographic long before smartphones. Prices on GPS came down, cross-over models that could be use for both automobile navigation and geocaching became available, and later units that were marketed especially for geocaching, all allowed more people to geocache. In some cases parents of geocachers picked it up as an activity that seniors could participate in. In other cases children of geocachers spread the game to their friends and kids on bicycles began to play. Some cachers raised families and took younger children with them. All of these groups lead to marked increase in the number of urban hides.

 

A small group had always been into numbers - trying to find every cache and later as the number of caches increased and that became impossible - then trying to as many caches as possible.

 

For the early adapters, geocaching changed - first to primarily urban game but later on where many hiking trails as well as back country roads were lined with caches every tenth of a mile.

 

I'll accept some old timers have trouble with all of the new caches. Determining which of the new caches might be in more interesting places or that might have something more to the hide than the typical cache is not always easy.

 

I also understand the concerns some have that the numbers of caches themselves are making Geocaching more visible and that sometimes urban caches are placed without proper permission and result in embarrassing incidents. Perhaps there is more that needs to be done to educate cachers about placing caches so that they become even less likely to cause problems.

 

Today geocaching is a sport that appeals to a broad range of people. The game has become more urban. In some places power trails have been created to draw more cachers. But I'm not convinced that there is any evidence that number driven cachers are what has changed. That seems more to be a convenient scapegoat for old timers who find it easier to blame obsession with numbers instead of changing demographics and new technologies.

[knowschad]

I think the spirit of geocaching has been lost.

 

I hope you posted a NA or at least a DNF.

 

Wasn't the first geocache a park and grab?

 

Um yes. Yes it was.

 

Funny story. I got a PAF call from there this year. Still gives me a chuckle.

 

Park & grab by today's standards, for sure. But back then, when few even owned a GPS, much less knew how to operate one, and most people didn't even know what a GPS was... I don't think it would have been considered it a park & grab back then, although maybe one of the really old timers here will chime in about that.

Really?

 

I thought the definition of a P&G is a cache you can drive right up to or walk a very short distance to. I'd say it passes the acid test.

 

I got my Magellan GPS 2000 back in 1995. I knew lots of folks that had GPS receivers before selective availability was turned off.

 

Yes really. Drive right up to when you know how to drive right up to it. When you have to purchase a GPS, learn how to use it, and it only picks up 3 decimals of precision... it may not exactly have been a park and grab in 2001. (I think I did that right.... 0.99 would be 3 decimals, right? I'm not a math wizard!)

[knowschad]

Of course the original stash is a park and grab. You park, and well..you grab.

 

So is Mingo.

 

Beverley is a nice hike though. So is Octopus Garden. Even choice existed in the "good ole days" but we are led to believe by some folks that every old cache was a huge ammo box at the end of a 25 mile hike with wonderful views. Even the wondrous multis stated in the OP (which I thought was the point of this thread) are usually a string of (poorly maintained) micros in the woods, albeit leading to nice ammo boxes, which on normal days are usually lambasted as being well..micros in the woods. In this case, they transcend that as being part of the caching community who set them up (to the OPs correct point.... although I disagree that that "spirit" has vanished).

 

My points? General, wide strokes of the brush that state that every cache type can be categorized as generally lame are dangerous.

 

The folks that find any cache lame are simply not caching with the right people, and likely need to either 1. read the cache description better beforehand and find something more up their alley, or 2. find some better friends who laugh at the sheer silliness at it all.

Of course, "the Good Ol' Days" is different for each and every one of us. For me, that would be 2005-2006, when it comes to Geocaching. A few years earlier for you, and a few years later for many. Add to that the imaginary perception of caches not yet found (my early caching experiences were enhanced by tales from a more experienced, and somewhat fanciful friend) and it is hard to live up to those times today. I will say, though, that we have a few caches in my area that far exceed what I ever imagined, even back when I was an eager novice.

[cezanne]

Today geocaching is a sport that appeals to a broad range of people. The game has become more urban. In some places power trails have been created to draw more cachers. But I'm not convinced that there is any evidence that number driven cachers are what has changed. That seems more to be a convenient scapegoat for old timers who find it easier to blame obsession with numbers instead of changing demographics and new technologies.

 

I agree that there is not a single reason for the change of geocaching, but several different ones that interact with each other. Personally, I do not care that much about the reasons for it will not change the result which I regard as irreversible. Whatever the reasons for the development are, what I know for sure is that I identify myself with the feeling what geocaching (I do not think of it as a game) once was and that I really miss those old times and no adaption strategy whatsoever will ever change this feeling.

 

Cezanne

[+Roman!]

My grandfather used to hike 10 miles to school in the snow every day and it was up hill both ways, I'm sure glad things have changed but my dadgum kids complain if they have to walk down the hall to the bathroom. Go figure.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Roman!

[+Roman!]

10 years ago 1000 finds was amazing, now it can be done in 1 day and 50000 finds is amazing. In 10 years there will be some kind of drive by logging and 600 mile long power trails where you can log 50000 caches in a single day. 100 years from now you'll have space trails a million miles long with cachers logging tens of millions of caches in a single day, a thousand years from now who knows.

[+BlueDeuce]

 

Today geocaching is a sport that appeals to a broad range of people. The game has become more urban. In some places power trails have been created to draw more cachers. But I'm not convinced that there is any evidence that number driven cachers are what has changed. That seems more to be a convenient scapegoat for old timers who find it easier to blame obsession with numbers instead of changing demographics and new technologies.

 

So statically the more people you bring in the more common it is to have a wide range of cache types. By that I mean the more casual cacher as opposed to the off-trial type cacher who has always been in the minority.

[+dprovan]

I think some actual, factual research would be valuable, and eye opening. That's all.

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing how it would be actually useful beyond satisfying your curiosity. But I'm willing to learn: can you give me an example of a possible eye opening result and what we would do with it other than say, "That's interesting"?

 

On your other points: while it's true I reacted to your hypotheses as if they were leading questions, my basic points remain valid despite my mistake. In particular, what earthly reason is there for even trying to statistically divide newcomers from old timers? All that does is set up an us versus them mentality that's counter productive. If you want answers to what's right and wrong with caching today, I recommend looking at behavior in general rather than isolating newcomers for special consideration. It smacks of looking for scapegoats to blame for geocaching no longer being the way it was in the past.

[cezanne]

In particular, what earthly reason is there for even trying to statistically divide newcomers from old timers? All that does is set up an us versus them mentality that's counter productive. If you want answers to what's right and wrong with caching today, I recommend looking at behavior in general rather than isolating newcomers for special consideration. It smacks of looking for scapegoats to blame for geocaching no longer being the way it was in the past.

 

While I agree with you that a statistical survey of the mentioned type might not have any result other than satifying the curiosity of certain indivuals, I do not think that the key issue is what is right or wrong. I have often tried to explain newer cachers in my area the differences to former times and why I and many other oldtimers feel the way we feel as this is apparently hard to understand for most of the newer cachers in my area which have a much broader approach to geocaching than myself. For many of them the modern times are preferable by far as now apart from many lame caches there exist also many caches with creative containers or creative hideouts that did not exist back then. In my area those caches tend to receive nowadays much more interest and favourite points than long and scenic hikes or bicycle tours where at the end a standard container is hidden in a standard manner. Those latter caches are nowadays appreciated only by a very small minority while in my area previously this was the favourite cache type of say 90% of the cachers existing back then. I do know that there are areas where the trend to tricky hideouts, clever camouflage, urban hideouts etc started much earlier or was there even from the beginning. If it were like that in my area, I never would have get hooked on geocaching as I never ever liked the searching and game aspect of geocaching.

 

I do know a few newcomers in my area who have what I refer to as oldschool geocaching soul and there are very few oldtimers who are more like the typical newcomer in my area now. There are very few newcomers in my area for whom hiking and being outdoors is more important than playing a sort of hide and seek game, getting surprised by new forms of containers etc. I have found many caches in the early times which most newcomers would regard as lame as what I appreciated about these caches was that they invited me for a nice walk and led me to a peaceful place somewhere in the woods. Most of the local newcomers are not interested into the walk, but are expecting a special container or a special hideout and they prefer a cache with a special container they have not seen before which is reachable after a 50m walk from the car to the standard container at the end of a nice 10km walk. For me it is the other way round. I do not think that right and wrong are the correct terms here. I just feel like an alien in the modern geocaching world and so do many oldtimers. At local events one typically meets very few oldtimers nowadays.

 

Cezanne

[+Totem Clan]

Of course, "the Good Ol' Days" is different for each and every one of us. For me, that would be 2005-2006, when it comes to Geocaching. A few years earlier for you, and a few years later for many. Add to that the imaginary perception of caches not yet found (my early caching experiences were enhanced by tales from a more experienced, and somewhat fanciful friend) and it is hard to live up to those times today. I will say, though, that we have a few caches in my area that far exceed what I ever imagined, even back when I was an eager novice.

In March 2006 my first 3 caches that I ever found were all LPCs.

 

I think many cachers see the past through rose-colored glasses.

[+Totem Clan]

When I first started caching in 2006, in Alaska, as a hiker, 39 of my first 100 finds were micros. Many of those were P&Gs. As of this week 516, or 50.1%, of my finds are micros. At least half of those if not 3/4 are P&Gs.

 

Just some raw data. I'm sure both sides will draw their own conclusions from it.

[+Snoogans]

When I first started caching in 2006, in Alaska, as a hiker, 39 of my first 100 finds were micros. Many of those were P&Gs. As of this week 516, or 50.1%, of my finds are micros. At least half of those if not 3/4 are P&Gs.

 

Just some raw data. I'm sure both sides will draw their own conclusions from it.

 

Well, I conclude that you're still caching. That tells me that your experiences are mostly positive, or you are a masochist.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

The folks that find any cache lame are simply not caching with the right people, and likely need to either 1. read the cache description better beforehand and find something more up their alley, or 2. find some better friends who laugh at the sheer silliness at it all.

 

I didn't realize that there was a requirement to go geocaching with other people. A lot of people enjoy geocaching by themselves and enjoy finding caches without the benefit of having several others looking for the same container and then signing the logbook when someone in the group found it.

 

Not areas where geocaches can be found have dozens, if not hundreds of other geoachers nearby that one can call to go out geocaching. How does "caching with the right people" work for someone like our recent Russian contributor that lives in a city of more than 10 million people with fewer than 10 active geocachers? How does "caching with the right people" work for someone that travels to another country where they may only be 1 or 2 geocachers in the entire country?

[+BAMBOOZLE]

O.K. , I retract what I said earlier that the major change was in the sheer number of caches placed ....... here is some data.

 

First caches found in 2003 :

Regular = 60

Micro = 20

Small = 1

Virtual = 17

Large = 2

 

Last caches found ( last couple of weeks )

Regular = 3

Micro = 67

Small ( mostly micro's ) = 11

Large = 1

Earthcache = 1

 

This is a profound change from the way that things were.....we've spent so much time caching over the last 10 years through 48 states that you tend to forget just how things were.

I've never cached selectively so my finds would be a decent snapshot.

What I miss most is geocaching used to be a cloak and dagger , off the radar activity.

 

Traditionalist, we feel your pain but only a little.....we still pretty much enjoy the activity almost as much as we used to.