"What the game once was"

[+Roman!]

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.

 

I started last year and up until about my 2000th find my micro ratio was less than 15%. That's lower than you 2003 ratio, only after I decided to go for numbers did my ratio start dropping. Fact is there are more large and regular caches out there than ever before, just a lot more micros too.

[+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.

 

I started last year and up until about my 2000th find my micro ratio was less than 15%. That's lower than you 2003 ratio, only after I decided to go for numbers did my ratio start dropping. Fact is there are more large and regular caches out there than ever before, just a lot more micros too.

 

My overall says 57% micros, 15% reg after caching areas all around the country.....I think, over all, the ratio of Micro to Reg has flip flopped since the early days.

[+NeverSummer]

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.

It "smacks" of no such thing to me. It would be fact to show what is going on in the game. A benchmark of where the game has gone. There's a lot of guessing going on by people in the forums about "why the game isn't what it used to be". I see quite a bit of what opinions are based on, and that is certainly not fact. It is anecdotal, non-inventoried, non-coded information.

 

This isn't about separation of anyone from anyone or thing. It is just a longitudinal study to determine the trends that exist in the game of geocaching. I don't know why using a study would "smack of looking for scapegoats" at all. Look at Snoogans' "Tree of Angst" example. That is all based on some simple observations. However, those observations have not been categorized and assessed within a reasonable margin of error. To make broad claims, or even finite claims, it is best to be able to back it up with fact. It is like me saying "Man, it sure is cold in Alaska right now. Climate change must not be happening..." That is anecdotal, and doesn't look at the actual indicators of the situation. One must look at the proper indicators for a situation, and assess on a scope and scale that reflect the hypothesis presented. (Don't anyone dare pick up an argument about climate change, now. This was just an example)

 

Again, this isn't about isolating anyone as a scapegoat. You, once again, are letting a bias influence your interpretation of what is being asked. I am NOT implying that any one demographic is responsible for "the decline of the game". Forgive me for including "Join Date" as a metric, but it does apply for a study related to the longitudinal history and trends of geocaching since Geocaching.com launched.

 

All of this "What the game once was" stuff is on the minds of folks in this thread, obviously. Most of what we are seeing here is personal opinion. If it is an answer we are looking for, perhaps I should have worded my hypothesis as this: "Has the game of geocaching changed since September 2, 2000?" Then, the metrics I mention above still apply. This isn't a vendetta, smack of scapegoating, or the like. Just the facts, ma'am.

[+dprovan]

I started last year and up until about my 2000th find my micro ratio was less than 15%. That's lower than you 2003 ratio, only after I decided to go for numbers did my ratio start dropping. Fact is there are more large and regular caches out there than ever before, just a lot more micros too.

My overall says 57% micros, 15% reg after caching areas all around the country.....I think, over all, the ratio of Micro to Reg has flip flopped since the early days.

Yes, the ratio has changed completely, but I think Roman!'s point was that the ratio flipped only because there are many more new micros, not because there are any fewer new regulars. The game hasn't changed at the expense of what used to happened, it's merely been enhanced by the addition of a slew of new ideas, including -- yes, obviously -- caches just for the caches' sake.

[Clan Riffster]

If you don't like power trails, then don't do them,

Unfortunately, such a trite comment, (so often heard in these forums), really doesn't address the issue for those of us who are biased toward more challenging types of environments. Yeah, I realize this is my problem, since I'm the one with the bias against mindless repetition. If I hide what I consider to be an amazing hide, say, for argument's sake, an ammo can near a beautiful view, and there are no other caches nearby, it will be fairly easy for other like minded souls to get it on their radars. But if you come along and carpet bomb the area with soggy log film cans just to appease the numbers oriented crowd, my way kewl hide becomes much harder to sort out.

 

A recent trip at an observatory gave me a somewhat reasonable analogy;

 

They displayed the night sky as viewed from two different geographic locations. The first was from a mesa out west somewhere, and the second was from the downtown of a major city. In the first view, locating a specific constellation was easy. In the second view, it was all but impossible. The constellations were still there, but because of all the background light pollution, you could not find them.

[+NeverSummer]

If you don't like power trails, then don't do them,

Unfortunately, such a trite comment, (so often heard in these forums), really doesn't address the issue for those of us who are biased toward more challenging types of environments. Yeah, I realize this is my problem, since I'm the one with the bias against mindless repetition. If I hide what I consider to be an amazing hide, say, for argument's sake, an ammo can near a beautiful view, and there are no other caches nearby, it will be fairly easy for other like minded souls to get it on their radars. But if you come along and carpet bomb the area with soggy log film cans just to appease the numbers oriented crowd, my way kewl hide becomes much harder to sort out.

 

A recent trip at an observatory gave me a somewhat reasonable analogy;

 

They displayed the night sky as viewed from two different geographic locations. The first was from a mesa out west somewhere, and the second was from the downtown of a major city. In the first view, locating a specific constellation was easy. In the second view, it was all but impossible. The constellations were still there, but because of all the background light pollution, you could not find them.

That's a really interesting way to put it. I hadn't thought of that, or to use that analogy.

 

So, you're saying "Please no saturation, for saturation's sake"?

[+Roman!]

Someone needs to invent gsak for astronomy then it would be easy to filter everything except what you're looking for out.

[+geodarts]

A time honored holiday caching event in my area is no longer happening which has caused me think more about the changes over the years. Most of the local core group of cachers have stepped back in the last couple of years. It is hard to draw any larger conclusion from this, since on an individual level there are many factors -- changes in jobs, relationships, family matters, health, and interest are inevitable.

 

Changes in this game are also inevitable. All I know is that it used to be that I could use caching to take me some place interesting or on an adventure. These days, I look for something interesting and if there is a cache I will try to log it as a way of recording the larger experience. Even if I go out specifically to cache, I do not load up a general pq for the area as I once did. The kind of saturation that places caches in any parking log or on random suburban streets makes it more difficult to focus on what might be worthwhile.

 

Changes are inevitable, but the change in caching has affected the way I play this game.

[+Harry Dolphin]

What I see of "What the game once was" is the modern 'disposable cache'. It used to be that the CO would go out and repair or replace the cache if there were a problem. Now I see "Oh. It was muggled. Archive." No concern for maintenance or longevity.

[+niraD]

What I see of "What the game once was" is the modern 'disposable cache'. It used to be that the CO would go out and repair or replace the cache if there were a problem. Now I see "Oh. It was muggled. Archive." No concern for maintenance or longevity.

I don't know what it was like before 2006, but I saw cache owners automatically archiving any cache with a problem when I first started, 6+ years ago.

[+Totem Clan]

What I see of "What the game once was" is the modern 'disposable cache'. It used to be that the CO would go out and repair or replace the cache if there were a problem. Now I see "Oh. It was muggled. Archive." No concern for maintenance or longevity.

I don't know what it was like before 2006, but I saw cache owners automatically archiving any cache with a problem when I first started, 6+ years ago.

+1

[cezanne]

What I see of "What the game once was" is the modern 'disposable cache'. It used to be that the CO would go out and repair or replace the cache if there were a problem. Now I see "Oh. It was muggled. Archive." No concern for maintenance or longevity.

 

I have noticed a similar development, but it effects both new cachers and oldtimers. What definitely plays a role is that nowadays a single cache plays a neglectable role while back in the early years it was something highly esteemed in my area. As the oldtimers are regarded, often frustration about the development comes in as well. It is not even necessary that a cache gets muggled or a problem arises, most oldtimers in my area (myself included) are inclined to archive caches as soon as something happens that makes them angry (that could be heavy spoilers for difficult caches, new caches showing up very closely to long living caches which did well in showing the very same locations over years, annoying logs and other events). The new attitude appears to be the more caches are placed in an area the better so those people will never understand that not everyone is delighted if new caches are placed in areas that are already well covered by long-living and well done caches. So in this manner shorter life cycles are encouraged as sooner or later there will be fewer and fewer examples for really old caches.

 

Cezanne

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

 

This is a very nice post, thanks. Not that I personally needed validation there are more micros out there than 2003 (when we both joined), but apparently some people do. You are a good snapshot, but in reality I think most 2000-2003 joiners who are still active in the game are as well. This is because us "traditionalists" are few and far between, even of still active players from that era. I know a 2001 joiner, and a 2002 joining couple, both of whom I regularly harass (good naturedly, of course) for lifting lampskirts in parking lots. I never asked, but I'm sure they and the other old-timers I've noticed who find "anything" listed out there enjoy the activity as much as they used to when all the caches were in parks or the woods.

 

Is "off the radar activity" a polite way of saying the pre-smartphone era? Because that's what I miss most, the pre-smartphone era.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+edscott]

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.

 

Agree with Brian... Most of my hides are off trail and require at least some basic navigational skills. They are ignored by the majority of cachers.

[+Sol seaker]

I would still like to see GS make find counts private and see if power trails are still as popular as they are now. think of all the numbers people that would be in here crying if that ever happened.

 

Competition is a great motivator. We would probably lose most of our geocachers in the process, which means less income for the website. To be fair, that money is what has driven this site to be so incredibly user-friendly. You can see the effect of successful cash flow on the way this machine works.

 

Alternatively, without the public find count, there would be only people like you and me, who just want to find a box of goodies every now and then, some nice box in an interesting place. We're like wine connoisseurs; I'm surprised we don't sniff the lid when we open the cache (Ah, 2006. That was a good year). Contrast that to the beer-bong geocachers, who don't care about quality; they just want as much of the stuff as they can get, as fast as they can get it. I still like to think I might be out to find something special. Perhaps I'm being naive. I do think, though, that the only thing that could motivate the site to drive us back from the current state of things is if it leads to a loss of revenue, and so far I don't see that happening...yet. Then, again, my foresight tends to be slightly worse than a coin toss, so don't take my word for it.

 

The fact is there was a time when Groundspeak hid our find counts and everyone screamed. They had to put them back.

It was the people screaming for numbers not Groundspeak screaming for money. What do you really think would happen if GS tried to do that again? Do you really think everyone would say, "Oh good, we can finally have the game we want without the numbers?"

Do you believe in Santa Claus too?

[cezanne]

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.

 

Agree with Brian... Most of my hides are off trail and require at least some basic navigational skills. They are ignored by the majority of cachers.

 

That also matches well with my local observations.

The new type of cacher around here prefers caches like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=5c6b6970-9ad8-4538-8a10-924a2c36238a

The puzzle part mainly consists of an annoying task in counting letters and the cache is hidden at an advertisement board (park and grab) in a very boring coin of the city.

Those who want to see specially designed containers might well rely on favourite points, those interested into hiking should rather forget about them (even when taking percentages into account).

 

My example is also well suited to demonstrate that is not mainly about quality and numbers - the hiders of the cache above have invested effort into their cache and the cache is very well received by the majority of the new cachers while I personally prefer even the weakest cache in a forest that motivates to go for a walk to such a cache.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited November 22, 2012 by cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

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.

 

Agree with Brian... Most of my hides are off trail and require at least some basic navigational skills. They are ignored by the majority of cachers.

I'm not sure that Brian's analogy of a raindrop in a river is all that appropriate. Except for maybe the first year or so, caches that are off trail and more difficult to get to have always gotten fewer visitor. Once the demographic swung even a little bit toward urban caching, the urban caches and the shorter easier hikes were bound to get the most traffic. If you only have a hour or two free time to cache you're not going to start a 5 mile hike that includes path finding off-trail to get to the cache. But you can drive to several locations to find some so-called park and grabs.

 

If you still enjoy the more adventurous off-trail hides that take most of the day to get to and find, then you are unaffected by the fact that there are now many more urban caches and even more caches along the trails. If your caches are off-trail and require navigation skills then these new caches are not blocking these locations. And while you may have to walk past many micros in bushes along the trail on the way to the off-trail cache you seek, you are certainly not required to stop an look for every cache. Since higher terrain caches usually require some prep you can easily look at what you will be passing and decide if you want to stop or not before you even head out.

 

Now Brian and others have expresses concerned that the increased numbers of caches make geocaching more visible to the land managers. Perhaps so, but this is not necessarily negative. Land managers realizing the geocaching is a popular activity are more likely to promote it than ban it. However, I do agree that sometimes managers respond by creating their own rules and guidelines for geocaching. Around here that has meant a number of agencies have placed rules that require the caches be withing a a few feet of the trail (for State Parks it's 3 feet). With new rules and guidelines (from both land managers and Geocaching.com) there has been perhaps a move away from the ammo can in the hidden location where you have to navigate cross country to the smalls and micros in bushes or under piles of sticks or rocks along the trail.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

It was the people screaming for numbers not Groundspeak screaming for money. What do you really think would happen if GS tried to do that again? Do you really think everyone would say, "Oh good, we can finally have the game we want without the numbers?"

Do you believe in Santa Claus too?

 

That was a surprisingly snide reply. Was your Thanksgiving turkey not all you hoped it would be? I don't know what to make of it. I don't suppose you considered the connection between people complaining and the fact that Groundspeak wants to keep its players happy? Happy customers make for a successful business. I don't know if you realize it, but money does play an intermediate part between those two things.

 

Happy Thanksgiving, by the way. I'll worry about Santa Claus next month.

Edited November 23, 2012 by nonaeroterraqueous

[+Don_J]

It was the people screaming for numbers not Groundspeak screaming for money. What do you really think would happen if GS tried to do that again? Do you really think everyone would say, "Oh good, we can finally have the game we want without the numbers?"

Do you believe in Santa Claus too?

 

That was a surprisingly snide reply. Was your Thanksgiving turkey not all you hoped it would be? I don't know what to make of it. I don't suppose you considered the connection between people complaining and the fact that Groundspeak wants to keep its players happy? Happy customers make for a successful business. I don't know if you realize it, but money does play an intermediate part between those two things.

 

Happy Thanksgiving, by the way. I'll worry about Santa Claus next month.

 

I think the point was pretty clear. Which customer is Groundspeak most likely to appease? 20 people complaining on the forums or the 10s of thousands who logged caches today and immediately checked their find count? If you hid that number from everyone else, there would be a riot.

[+Ma & Pa]

 

I think the point was pretty clear. Which customer is Groundspeak most likely to appease? 20 people complaining on the forums or the 10s of thousands who logged caches today and immediately checked their find count? If you hid that number from everyone else, there would be a riot.

 

I am not sure about that. I want to know my numbers and love to look at our stats to see how we are doing and give ourselves goals. I dont care if others see them. I think a lot of cachers would feel the same.

[+Roman!]

 

I think the point was pretty clear. Which customer is Groundspeak most likely to appease? 20 people complaining on the forums or the 10s of thousands who logged caches today and immediately checked their find count? If you hid that number from everyone else, there would be a riot.

 

I am not sure about that. I want to know my numbers and love to look at our stats to see how we are doing and give ourselves goals. I dont care if others see them. I think a lot of cachers would feel the same.

 

If you made numbers invisible to everyone else and there was no way to compare yourself to other cachers geocaching would not exist.

 

Alexa Traffic Rank 1,533,113

 

That's a couple of thousand visits/day, all seeing how they compare to others. Do not underestimate peoples drive to be better than the next person.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Roman!

[+Panther&Pine]

 

I am not sure about that. I want to know my numbers and love to look at our stats to see how we are doing and give ourselves goals. I dont care if others see them. I think a lot of cachers would feel the same.

 

If you made numbers invisible to everyone else and there was no way to compare yourself to other cachers geocaching would not exist.

 

Alexa Traffic Rank 1,533,113

 

That's a couple of thousand visits/day, all seeing how they compare to others. Do not underestimate peoples drive to be better than the next person.

 

I'd still cache. My family would still cache, it actually would make my mother more likely to cache- although she has us log online for her (I use the data to make sure we're finding new places for all of us). I'm not sure I know anyone who caches purely for bettering their numbers over another cacher. Now personal bests and goals are a whole different matter.

I'd probably keep track of my finds in a spreadsheet, but the nice handy map and dbs does it for me. The built in stats are new (ish), used to be more basic.

[+Roman!]

 

I am not sure about that. I want to know my numbers and love to look at our stats to see how we are doing and give ourselves goals. I dont care if others see them. I think a lot of cachers would feel the same.

 

If you made numbers invisible to everyone else and there was no way to compare yourself to other cachers geocaching would not exist.

 

Alexa Traffic Rank 1,533,113

 

That's a couple of thousand visits/day, all seeing how they compare to others. Do not underestimate peoples drive to be better than the next person.

 

I'd still cache. My family would still cache, it actually would make my mother more likely to cache- although she has us log online for her (I use the data to make sure we're finding new places for all of us). I'm not sure I know anyone who caches purely for bettering their numbers over another cacher. Now personal bests and goals are a whole different matter.

I'd probably keep track of my finds in a spreadsheet, but the nice handy map and dbs does it for me. The built in stats are new (ish), used to be more basic.

 

I'm not saying no one would cache but i'm sure much fewer people would sign up, more people would lose interest and Groundspeak would not be a profitable company thus the game would fail.

[+Panther&Pine]

 

I'd still cache. My family would still cache, it actually would make my mother more likely to cache- although she has us log online for her (I use the data to make sure we're finding new places for all of us). I'm not sure I know anyone who caches purely for bettering their numbers over another cacher. Now personal bests and goals are a whole different matter.

I'd probably keep track of my finds in a spreadsheet, but the nice handy map and dbs does it for me. The built in stats are new (ish), used to be more basic.

 

I'm not saying no one would cache but i'm sure much fewer people would sign up, more people would lose interest and Groundspeak would not be a profitable company thus the game would fail.

I'm not sure how many basic members are super aware of the stats page and the data on the public profile isn't much to go on.

I'm sure GS has done some serious thinking about how many of the stats they want to show.

 

I haven't encountered anyone who's said they'll quit caching if they can't see what others are doing.

I'm not even sure how many folks know about the global rankings. It takes +200 finds to show up on one of those lists. I'm not sure how many people make it there.

 

 

Would you quit if you were the only one who could see your numbers?

[+Roman!]

 

I'd still cache. My family would still cache, it actually would make my mother more likely to cache- although she has us log online for her (I use the data to make sure we're finding new places for all of us). I'm not sure I know anyone who caches purely for bettering their numbers over another cacher. Now personal bests and goals are a whole different matter.

I'd probably keep track of my finds in a spreadsheet, but the nice handy map and dbs does it for me. The built in stats are new (ish), used to be more basic.

 

I'm not saying no one would cache but i'm sure much fewer people would sign up, more people would lose interest and Groundspeak would not be a profitable company thus the game would fail.

I'm not sure how many basic members are super aware of the stats page and the data on the public profile isn't much to go on.

I'm sure GS has done some serious thinking about how many of the stats they want to show.

 

I haven't encountered anyone who's said they'll quit caching if they can't see what others are doing.

I'm not even sure how many folks know about the global rankings. It takes +200 finds to show up on one of those lists. I'm not sure how many people make it there.

 

 

Would you quit if you were the only one who could see your numbers?

 

Generally the ones with less than 200 finds are not paying for premium membership and lackeys don't work for free.

 

And yes, if I was the only one who could see my numbers I would either quit or at the very least not pay for premium membership and cache a heck of a lot less.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Roman!

[+Panther&Pine]

I'm not saying no one would cache but i'm sure much fewer people would sign up, more people would lose interest and Groundspeak would not be a profitable company thus the game would fail.

I'm not sure how many basic members are super aware of the stats page and the data on the public profile isn't much to go on.

I'm sure GS has done some serious thinking about how many of the stats they want to show.

 

I haven't encountered anyone who's said they'll quit caching if they can't see what others are doing.

I'm not even sure how many folks know about the global rankings. It takes +200 finds to show up on one of those lists. I'm not sure how many people make it there.

 

 

Would you quit if you were the only one who could see your numbers?

 

Generally the ones with less than 200 finds are not paying for premium membership and lackeys don't work for free.

 

And yes, if I was the only one who could see my numbers I would either quit or at the very least not pay for premium membership and cache a heck of a lot less.

 

So, you personally would cache less if you weren't in competition with others.

 

Why'd you start caching? I started because it seemed like an interesting outdoor thing to do. I find the stats to be interesting (I've always like stats) but not a huge part of Geocaching. I guess I'd do the same if I did another activity instead of caching.

 

Lackeys don't work for free. They're programers working for a data managment company that sells access to queries, listing for individual items, and targeteed advertising oportunities (and other things). They also code some rather impressive reports. Lackeys may enjoy geocaching, but Groundspeak is really a tech company.

[+dprovan]

I'm not saying no one would cache but i'm sure much fewer people would sign up, more people would lose interest and Groundspeak would not be a profitable company thus the game would fail.

Really? I think it's an interesting feature that a lot of people enjoy, but I don't think more than a handful of people actually think it's more important than finding a cache.

[+Roman!]

I'm not saying no one would cache but i'm sure much fewer people would sign up, more people would lose interest and Groundspeak would not be a profitable company thus the game would fail.

I'm not sure how many basic members are super aware of the stats page and the data on the public profile isn't much to go on.

I'm sure GS has done some serious thinking about how many of the stats they want to show.

 

I haven't encountered anyone who's said they'll quit caching if they can't see what others are doing.

I'm not even sure how many folks know about the global rankings. It takes +200 finds to show up on one of those lists. I'm not sure how many people make it there.

 

 

Would you quit if you were the only one who could see your numbers?

 

Generally the ones with less than 200 finds are not paying for premium membership and lackeys don't work for free.

 

And yes, if I was the only one who could see my numbers I would either quit or at the very least not pay for premium membership and cache a heck of a lot less.

 

So, you personally would cache less if you weren't in competition with others.

 

Why'd you start caching? I started because it seemed like an interesting outdoor thing to do. I find the stats to be interesting (I've always like stats) but not a huge part of Geocaching. I guess I'd do the same if I did another activity instead of caching.

 

Lackeys don't work for free. They're programers working for a data managment company that sells access to queries, listing for individual items, and targeteed advertising oportunities (and other things). They also code some rather impressive reports. Lackeys may enjoy geocaching, but Groundspeak is really a tech company.

 

Honestly I wouldn't cache at all if it were not for the stats as I'm sure many others wouldn't either as well I'm sure even more would not pay the $30 for membership and the company would not be sustainable.

 

Why'd I start? I quit smoking and started hiking, a friend introduced me to geocaching and I incorporated it into my hiking, then, being a competitive person I focused on numbers. Take them away i'' go back to hiking and tracking peaks I've climbed or golfing and improving my 4 handicap or improving on my 3000 hours of airtime paragliding. Competing motivates me, gets me ahead and made me who I am and I guarantee I am not alone.

 

Take competition out of geocaching and the game is done.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Roman!

[+Panther&Pine]

So, you personally would cache less if you weren't in competition with others.

 

Why'd you start caching? I started because it seemed like an interesting outdoor thing to do. I find the stats to be interesting (I've always like stats) but not a huge part of Geocaching. I guess I'd do the same if I did another activity instead of caching.

 

Lackeys don't work for free. They're programers working for a data managment company that sells access to queries, listing for individual items, and targeteed advertising oportunities (and other things). They also code some rather impressive reports. Lackeys may enjoy geocaching, but Groundspeak is really a tech company.

 

Honestly I wouldn't cache at all if it were not for the stats as I'm sure many others wouldn't either as well I'm sure even more would not pay the $30 for membership and the company would not be sustainable.

Did you have a PM when to get the nice complete stats you either had to use a 3rd party or do it yourself? I don't remember when these came around, sometimes my sense of time isn't 100% concrete.

 

I'm fairly certain that PMs aren't the main revenue sorce for GS. And I'm not sure how many people count the stats as a favorite PM privalage.

 

But who knows, maybe you are in the majority.

[+Roman!]

So, you personally would cache less if you weren't in competition with others.

 

Why'd you start caching? I started because it seemed like an interesting outdoor thing to do. I find the stats to be interesting (I've always like stats) but not a huge part of Geocaching. I guess I'd do the same if I did another activity instead of caching.

 

Lackeys don't work for free. They're programers working for a data managment company that sells access to queries, listing for individual items, and targeteed advertising oportunities (and other things). They also code some rather impressive reports. Lackeys may enjoy geocaching, but Groundspeak is really a tech company.

 

Honestly I wouldn't cache at all if it were not for the stats as I'm sure many others wouldn't either as well I'm sure even more would not pay the $30 for membership and the company would not be sustainable.

Did you have a PM when to get the nice complete stats you either had to use a 3rd party or do it yourself? I don't remember when these came around, sometimes my sense of time isn't 100% concrete.

 

I'm fairly certain that PMs aren't the main revenue sorce for GS. And I'm not sure how many people count the stats as a favorite PM privalage.

 

But who knows, maybe you are in the majority.

 

But all the PM benefits lead to finding more caches easier, take away the numbers and you'll lose your subscriber base.

 

If you're talking trackables, whats looked at? Milage, more numbers.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Roman'

[+Panther&Pine]

 

But all the some PM benefits lead to finding more caches easier, take away the numbers and you'll lose your subscriber base. Take away the public numbers and I won't be a part of the subscriber base.

Fixed it for you.

[+Roman!]

 

But all the some PM benefits lead to finding more caches easier, take away the numbers and you'll lose your subscriber base. Take away the public numbers and I won't be a part of the subscriber base.

Fixed it for you.

 

So let me get this straight, you're saying if GS hid stats I'd be the only person in the world not to resubscribe to my premium membership?

[+Panther&Pine]

 

But all the some PM benefits lead to finding more caches easier, take away the numbers and you'll lose your subscriber base. Take away the public numbers and I won't be a part of the subscriber base.

Fixed it for you.

 

So let me get this straight, you're saying if GS hid stats I'd be the only person in the world not to resubscribe to my premium membership?

Nope, I'm saying that your personal position is that you would not continue your PM. No other users come to mind as having such a strong opinion of the matter.

The topic of hiding find counts has come up, although I didn't see it in the last few pages. I haven't been around in a while so not sure the last time it was discussed.

 

Maybe you should open a new topic on the matter if you want to find out how many support your position since we are a bit off topic.

[+Roman!]

 

But all the some PM benefits lead to finding more caches easier, take away the numbers and you'll lose your subscriber base. Take away the public numbers and I won't be a part of the subscriber base.

Fixed it for you.

 

So let me get this straight, you're saying if GS hid stats I'd be the only person in the world not to resubscribe to my premium membership?

Nope, I'm saying that your personal position is that you would not continue your PM. No other users come to mind as having such a strong opinion of the matter.

The topic of hiding find counts has come up, although I didn't see it in the last few pages. I haven't been around in a while so not sure the last time it was discussed.

 

Maybe you should open a new topic on the matter if you want to find out how many support your position since we are a bit off topic.

 

This is a very biased forum so you'll never get a true representation, most geocachers never visit here. But, answer this: if GS removed stats from everyones profile do you not think that a majority of PM cachers would quit paying for PM privileges?

 

i'd bet well over half would and GS could not afford to operate.

[+Panther&Pine]

 

So let me get this straight, you're saying if GS hid stats I'd be the only person in the world not to resubscribe to my premium membership?

Nope, I'm saying that your personal position is that you would not continue your PM. No other users come to mind as having such a strong opinion of the matter.

The topic of hiding find counts has come up, although I didn't see it in the last few pages. I haven't been around in a while so not sure the last time it was discussed.

 

Maybe you should open a new topic on the matter if you want to find out how many support your position since we are a bit off topic.

 

This is a very biased forum so you'll never get a true representation, most geocachers never visit here. But, answer this: if GS removed stats from everyones profile do you not think that a majority of PM cachers would quit paying for PM privileges?

 

i'd bet well over half would and GS could not afford to operate.

 

You are more than welcome to try and figure out how many PMs would drop their PMs baised only on the stats being hidden from other users. The percentage you feel would drop their memberships is much higher than I do.

 

No one is saying GS might hide all stats any time soon. Currently you do know that PMs can hide their own stats tab, right?

 

We've established that I believe that PMs are PMs for more than the stats.

[+Roman!]

 

So let me get this straight, you're saying if GS hid stats I'd be the only person in the world not to resubscribe to my premium membership?

Nope, I'm saying that your personal position is that you would not continue your PM. No other users come to mind as having such a strong opinion of the matter.

The topic of hiding find counts has come up, although I didn't see it in the last few pages. I haven't been around in a while so not sure the last time it was discussed.

 

Maybe you should open a new topic on the matter if you want to find out how many support your position since we are a bit off topic.

 

This is a very biased forum so you'll never get a true representation, most geocachers never visit here. But, answer this: if GS removed stats from everyones profile do you not think that a majority of PM cachers would quit paying for PM privileges?

 

i'd bet well over half would and GS could not afford to operate.

 

You are more than welcome to try and figure out how many PMs would drop their PMs baised only on the stats being hidden from other users. The percentage you feel would drop their memberships is much higher than I do.

 

No one is saying GS might hide all stats any time soon. Currently you do know that PMs can hide their own stats tab, right?

 

We've established that I believe that PMs are PMs for more than the stats.

 

Yes I know PMs can hide their own stats and I know of only one that does and he used to be a reviewer. I'd bet my house, my wife, my kids and everything I own that if GS hid stats then their subscriber base would fall well below a level that would sustain the company.

[Clan Riffster]

So, you're saying "Please no saturation, for saturation's sake"?

Well, to be honest, what I'm saying is more to the effect of;

"Poor, poor pitiful me. Geocaching has changed, and I'm too set in my ways to change with it. Please feel sorry for me as I gripe about the future."

But your statement sounds a lot classier.

[Clan Riffster]

Currently you do know that PMs can hide their own stats tab, right?

I learn something new every day! Thanx Moose!

I'll have to figure out how to do that.

Can I also hide my find count?

That's the stat I'd really like to do away with.

[+roundnround we go]

 

Honestly I wouldn't cache at all if it were not for the stats as I'm sure many others wouldn't either as well I'm sure even more would not pay the $30 for membership and the company would not be sustainable.

 

Why'd I start? I quit smoking and started hiking, a friend introduced me to geocaching and I incorporated it into my hiking, then, being a competitive person I focused on numbers. Take them away i'' go back to hiking and tracking peaks I've climbed or golfing and improving my 4 handicap or improving on my 3000 hours of airtime paragliding. Competing motivates me, gets me ahead and made me who I am and I guarantee I am not alone.

 

Take competition out of geocaching and the game is done.

 

I don't think there are as many PM's out there as you think that cache just for the competitive side of it. It might be a side game to many, but not the sole purpose they play. If competition was taken out of the mix they might lose a handful of memberships but not enough to hurt them. this game was sustaining itself long before it became competitive to some.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I think the point was pretty clear. Which customer is Groundspeak most likely to appease? 20 people complaining on the forums or the 10s of thousands who logged caches today and immediately checked their find count? If you hid that number from everyone else, there would be a riot.

 

And...you would lose Geocachers, which was my point. Why are people trying to argue against me with my own point? Most geocachers are motivated by the numbers competition. That was my point! All I said was that if you lose geocachers, then you lose revenue, and people get all nutty, like I'm suggesting Groundspeak is some greedy corporation that just wants to get rich off the backs of poor Geocachers.

 

No numbers = no competition

 

No competition = unhappy geocachers

 

unhappy geocachers = fewer geocachers

 

fewer geocachers = less revenue

 

less revenue = less development for GC.com, and possibly the loss of GC.com

Edited November 23, 2012 by nonaeroterraqueous

[+Panther&Pine]

Currently you do know that PMs can hide their own stats tab, right?

I learn something new every day! Thanx Moose!

I'll have to figure out how to do that.

Can I also hide my find count?

That's the stat I'd really like to do away with.

Just the stats tab.

And basic members can't see them for themselves or for others.

PMs can see their own, basic members stats, and other PMs stats that haven't hidden it.

 

Or at least that is what my sleep deprived brain is telling me.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

PMs can see their own, basic members stats, and other PMs stats that haven't hidden it.

 

I've been wondering about that. I haven't been a PM since the new stats were put into place, so I wasn't sure if PMs could see my stats or not. That's going to be very motivating, wanting to see what it is that other people can see in my profile. As soon as I finish saving for some new equipment, I'll be getting back my premium membership.

[+niraD]

No numbers = no competition

This is where I don't follow you.

 

There are plenty of geocachers who track numbers on their own that geocaching.com doesn't track. There are plenty of geocachers who track numbers on their own even though geocaching.com now tracks those numbers. I am not convinced that Groundspeak could eliminate the numbers or the competition even if they tried.

[+Don_J]

 

But all the some PM benefits lead to finding more caches easier, take away the numbers and you'll lose your subscriber base. Take away the public numbers and I won't be a part of the subscriber base.

Fixed it for you.

 

So let me get this straight, you're saying if GS hid stats I'd be the only person in the world not to resubscribe to my premium membership?

Nope, I'm saying that your personal position is that you would not continue your PM. No other users come to mind as having such a strong opinion of the matter.

The topic of hiding find counts has come up, although I didn't see it in the last few pages. I haven't been around in a while so not sure the last time it was discussed.

 

Maybe you should open a new topic on the matter if you want to find out how many support your position since we are a bit off topic.

 

This is a very biased forum so you'll never get a true representation, most geocachers never visit here. But, answer this: if GS removed stats from everyones profile do you not think that a majority of PM cachers would quit paying for PM privileges?

 

i'd bet well over half would and GS could not afford to operate.

 

Are you talking about the "Stats" tab on our profiles, or the find count that appears next to our name on every cache listing that we have logged. You appear to using the term interchangeably, yet they are two different things.

 

Most of us that have stats on our profiles still use third party programs to do so. Groundspeak introducing the stats tab a year or so ago was not really that big of a perk to us. The biggest perk of being a PM is being able to find out where the caches are that we want to seek, not bragging about it afterwards. If that disappeared tomorrow, people would complain, but I doubt that many would actually quit geocaching because of it. On the other hand, if the find count were removed, I agree that a certain segment of numbers obsessed cachers may stop caching. I also think that it would be a bad business move by Groundspeak, as these numbers obsessed cachers are adding just that, large numbers of hides and finds logs that make statistics that the company can use to grow itself.

[+NeverSummer]

 

This is a very biased forum so you'll never get a true representation, most geocachers never visit here. But, answer this: if GS removed stats from everyones profile do you not think that a majority of PM cachers would quit paying for PM privileges?

 

i'd bet well over half would and GS could not afford to operate.

Don't mistake "bias" for representative demographics. Until you can show true, honest statistics that show me that "numbers cachers" are underrepresented in the forums, I don't think you can call it a misrepresented demographic. I see plenty of others who claim that numbers are very important to them, yet they are less "in-my-face about it. But, show me the facts, and I can change my opinion.

 

I think the main part of your trolling and feelings about "bias" come from the fact that "numbers cachers", for the most part, might not come to the forums. They may not be here because they 1) are out finding caches, 2)unaware of the forums, 3) lurkers here, but do not participate, 4) not fanatical about it to the point as to feel a need to troll the forums.

 

The hard part here is that you come to the forums, and deliberately poke a hornets' nest. You like numbers, we get it. You like stats, we get it. You, however, keep coming back and putting it all in the face of the forums. I think that is why you are getting the attention you are here, and why you think there is a "bias". So do yourself a favor, and stop trolling.

 

You like numbers. You like FTF. You like competition. You also like to troll and rub things in people's faces. THAT is where you are getting in trouble, and feeling your "bias". Please, please stop.

[Clan Riffster]

Most geocachers are motivated by the numbers competition.

I think it's fairly common for people to see a trait in others, if they hold dear to that trait themselves, be it a negative trait or a positive trait. For instance, as a cop for the last few decades, I've come across a lot of kids who smoke an illegal green leafy substance. You'd be amazed at the number of users who exclaim words to the effect of, "Well, everybody does it".

 

Your particular bias is geared toward high numbers and competitive geocaching. Ergo, you tend to see that trend in others. My particular bias is in the opposite direction, focused more on quality, and not really caring about quantity. I have no idea how many finds I have, (though I suppose I could look it up if it matters), nor can I remember my last FTF. Geocaching is more of a spiritual experience for me, kinda like fishing, and introducing something like competition into that experience would be akin to having my dog piddle on my hiking boots. It's just icky.

 

Because of my bias, I don't see the same trend you do. Of the hundreds of geocachers I know personally, I could count on two hands the number who really care about high numbers and beating others to ground zero. I can't even visualize someone, whether they liked numbers or not, who would actually quit this game if those details became hidden by Groundspeak.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Clan Riffster

[+dprovan]

But, answer this: if GS removed stats from everyones profile do you not think that a majority of PM cachers would quit paying for PM privileges?

No, I don't think many PMs at all would quit paying. I don't really think most of them would even notice the change.

 

This is a very biased forum so you'll never get a true representation, most geocachers never visit here.

I can't deny the forums are probably a very biased sample, but my guess would be that the bias would favor the most competitive cachers. I think most cachers are only superficially aware of other cachers and are mainly focused on their personal efforts to find caches. People that come to the forums to discuss caching are, ipso facto, more concerned with what other cachers are doing and thinking.

[+tozainamboku]

Groundspeak provides statistics and a so-called "find count" (actually just a count of the number of online Found It, Attended, and Photo Taken logs a person has). I don't believe they consciously do this promote a competition. The fact that they don't have a leader board is instructive.

 

The statistics are there and much as I hate to say it, the stats are what you make them. You are free to ignore the numbers, to use them to set personal goals, to use them in challenges to other geocachers, or to make judgements about other geocachers.

 

There is a field of study called Game Mechanics that looks at what makes game playing enjoyable. In simple games the player tries to achieve a goal. For geocaching this is finding the cache. Rewarding points for achieving the goal adds another layer to the mechanics. For some people signing the log book and they recording the find online adds to the enjoyment of the game. At a much higher level competition comes into play. Games can be made more enjoyable by taking the points from scoring goals and determining an overall winner at the end of the game. Using points to determine leaders in a open ended game rarely provides much additional enjoyment. Whenever a competition on points is used, the rules for scoring should be well defined so that the competition is viewed as fair.

 

Groundspeak appears to have purposely not defined what a find is to discourage the development of competitive games. Yet they do nothing to prevent those who still want to have a competition from doing so. The angst we see is more between those who understand that using the stats for competition is inherently unfair and those who accept a less formal competition that tolerates a certain degree of unfairness.

 

Blaming the stats for changes that may or may not have occurred over the years is tenuous. Arguing that Groundspeak's policy is to encourage competition simply ignores the facts.

Edited November 23, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+Totem Clan]

 

I am not sure about that. I want to know my numbers and love to look at our stats to see how we are doing and give ourselves goals. I dont care if others see them. I think a lot of cachers would feel the same.

 

If you made numbers invisible to everyone else and there was no way to compare yourself to other cachers geocaching would not exist.

 

Alexa Traffic Rank 1,533,113

 

That's a couple of thousand visits/day, all seeing how they compare to others. Do not underestimate peoples drive to be better than the next person.

 

I'd still cache. My family would still cache, it actually would make my mother more likely to cache- although she has us log online for her (I use the data to make sure we're finding new places for all of us). I'm not sure I know anyone who caches purely for bettering their numbers over another cacher. Now personal bests and goals are a whole different matter.

I'd probably keep track of my finds in a spreadsheet, but the nice handy map and dbs does it for me. The built in stats are new (ish), used to be more basic.

 

I'm not saying no one would cache but i'm sure much fewer people would sign up, more people would lose interest and Groundspeak would not be a profitable company thus the game would fail.

It worked fine without all the new cachers and caches. Why would it fail if they left. They workload would go down. That's for sure.

[+Totem Clan]

 

Generally the ones with less than 200 finds are not paying for premium membership and lackeys don't work for free.

 

And yes, if I was the only one who could see my numbers I would either quit or at the very least not pay for premium membership and cache a heck of a lot less.

Wow that tells me a lot about your character. It also answers a lot question I've had about you.