Time to get with the times and learn from power trails.

[+Roman!]

You still don't get it.

Occam's razor relies upon the competing hypotheses being equally valid.

(Valid = well supported by solid evidence)

In Toz's claim, they are equally valid.

 

I don't believe that anybody here is accurately characterizing Occam's razor.

 

It is less about simplicity and more about parsimony. The difference is subtle but important. A parsimonious explanation is one that is predictive and requires the minimum number of hypotheses or variables.

 

Occam's razor applies quite clearly in this situation. I'll go over it in some detail to explain.

 

There are 2 competing theories about why people throw down caches on power trails:

• They want the smileys.
  
• They want to make caching better for others.
  

 

Notice that the theories are about power trails. Why do cachers do power trails? I submit that it is for the smileys. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and a great deal of evidence in support of this theory, let's all agree to this.

 

Then the parsimony of the theories about throwdowns is different. The first requires no additional hypothesis: cachers do throwdowns for the same reason they do the power trails in the first place: for the smileys.

 

The second theory requires a new hypothesis: people throw down new caches on power trails to help future cachers, not for the smileys.

 

Occam's razor would say that in the absence of additional evidence, the first theory is more likely than the second, since it is able to explain two phenomena (doing the power trail and throwing down the caches) with a single explanatory hypothesis. The second theory is less parsimonious.

 

Is that clear enough?

 

When I did Route 66 I emailed the co if they wanted any missing containers replaced which they did, it is the accepted practice. I replaced about 40 containers that were broken but only one that was missing.

 

My reason for replacing the missing container was that I was asked by the co and it is accepted practice for power trails.

 

When we went to Idaho I we replaced 3 missing containers and probably another 30 that were broken.

 

We did not replace or throw down a container for any non power trail caches that were on the route that we could not find.

 

I think most power trial cachers respect caches that aren't part of the power trail but there are some that don't care just like there are cachers everywhere that don't care, it's not the fault of power trails, it's just how these people were raised.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Roman!

[+tozainamboku]

Is that clear enough?

 

Boy, am I surprise that fizzymagic doesn't get it. Occam's razor doesn't even apply. What is happening here is people are mixing up different phenomenom.

1. Why do people do power trails?

2. Why do people leave throwdown caches?

3. Why do people log found online when they leave a throwdown.

 

Of course there is no one answer to any of these question. Different people have different motivations for what they do. Just because the reason "to get another smiley" can be given to 1) and 3) doesn't make it the only reason or even the most likely reason. In fact most people have several reasons for using a find log - even those who only use it when they actually find a cache and sign the log.

 

The problem that I have is that some people wish to ignore 2) or at least to infer that the reason for leaving the throwndown is to be able to do 3). Based on my experience talking with people who leave throwdowns is that they believe it is the "right" thing to do. Even if they are less certain about whether it is right to log these as finds, you'd be hard press to convince them to stop leaving throwdowns.

 

You might be able to argue that more people leave throwdowns than would otherwise because they see people logging finds. Maybe this is true. But my guess is that even if Groundspeak were to find some way to enforce cache owners deleting found logs for leaving a throwdown, people would still leave throwdowns.

[+wmpastor]

Occam's razor applies quite clearly in this situation. I'll go over it in some detail to explain.

 

There are 2 competing theories about why people throw down caches on power trails:

• They want the smileys.
  
• They want to make caching better for others.
  

 

Notice that the theories are about power trails. Why do cachers do power trails? I submit that it is for the smileys. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and a great deal of evidence in support of this theory, let's all agree to this.

 

Then the parsimony of the theories about throwdowns is different. The first requires no additional hypothesis: cachers do throwdowns for the same reason they do the power trails in the first place: for the smileys.

 

The second theory requires a new hypothesis: people throw down new caches on power trails to help future cachers, not for the smileys.

 

Occam's razor would say that in the absence of additional evidence, the first theory is more likely than the second, since it is able to explain two phenomena (doing the power trail and throwing down the caches) with a single explanatory hypothesis. The second theory is less parsimonious.

 

Is that clear enough?

There's another nuance here. "Helping future cachers" can occur, not necessarily because of altruism, but because of "wanting smileys." In other words, we're part of a group, so if I do right (e.g., trade swag evenly, leave caches I find in good order, throw down a throwdown when the cache is apparently missing), others will more likely do the same and I'll get more smileys in the long run. And B. F. Skinner noted that there is survival value in being motivated by remote contingencies of reinforcement. So I suggest the two hypotheses are more related, rather than distinct, than appears at first glance!

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Note that I don't argree that an abandoned cache is trash by definition.

 

I chose my words carefully. I said that an abandoned cache is trash, by implication, not by definition. What I mean is that when land managers discover caches in their area that are abandoned, they will be inclined to see them as trash. We don't want that. We never want our caches to seem like trash. Yes, the community might do the maintenance, but abandonment makes the thing seem like litter to anyone without a vested interest in the game.

 

Regarding claiming finds on throw-downs:

However I don't tend to worry that this level of dishonesty is a horrible thing.

 

Nor would I. I have no emotional response to the issue, but I do, still, consider the log invalid. It may be harmless, but it still has no value, because it is not real.

 

Personally, I find this righteous indignation that throwdowns are litter silly.

 

I suppose you might be overstating my position. I did not realize I was having any indignation, righteous or otherwise. I have seen multiple caches at a location because of throwdowns, and it sabotages the intent of the cache. Yes, it is litter, because dropping an object on the ground that you no longer want, do not intend to maintain and never intend to retrieve is, in fact, a form of littering, isn't it? The throwdown isn't really the listed cache, anyway. It's just a decoy, even if the listed cache really is missing.

 

You frequently argue that we can all do geocaching our own way, like enjoying an ice cream. This is untrue. I do not hide caches for my self to find. This is a cooperative effort. My experience with this activity depends very much on how others play the game. If you want to paint a picture to hang on your own wall, then you can paint it however you like. If you want to participate in a group activity, such as this, then we all need to agree on certain rules, so that we can act in a cohesive and productive fashion.

[+CanadianRockies]

It is less about simplicity and more about parsimony. The difference is subtle but important. A parsimonious explanation is one that is predictive and requires the minimum number of hypotheses or variables.

Yes, it's more about parsimony than simplicity. But Clan Riffster already was confused enough. I didn't want to make things even more complicated for him.

 

There are 2 competing theories about why people throw down caches on power trails:

• They want the smileys.
  
• They want to make caching better for others.
  

Notice that the theories are about power trails. Why do cachers do power trails? I submit that it is for the smileys. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and a great deal of evidence in support of this theory, let's all agree to this.

You indicate there's lots of evidence to support the "cachers do power trails for the smileys" theory. Okay, I'll agree with that.

 

Then the parsimony of the theories about throwdowns is different. The first requires no additional hypothesis: cachers do throwdowns for the same reason they do the power trails in the first place: for the smileys.

Like Toz, I'm quite surprised that you merge two different hypotheses without realizing it. Such a theory does require two hypothesis (as you actually noted):

• Cachers do power trails for the smileys.
  
• Cachers do throwdowns for the same reason they do power trails.
  

To help clarify this point, let's look at another theory that takes things to an extreme: Cachers breath while doing power trails for the same reason they do the power trails in the first place--for the smileys.

 

But we all know the primary reason cachers breath is to sustain life; it has very little to do with smileys. Like your theory, my extreme theory actually contains two hypotheses. And my second hypothesis (cachers breath for the same reason they do power trails) needs additional evidence if we are to believe it's credible.

 

The second theory requires a new hypothesis: people throw down new caches on power trails to help future cachers, not for the smileys.

Yep, both theories require a new hypothesis.

 

Occam's razor would say that in the absence of additional evidence, the first theory is more likely than the second, since it is able to explain two phenomena (doing the power trail and throwing down the caches) with a single explanatory hypothesis. The second theory is less parsimonious.

The fundamental premise of Occam's razor is that the competing hypotheses are equally supported by solid evidence. ("Nearly equally" if you want to be more precise.) We've stipulated that there's a great deal of evidence in support the hypothesis that cachers do power trails for the smileys. We haven't seen any evidence that cachers do throwdowns for the same reason they do power trails.

 

Nor do we have solid evidence that cachers mostly do throwdowns to help future cachers. Toz has talked to some cachers who say they do this to make the game more enjoyable for everyone. (Whether they are being truthful or not is another question.) Clan Riffster has talked to "gobs" of power trail cachers who all say they do it to avoid the dreaded DNF. (And they probably have less reason to lie.)

 

If one theory has evidence to support part of it and a second theory has weak evidence to support it, then Occam's razor shouldn't be applied yet. Additional evidence should be gathered, and a determination must be made whether both theories are equally supported by solid evidence.

 

If you don't do this, then Occam's razor easily could select wrong hypotheses, such as: The sky is blue because the Earth is surrounded by a large sheet of translucent blue paper.

Edited May 24, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+cache_test_dummies]

You still don't get it.

You still don't get it.

I still don't get it either.

[+fizzymagic]

Like Toz, I'm quite surprised that you merge two different hypotheses without realizing it. Such a theory does require two hypothesis (as you actually noted):

• Cachers do power trails for the smileys.
  
• Cachers do throwdowns for the same reason they do power trails.
  

To help clarify this point, let's look at another theory that takes things to an extreme: Cachers breath while doing power trails for the same reason they do the power trails in the first place--for the smileys.

 

Good catch. I was not careful enough in my language, and (as you helpfully pointed out) I inadvertently introduced an unneeded extra hypothesis.

 

Let's change my hypothesis to this:

 

The primary motivation for most cachers' behavior while doing power trails is maximizing the number of smileys.

 

That removes the need for the additional hypothesis, and restores the usefulness of Occam's razor in this case.

 

It also makes it clear that this hypothesis has predictive value. For example, it would predict that cachers doing a power trail are more likely than otherwise to log smileys on caches for which they personally did not sign the logbook. It would also predict behaviors like the cache-moving we have heard described.

 

So, as a hypothesis, it offers multiple advantages over Toz's. It requires fewer variables (differing motives), and has greater predictive power.

[+wmpastor]

The topic is "learning from the power trails."

 

Who knew we'd review sociology, ethics, metaphysics and philosophy, including the nuances of when and how to use Occam's Razor?! Amazingly it's all on-topic!

 

Good to see we've got some sharp cachers on board!

[+wmpastor]

The primary motivation for most cachers' behavior while doing power trails is maximizing the number of smileys.

Actually that's an "intermediate" reason, not a new hypothesis.

 

Much (all?) behavior is brought about by the perceived maximization of, let's call it "satisfaction." That encompasses long and short-term effects, as they are correctly or incorrectly evaluated.

 

No one is purely motivated by getting smileys, or, in a fundamental sense, even primarily motivated by them. Smileys are a currency or benchmark, for some, for success at a hobby. If maximizing smileys was the true end goal, they'd armchair-log day and night, cheat, and place throwdowns at every cache they didn't find in 20 seconds.

 

Smileys are the currency, and no one wants to debase the currency too much. Phony smileys are not valued like real ones. Too much phoniness and everyone attaches less meaning to the smiley-count. So smileys are attained in a socially-acceptable way (i.e., by playing by the rules).

 

Smileys are a representation of a mid-level goal for many cachers, which, when you drill down, runs through a sequence of ever-more-fundamental objectives. The sequence varies from person to person - thus the different styles and approaches. The process of caching provides many other rewards besides the smiley. The smiley is a representation of an achievement, just as money is a representation of stored value. A smiley and a paper dollar themselves have virtually no intrinsic value; their value lies in what they mean to people in a representative way.

[+CanadianRockies]

Let's change my hypothesis to this:

 

The primary motivation for most cachers' behavior while doing power trails is maximizing the number of smileys.

 

That removes the need for the additional hypothesis, and restores the usefulness of Occam's razor in this case.

But it doesn't restore the usefulness of Occam's razor in this case...at least not yet.

 

Let me propose this alternative theory:

 

The primary motivation for most cachers' behavior while doing power trails is to make caching better for others.

 

My theory has no need for an additional hypothesis and has even more predictive value than yours. It might explain why people place throwdowns, replace nearly full logs, add swag in larger caches when they don't take anything, hide caches better than they found them, provide alternative coordinates when GZ appears far from the actual location, provide hints to others, help others with puzzles on certain power trails, etc.

 

In support of this, I could name a couple local cachers who do all of this and more and say they do it because they like to make caching better for others.

 

In the absence of additional evidence, Occam's razor would not say that my theory is more likely than yours because it's able to explain more phenomena with the same number of explanatory hypotheses (one).

 

In the absence of additional evidence, Occam's razor should remain silent. Only if both our theories are equally supported by solid evidence should Occam's razor select my theory.

Edited May 24, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+Roman!]

Let's change my hypothesis to this:

 

The primary motivation for most cachers' behavior while doing power trails is maximizing the number of smileys.

 

That removes the need for the additional hypothesis, and restores the usefulness of Occam's razor in this case.

But it doesn't restore the usefulness of Occam's razor in this case...at least not yet.

 

Let me propose this alternative theory:

 

The primary motivation for most cachers' behavior while doing power trails is to make caching better for others.

 

My theory has no need for an additional hypothesis and has even more predictive value than yours. It might explain why people place throwdowns, replace nearly full logs, add swag when they don't take anything, hide caches better than they found them, provide alternative coordinates when GZ appears far from the actual location, provide hints to others, help others with puzzles, etc.

 

In support of this, I could name a couple local cachers who do all of this and more and say they do it because they like to make caching better for others.

 

In the absence of additional evidence, Occam's razor would not say that my theory is more likely than yours because it's able to explain more phenomena with the same number of explanatory hypotheses (one).

 

In the absence of additional evidence, Occam's razor should remain silent. Only if both our theories are equally supported by solid evidence should Occam's razor select my more parsimonious theory.

 

Here's the problem with this forum, everyone has a theory about power trails, few have experience, I did and will do them because in my experiences I had fun.

 

Enough razor talk, I need a shave.

[+CanadianRockies]

Here's the problem with this forum, everyone has a theory about power trails, few have experience, I did and will do them because in my experiences I had fun.

I hope you realize my theory wasn't a serious one. My wife and I did three power trails one day. We didn't do it for either the smileys or to make geocaching better for others. We did it to experience something new.

[+Roman!]

Here's the problem with this forum, everyone has a theory about power trails, few have experience, I did and will do them because in my experiences I had fun.

I hope you realize my theory wasn't a serious one. My wife and I did three power trails one day. We didn't do it for either the smileys or to make geocaching better for others. We did it to experience something new.

 

I wasn't directing the comment at you, just seems to be the prevailing attitude here, I did Route 66 for the experience and Idaho because I enjoyed my experience on Route 66.

 

Glad you did try it and love them or hate them I would resect your opinion on them.

[+Don_J]

You still don't get it.

You still don't get it.

I still don't get it either.

 

Me either. Most of this is way over my head. What I really don't get is why everyone is stuck on either/or. Why can't someone leave a throwdown because they want to help future cachers, get their smiley and avoid a DNF? Not all motivation has to be completely self serving. I know many of the same cachers as Toz and I can say that quite a few of them honestly believe that they are helping future cachers by leaving something for them to find. I bought into this idea for a period of time before I started to see the problems that throwing down a cache can cause.

 

Of course, there are those who's only motivation is to increase their find count. If they told you otherwise, they'd be lying. Just because there are cachers like this does not mean that everyone else is lying as well.

[+Semper Questio]

But no one has clarified this point...Is Occam's razor a Shick, Gillete, or an electric?

[cezanne]

Why can't someone leave a throwdown because they want to help future cachers, get their smiley and avoid a DNF? Not all motivation has to be completely self serving. I know many of the same cachers as Toz and I can say that quite a few of them honestly believe that they are helping future cachers by leaving something for them to find. I bought into this idea for a period of time before I started to see the problems that throwing down a cache can cause.

 

 

Leaving a new cache without authorization by the owner might well happen with other like-minded cachers for whom smileys and avoiding DNFs is important in mind, but it is disrespectful to the hider of the effected cache. In my opinion, the smilies are in the centre of the topic. Some only have their own smilies in mind, other also the smilies of others. In both caches fun is measured with respect to the number of finds/smilies obtained.

 

Even in case I'd place a replacement with authorization of the owner, I would post a DNF or a note and not a found it.

 

Cezanne

[+Semper Questio]

IMO, claiming a find on a throwdown, which I feel is wrong unless permission was received from the CO, is the same as a find I recently saw on one our local caches that had a string of DNFs...

 

"I'm claiming a find since I'm pretty sure I found GZ"

[4wheelin_fool]

You still don't get it.

You still don't get it.

I still don't get it either.

 

Me either. Most of this is way over my head.

 

Yes, it's irony.

 

A complex description of a theory which chooses the simplest answer.

[+tozainamboku]

But no one has clarified this point...Is Occam's razor a Shick, Gillete, or an electric?

Occam no doubt used a straight edge. It's way too easy to cut yourself.

[+Semper Questio]

But no one has clarified this point...Is Occam's razor a Shick, Gillete, or an electric?

Occam no doubt used a straight edge. It's way too easy to cut yourself.

 

Edited May 24, 2013 by Semper Questio

[+Roman!]

I totally forgot about this but not only does GS condone throwdowns, they may even feature you one their blog for one.

[+Semper Questio]

I totally forgot about this but not only does GS condone throwdowns, they may even feature you one their blog for one.

 

Hmm. Guess I'll start carrying around a bag of pill bottles and when I am withing what I think is a reasonable distance of GZ and I see something that I think may have been part of a cache at one time, I'll just through down a pill bottle "to keep the adventure alive for someone else" and take my smiley! Sweet!

[+PACSGUY]

My understanding of power trails is that if they go missing, most people actually never know so there is no need for dropping a new one. After the first 10-20 caches in a power trail, many people just drive by and claim the finds figuring it's no longer necessary to get out and grab the cache that they know is there.

 

I know of one guy who did one of those big power trails out west and actually stopped at each one. One he couldn't find and he posted a DNF on it. The cache owner congratulated him because the cache wasn't actually hidden, yet dozens of other people gleefully posted finds on it as they drove by doing only some of the caches in the big power trail.

 

That's why I think power trails should be moved to their own website. Power trail "caching" has very little to do with geocaching. With the latter the point is to actually find geocaches.

 

If not another site a different icon and map ...brilliant!!

Edited June 2, 2013 by PACSGUY

[+Founden]

I love power trails, and not for points. I love to walk the way some people love to hike. I love to FIND a cache the way some people love to LOG a cache. I don't care about points. I'm a glutton for finds. I get a THRILL off of every find, no matter what type. A power trail for me is like Thanksgiving. I just get to find and find and find and find. I genuinely enjoy them, and I am sure I'm not the only one. For my birthday this year I'm going off on a Seinfeld themed power trail all by myself for 8-9 hours. This is my birthday present to myself. Walking and caching and walking and caching. The numbers don't mean a thing.