Place your own Lab Cache!?!?!

[cezanne]

All true, but it doesn't really address the potential problem. The fact that others have been able to get away with burying caches or putting nails in trees doesn't make it acceptable. If a problem exists (burying caches) adding to the problem certainly doesn't help.

 

To be honest, I cannot judge the situation in North America and some of the arguments of CanadianRockies that it can make a difference for land managers over there sound convincing to me.

In my area I do not have concerns that the lab caches would aggravate the issues that already exist anyway and if someone felt annoyed by defacements and things the like it would not make any difference whether a lab cache, a gc.com cache or whatever caused it. We do not have any system where groups of geocachers negotiate some geocaching policy with land managers.

The same PM around here who would bury a cache container for a normal cache would also do it for a lab cache. Even if they made up guidelines for lab caches, the majority of cachers in my area would not read them anyway (and even less for a single project that is available to a single cacher).

 

One of the big challenges with respect to geocaching is that the situation differs considerably in different countries.

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

The only two arguments against Lab Caches that I hear here are the effect on statistics and the "Wild, Wild West" scenarios.

 

Apparently you have ignored several aspects other people brought up.

palmetto mentioned the concern about the lacking logs and I share this concern.

 

Someone else and myself mentioned that the February experiment (and this discussion is about the February experiment and not just lab caches in general)

does not make much sense in terms of collecting creative ideas and evaluating how much cachers likes these ideas.

 

Anyone with a background in collecting data that should be used in a statistically meaningful way and in evaluations will instantly realize that what Groundspeak has in mind will

lead to very skewed and biased data.

 

That's why I said that it would make more sense to me promoting the February experiment as a present offered by Groundspeak to PMs who get the chance to please one cacher of their choice and as potential test of how popular the option of private caches dedicated to special people or groups of people on a pay per cache basis could be.

 

If Groundspeak's main goal were to see how creative cachers can be when dropping some of the restrictions of the guidelines, it would make much more sense to make lab caches viewable to anybody and to make them findable by anybody and not just to a single person.

 

My guess is that romantic emotions have led someone at Groundspeak to come up with this February experiment without fully analysing the pros and cons. A lot of decisions taken at Groundspeak seem to be heart-based ones.

 

 

Cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

They are only relaxing a few of the GEOCACHING rules (mainly proximity and longevity), not saying that anything goes.

Really? Where did you read or hear that? According to the recent blog, "You’re only bound by your imagination, a Find Code and, of course, local laws, regulations and just common sense." For example, commercial lab caches will be allowed.

 

Perhaps Jayme H will be so kind as to clarify this concern.

[+wimseyguy]

I noticed this for a while, I seem to smell a lot of fear of any new cache type will/would/might shake up the leaderboard. Some cachers seem to hate any changes that might give any cachers with lower finds to jump over them in a hurry.

 

I see some opportunities and some potential problems with this promo. I don't think the scenario you outline is one of them. There are very few names in the top 500 who ever post in the forums and only 1-2 in the top 100. They are all too busy out finding caches to bother playing in this sandbox.

[+fishgeek]

They are only relaxing a few of the GEOCACHING rules (mainly proximity and longevity), not saying that anything goes.

Really? Where did you read or hear that? According to the recent blog, "You’re only bound by your imagination, a Find Code and, of course, local laws, regulations and just common sense." For example, commercial lab caches will be allowed.

 

Perhaps Jayme H will be so kind as to clarify this concern.

 

Where in that blog post did you see that commercial caches would be allowed? I saw that you could lead someone to a theater and give them tickets. The imagination limit applies to all geocaches, as do local laws, etc.. Hopefully, the actual guidelines, when published, will prevent most of the anticipated stupidity.

[+Manville Possum]

Just out of curiosity, will there be a restriction in place that prevents someone from creating a Lab Cache and shares the URL with themselves which they use to find the cache that they created?

What keeps you from logging your own caches now? I see it all the time with Waymarks.

 

I'm not familiar with Waymarking enough to know how logging works, but for a geocache, one can easily look at the cache owner and the logs to see that someone has found their own cache. If Lab Caches don't have logs, how could you tell if someone found a lab cache that they created.

 

I'm not suggesting that I would do it, or condone the practice but one of the big complaints about challenges was that bogus completions could not be deleted.

What I was referring to was the cheesey numbers thing that is common in Waymarking and in a Country that is known for armchair greetings, logging their own listings. I meant it as a joke. Sorry.

[+thebruce0]

Man... always new drama with Lab Cache announcements...

So much has gone down in this thread; here are some of my thoughts on points that have been raised (sometimes repeatedly) (or just skip to the TLDR at the bottom )

 

--re: "The Lab Cache"

 

I think one of the major issues is the confusion about what lab caches actually are. Here is my understanding:

 

The Lab Cache is the lowest common denominator - a 'container' if you will - in which ideas and experiments can take place, without being bound by 'statistics' and standard cache properties, only suggested themes (no log, no properties, just a code and validation of success). For this reason (as well as the technical limitations explained earlier in the thread) they aren't (cannot) be included in the standard geocaching stats.

 

Additionally, having no online log makes a significant difference in how generation of its stats happen. Consider: when you download "My Finds", you're not downloading cache listings, you're downloading all your logs which are tied to, and thus pull, their associated caches' details. In the end the result may be the same, but the process for pulling that information is very different. This is why Geocaching Challenges were different, and Benchmarks, as far as my knowledge, have been programmed (a long time ago) as a workaround to this 'standard' geocaching log process, or at least a leftover that's been tweaked to continue working.

 

What we're Finding at any point (whether during mega event lab period or this "I <3 Geocaching" period) is not "A Lab Cache" -- what we're find is a variant of an experimental cache idea that is being classified as a "Lab Cache". The Mega Event lab caches aren't the exact same thing as the I <3 Geocaching lab caches.

I do think though, ideally, whenever Groundspeak talks about finding a 'lab cache' they should qualify that you're not "findind a geocache" - you're helping with an experimental idea, and your ability to Find, and success in Finding a particular Lab Cache (which may or may not be physical) is rewarded by an increase in your find count.

 

But you didn't find a geocache.

 

Think of it like beta testing. If you're a beta tester, you might join and play a game - it's not the final version, and that version may end up very different than what you played. You might even still need to purchase the full game afterwards. If you're a beta tester, you're partaking in a sandboxed 'experiment' from which the creators are able to parse response and feedback and decide how to move forward, and even how to treat their beta testers.

When you partake in the 'lab cache' experiment, you're not finding a geocache, you're being a part of a process that is intended to gauge response and success for an idea that doesn't yet have a final structure. IF Groundspeak feels a particular experiment was a success, there's a greater chance that its concept may become an official geocache type (or some other form) in the future - once all the other hurdles (described earlier in the thread) are overcome.

 

Our "Lab Cache" statistics aren't (shouldn't) be considered on par with finding official/standard geocaches. They are more like our statistics in helping shape the geocaching pastime as a whole.

 

--re: Stats

 

As far as the end result is concerned, I think I'm likely more inclined to favour the idea that lab cache 'finds' be counted in stats similar to Benchmarks, as mentioned earlier in the thread. But I don't know how technically feasible that is.

 

--re: Code swapping

 

So two premium members create an IHG lab cache for each other and can then both get the Lab Cache icon. ... well, so what? They can only create one (part of this experiment), so they're limiting what they can create. BUT, if the reason they did it is for the lab cache icon, that will be part of the result analysis Groundspeak takes into consideration. Then they can decide how much weight to place on that decision of those players. It's no one's loss except the cachers' themselves (not being able to create any more). Yet they still get 'rewarded' by a +1 find for contributing to the experiment.

 

Obviously Groundspeak is more interested in uses that are more creative, out of the box, technical, endearing, challenging -- AND those that are less successful, or which fail, for whatever reason -- so they can amass all that data and decide how to proceed with the concept they were testing.

 

That is precisely what the 'Lab Cache' concept was created for.

 

--re: "special person"

 

If you don't find one, that doesn't mean you're not special. That was clearly not Groundspeak saying 'you're not special if you don't find one'. That was Groundspeak talking to anyone who creates one, the one to decide who is 'special' to them. And that is part of the I <3 Geocaching experiment. Perhaps it's more of a social analysis than geocaching-specific, but it's a theme that someone can make use of -- just like the idea of making a smartphone-specific lab cache (are you not special now if you don't have a smartphone to do the lab cache?)

 

Ultimately only the person who creates this IHG lab cache is the one who decides who is "special", to them. Groundspeak is not restricting who can find one. Not directly.

 

--------

 

tl;dr:

 

1) Lab Caches technically aren't "geocaches" themselves. They are experiments that reward those who contribute and 'Find' one a +1 to their findcount. I think too many people think "Lab Caches" are all the same type of thing (equivalent to standard physical/virtual geocaches), even across different experiment periods, thus some of the confusion.

 

2) Being a formless data 'container', the way they exist in the database is fundamentally different than standard geocaches and finds (logs) and so can't be simply included in profile statistics without enormous work

2b) They don't have properties and rules because those are presented in the form of themes and guidelines for the experiment being done; this is also a reason why they are only available temporarily, since different experiments may require different 'container' programming (like multiple code 'finds' vs one-time finds).

 

3) I think having Lab Caches displayed and function in the profile similar to Benchmark finds would be more favourable, and likely less controversial

 

4) Finding a lab cache does not make you a "special person" to Groundspeak. In this experiment, they make you a "special person" to the one who gave you the link to their I <3 Geocaching Lab Cache link.

 

5) Code swapping may well happen -- but so what? It's a valid sample case in the context of this lab cache experiment. Those people consider each other "special" enough to not actually do anything except take a code and enter it online for an icon in their profile.

 

6) Groundspeak should put more emphasis on the point that Lab Cache is not a standard geocache, and that at any particular time a new experiment is being run, the current "Lab Cache" you may find may actually be completely different (practically speaking) than any previous Lab Cache you may have found. People are 'finding' (participating in) experiments.

 

7) Like beta testing a game, the option to partake (the creation portion of the experiment) is not open to everyone. To 'make the cut' as a participant in that element of the experiment you need to be a Premium Member. That is not a "gift", it's a right afforded by being a paying member. Even then, anyone can find one of these lab caches and 'earn' a +1 Find.

 

Why would anyone want to find an experiment?

Well if you don't, then don't.

If you do, do.

Simple as that.

 

Be a beta tester and find [anyone can], or create [paying members only] - but realize that you're not buying the full release of the game, you're helping forge the final release through constructive (positive or critical) feedback. And Groundspeak has decided that our contribution (as finders) will be rewarded with 1 more find count. Don't like it? Don't find it, or delete it (they've provided instructions for how to do so)

Edited January 30, 2014 by thebruce0

[+funkymunkyzone]

Carving something into a tree is wrong whether it's for a lab cache or any other kind of cache - it's vandalism that probably breaks a law or regulation, and it's certainly against common sense when it comes to geocaching, so yeah I think it's covered.

There's a reason why Groundspeak's hiding guidelines are spelled out rather than are in the form of a simple sentence: "Use common sense when hiding a cache." Common sense means different things to different people, and some people have more common sense than others. Most of us wouldn't carve a tree, but plenty of people do.

 

What does common sense say about nailing a codeword sign to a big tree? Many people don't think that causes any significant harm and note that many land managers do precisely that (e.g., cross-country ski trail signs). But many other land managers (and even some of the same land managers) would be upset if a geocacher pounded a nail into a tree.

 

What does common sense say about burying a lab cache container? Many people feel there are plenty of locations where that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Some land managers even allow people with metal detectors to dig on their property. But many land managers also would be upset if a lab cache was buried on their property. So upset that they might forbid all geocaching on their land.

 

What does common sense say about hiding a lab cache container in an ancient British dry wall? Not everyone realizes the kind of destruction this can potentially cause.

 

What does common sense say about hiding a lab cache container in a cemetery? Not everyone has the same sensitivities when it comes to burial places.

 

What does common sense say about hiding a lab cache container near a dam? Not everyone realizes that dams could be considered terrorist targets and suspicious packages placed near them could attract the attention of local authorities.

 

What does common sense say about hiding a lab cache container in a public park? Some parks allow geocaching. Others don't. Still others require special permission. Most reviewers know which is which. Many geocachers don't.

 

As I noted yesterday, I certainly hope geocachers will use common sense when creating their lab caches. But I don't think that will prevent the creation of problematic lab caches. When you encourage people to experiment and remove many restrictions, then you shouldn't be surprised if some of them go in directions you didn't anticipate.

 

Don't ignore that they also mentioned abiding by all laws and local regulations, which in most places in the world would include laws about vandalism.

 

In any case, I think it's an over-reaction to assume there is this group of otherwise law and guideline-abiding geocachers out there just chomping at the bit to get out and do some vandalism just because Groundspeak hasn't spelt out in black and white to not do it.

 

Cheers

[cezanne]

.... having no online log makes a significant difference in how generation of its stats happen.

 

I do not have any issue with how lab caches count in statistics, but I do have an issue with the no online log aspect.

 

Why does the concept of expriments with new cache types, permanent caches for events etc need to be coupled with the no log aspect?

 

Why should comments to a blog and Facebook postings be the best way to talk about what one liked or did not like about hiding/finding lab caches?

Edited January 29, 2014 by cezanne

[+funkymunkyzone]

As I noted yesterday, I certainly hope geocachers will use common sense when creating their lab caches. But I don't think that will prevent the creation of problematic lab caches. When you encourage people to experiment and remove many restrictions, then you shouldn't be surprised if some of them go in directions you didn't anticipate.

 

I agree, but what I tried to explain somewhere before is that these guidelines (no buried caches, no nails in trees etc) are broken often also for conventional geocaches. Sometimes the violation is reported and the cache gets archived, something nothing happens at all. Many cache hiders do not read the guidelines or do not care about them.

 

All true, but it doesn't really address the potential problem. The fact that others have been able to get away with burying caches or putting nails in trees doesn't make it acceptable. If a problem exists (burying caches) adding to the problem certainly doesn't help.

 

I still don't understand how this is one lab cache that a premium member can create will add to the problem. If someone is inclined to damage property or vandalise something for a cache - any cache - then they will do it anyway. This new lab cache is not going to encourage someone to vandalise something in the name of geocaching, who wouldn't otherwise vandalise something. That means that for responsible geocachers, it's status quo, and for a small minority who vandalise and damage things already, they still can. If not with a lab cache, then with an ordinary cache.

 

All that said, it would proabbly not hurt for Groundspeak to add a few extra words to the FAQ.

[+thebruce0]

All true, but it doesn't really address the potential problem. The fact that others have been able to get away with burying caches or putting nails in trees doesn't make it acceptable. If a problem exists (burying caches) adding to the problem certainly doesn't help.

 

I still don't understand how this is one lab cache that a premium member can create will add to the problem. If someone is inclined to damage property or vandalise something for a cache - any cache - then they will do it anyway. This new lab cache is not going to encourage someone to vandalise something in the name of geocaching, who wouldn't otherwise vandalise something. That means that for responsible geocachers, it's status quo, and for a small minority who vandalise and damage things already, they still can. If not with a lab cache, then with an ordinary cache.

 

All that said, it would proabbly not hurt for Groundspeak to add a few extra words to the FAQ.

 

I can grok the concern that this format of one-time finds on a lab cache technically removes any inherent repercussions from breaking placement guidelines (reports from other users, archival, disabling, etc), and agree that Groundspeak encouraging cachers to adhere to (general0 placement guidelines - that is, respect nature, respect property, in short - would be a Good Thing. I think just 'local laws apply' is too vague.

 

Nonetheless, regardless of what they say, the nature of the lab cache and logging seems to present opportunity for someone to take advantage of the lack of accountability to do something they couldn't otherwise "get away with" in a standard cache.

 

Even though, those are likely the kinds of people who'd probably do it anyway. *shrug*

[+funkymunkyzone]

1) Lab Caches aren't geocaches. They are experiments that provide +1 find to those who contribute and 'Find' one. I think too many people think "Lab Caches" are all the same type of thing (equivalent to standard physical/virtual geocaches), even across different experiment periods, thus some of the confusion.

Lab caches may be experimental, but they are geocaches. I think you're right about there being some confusion but I see less of that here in this thread than out there in the real world when discussing with other cachers IRL. Lab caches are most analagous to ? caches - you may have found a whole bunch of ? caches but they will likely be a variety of different things. Some may be sudoku puzzles, others may be field puzzles, others may be challenge caches.

2) Being a formless data 'container', the way they exist in the database is fundamentally different than standard geocaches and finds (logs) and so can't be simply included in profile statistics without enormous work

2b) They don't have properties and rules because those are presented in the form of themes and guidelines for the experiment being done; this is also why they are only available temporarily, since different experiments may require different 'container' programming (like multiple code 'finds' vs one-time finds).

Jayme (I think) and the I <3 Geocaching FAQ have both stated that they will be included in stats at some point int he future and Jayme explained why they currently aren't in an earlier post in this topic.

3) Having Lab Caches displayed and function in the profile similar to Benchmark finds would be, imo, more favourable, and likely less controversial

I mostly agree, but it was a choice by Groundspeak to make them add to a cacher's find count, so I'm happy to read that they intend to fix up the stats that relate/contribute to the find count also.

4) Finding a lab cache does not make you a "special person" to Groundspeak. In this experiment, they make you a "special person" to the one who gave you the link to their I <3 Geocaching Lab Cache.

 

5) Code swapping may well happen -- but so what? It's a valid sample case in the context of this lab cache experiment. They consider each other "special" enough.

I agree.

6) Groundspeak should continue to emphasize that Lab Cache are not a standard geocache, and that at any particular time a new experiment is being run, the current "Lab Cache" you may find may actually be completely different (practically speaking) than any previous Lab Cache you may have found. People are 'finding' (participating in) experiments.

Groundspeak don't emphasise that Lab Caches are not standard geocaches aside from pointing out some key differences such as not showing up as a hide for the creator. They do refer to them as geocaches, in fact.

7) Like beta testing a game, the option to partake (the creation portion of the experiment) is not open to everyone. To 'make the cut' as a participant in that element of the experiment you need to be a Premium Member. That is not a "gift", it's a right afforded by being a paying member. Even then, anyone can find one of these lab caches and 'earn' a +1 Find.

Yes, but (and this is also in response to your points about why they should not be counted as a geocache find) a game player can still count the number of times they have beta tested a game (any game). And, when they were beta testing a game, they can say they were "playing a game" - not necessarily the same game ultimately released, but a game nonetheless.

Why would anyone want to find an experiment?

Well if you don't, then don't.

If you do, do.

Simple as that.

 

Be a beta tester and find (anyone) or create (paying members) - but realize that you're not buying the full release of the game, you're helping forge the final release through constructive (positive or critical) feedback. And Groundspeak has decided that our contribution (as finders) will be rewarded with 1 more find count. Don't like it? Don't find it, or delete it (they've provided instructions for how to do so)

Totally agree. Join in and find a lab cache (mega event, I <3 Geocaching, or whatever) if you want, or don't if you don't want.

[GrandPotentate]

I checked geocaching.com and didn't see anything about it.

 

Wouldn't it need to be Geocaching to be mentioned on geocaching.com? If it can't be done with a GPS, instead of a cell phone, is it really geocaching?

 

Intercaches can only be done with a cell phone, should those be banned?

[+funkymunkyzone]

Where in that blog post did you see that commercial caches would be allowed? I saw that you could lead someone to a theater and give them tickets. The imagination limit applies to all geocaches, as do local laws, etc.. Hopefully, the actual guidelines, when published, will prevent most of the anticipated stupidity.

Commercial lab caches are not presently disallowed.

 

Some of the lab caches I set up for our Mega event (not trying to create confusion - I know these new lab caches are similar but different to the mega event ones) would be considered commercial. Without going into detail, no money changing hands or even interaction with a business was required, just seeking out the clue. I considered it some harmless fun taking cachers around some of our local sponsors and I had no complaints.

[GrandPotentate]

My two cents....

 

Since these are "Lab" caches and (I guess) the idea is to field test ideas using us. Groundspeak is about as transparent with such things as a block of granite covered in horse poo But what if these are a beta form of Virtuals? The biggest problem with Virtuals was the review process from what I was told by some reviewers/lackeys at the MWGB a few years back so I am not sure if this would somehow make them easier to review or not. Or it could be that they are looking for a way to have temporary event caches so those NW Ohio cachers stop logging hundreds of "attends" logs on the same event for caches they find which are only placed for the event.

 

 

Wrong part of Ohio. You don't want to tick off Toledo, do you?

 

Although the practice of logging multiple attends at events for temporary caches has drastically died out over the years, it is a little more widespread than just a small part of Ohio. Either way, I doubt the Frog is looking for a way to put an end to that practice with lab caches.

 

As a member of NWOhio geocachers, I can say that the multiple logging of events for temporary caches is not a generally accepted practice. In fact, I have never seen that happen at a NWOGeo event. That practice is more of an central and eastern Ohio practice.

[+thebruce0]

1) Lab Caches aren't geocaches. They are experiments that provide +1 find to those who contribute and 'Find' one. I think too many people think "Lab Caches" are all the same type of thing (equivalent to standard physical/virtual geocaches), even across different experiment periods, thus some of the confusion.

Lab caches may be experimental, but they are geocaches. I think you're right about there being some confusion but I see less of that here in this thread than out there in the real world when discussing with other cachers IRL. Lab caches are most analagous to ? caches - you may have found a whole bunch of ? caches but they will likely be a variety of different things. Some may be sudoku puzzles, others may be field puzzles, others may be challenge caches.

I don't think I was clear enough - yes the experience of finding a lab cache can be analogous to any standard geocache (depending on the guidelines set out for the current experiment), but technically they are very much not a "geocache" as the website treats geocaches. This is what I think people are getting confused by. They see "Lab Cache" and equate it, generally, with whatever the current experiment is, rather than the fact that they're each more like a record of a single participation in a dynamically formed cache concept that isn't tracked any more on the site than the fact that you entered the correct code on its listing.

 

2) Being a formless data 'container', the way they exist in the database is fundamentally different than standard geocaches and finds (logs) and so can't be simply included in profile statistics without enormous work

2b) They don't have properties and rules because those are presented in the form of themes and guidelines for the experiment being done; this is also why they are only available temporarily, since different experiments may require different 'container' programming (like multiple code 'finds' vs one-time finds).

Jayme (I think) and the I <3 Geocaching FAQ have both stated that they will be included in stats at some point int he future and Jayme explained why they currently aren't in an earlier post in this topic.

This is another thing I believe needs to be cleared up. My understanding is that Lab Caches themselves won't (can't) be integrated any more than they are currently, unless they make some fundamental changes to how lab caches work. The way I understood Jayme was that the I <3 Geocaching concept that's being experimented within this series of lab caches may become an official cache type at some point in the future.

 

Maybe I'm wrong on that. Perhaps some clarity on that would be useful, Jayme?

 

3) Having Lab Caches displayed and function in the profile similar to Benchmark finds would be, imo, more favourable, and likely less controversial

I mostly agree, but it was a choice by Groundspeak to make them add to a cacher's find count, so I'm happy to read that they intend to fix up the stats that relate/contribute to the find count also.

I'm leaning the opposite way. The fact that Lab Caches are fundamentally different than standard geocaches is a Good Thing, given that they are intended to be temporary framework in which ideas can be tested. And because of that, they should be handled differently in profile stats. But that's just my opinion and preference

The cache concepts being experimented may well become official caches. In those cases, they should most definitely be treated on the same par as the current set of standard geocache types.

 

Groundspeak don't emphasise that Lab Caches are not standard geocaches aside from pointing out some key differences such as not showing up as a hide for the creator. They do refer to them as geocaches, in fact.

Right, and I think that's a cause for confusion, as referenced without qualification. A lot of the time it sounds like finding Lab Caches is fun in its own right (on par with standard caches) -- when it's the current experiment, the current type of lab cache that they're meaning. At least that's how I'm understanding their intention with the "Lab Cache" addition to geocaching.com.

 

7) Like beta testing a game, the option to partake (the creation portion of the experiment) is not open to everyone. To 'make the cut' as a participant in that element of the experiment you need to be a Premium Member. That is not a "gift", it's a right afforded by being a paying member. Even then, anyone can find one of these lab caches and 'earn' a +1 Find.

Yes, but (and this is also in response to your points about why they should not be counted as a geocache find) a game player can still count the number of times they have beta tested a game (any game). And, when they were beta testing a game, they can say they were "playing a game" - not necessarily the same game ultimately released, but a game nonetheless.

Where? Where is any person's global stats of game beta testing stored? If at all, it would be in a system designed by the creators of a series of games (franchise, eg) as a way to 'reward' their loyal beta tester. In this case, that's analogous the +1 find count. It seems there's no lasting 'reward' for creating one, at this point only finding one. (I wouldn't mind seeing a record of number of Lab Caches created though )

And just like a beta tester can say they were "playing a game", of course a geocacher can say they were "geocaching". Saying something is different than keeping a record of it Now, the beta tester couldn't say they were playing "Game XYZ" - because they weren't, they were playing the "Game XYZ Beta", which could be very very different than the final product (and potentially even have no inherent record of them being a beta tester).

 

As cachers, we have the opportunity to 'beta test' a cache concept, and that 'find' participation is recorded in the awarding of a +1 Find count. Otherwise, what we're doing is 'Finding' (and creating) a 'beta' version of a concept cache within the container that is what Groundspeak refers to as the "Lab Cache".

 

See, the other problem is, what if Groundspeak wants to beta test a very very different technical type of cache? They have the system set up to track activity with the temporal and flexible Lab Cache functionality - but if they make huge changes to how it works just for this particular experiment, then what does anyone's past "12 Lab Caches Found" actually represent? Not the current cache concept, that's for sure. That stat doesn't record what they actually found, what type of experiment they completed - only that they participated in the testing of a new cache concept via the Lab Cache 'type'. What they actually found may never see the light of day; OTOH, it might be the Next Big Thing. Either way, what they found as recorded was a "success" in completing an arbitrary process designed to test a concept.

 

That's the Lab Cache.

Edited January 29, 2014 by thebruce0

[+funkymunkyzone]

I don't think I was clear enough - yes the experience of finding a lab cache can be analogous to any standard geocache (depending on the guidelines set out for the current experiment), but technically they are very much not a "geocache" as the website treats geocaches. This is what I think people are getting confused by. They see "Lab Cache" and equate it, generally, with whatever the current experiment is, rather than the fact that they're each more like a record of a single participation in a dynamically formed cache concept that isn't tracked any more on the site than the fact that you entered the correct code on its listing.

No, I think you were clear enough. I agree there is *some* confusion, but I think most in *this* thread understand that the title "Lab Cache" is the umbrella term for any expermintal cache that takes place in the laboratory. I just think that it's not so much different than a "Mystery Cache", which is also an umbrella term for a variety of different types of cache, so I see no reason to treat them differently on that basis alone.

 

This is another thing I believe needs to be cleared up. My understanding is that Lab Caches themselves won't (can't) be integrated any more than they are currently, unless they make some fundamental changes to how lab caches work. The way I understood Jayme was that the I <3 Geocaching concept that's being experimented within this series of lab caches may become an official cache type at some point in the future.

 

Maybe I'm wrong on that. Perhaps some clarity on that would be useful, Jayme?

They can't be integrated right now but the intention is to integrate them in the future:

 

Alright... let's talk about stats for a second. Here's complete transparency. The geocaching site currently exists on two systems, an older system and a newer system. Geocaching Labs was built on the new system. The stats live on the older system and aren't available on the new systems. It won't always be this way. We will eventually bring all current geocache listings over onto the new (more efficient) system and integrate everything. This takes time and resources. It would be horrible to rush into that, break something big, and disrupt your upcoming caching adventure. This is why you might hear Moun10Bike or myself letting you know, on other threads, why some functionality on the site isn't as easy to create as it may seem. This is also why you are hearing that the stats may work correctly in the future, but they aren't there yet - it is our hope to make it happen, because we would really like this too. *big breath*

And...

Does a Lab Cache effect the statistics on my Geocaching profile page?

The short answer is, “It will in the future.” The current statistics system does not support Lab Cache finds, but it will in the future. We’ll keep you posted.

 

7) Like beta testing a game, the option to partake (the creation portion of the experiment) is not open to everyone. To 'make the cut' as a participant in that element of the experiment you need to be a Premium Member. That is not a "gift", it's a right afforded by being a paying member. Even then, anyone can find one of these lab caches and 'earn' a +1 Find.

Yes, but (and this is also in response to your points about why they should not be counted as a geocache find) a game player can still count the number of times they have beta tested a game (any game). And, when they were beta testing a game, they can say they were "playing a game" - not necessarily the same game ultimately released, but a game nonetheless.

Where? Where is any person's global stats of game beta testing stored? If at all, it would be in a system designed by the creators of a series of games (franchise, eg) as a way to 'reward' their loyal beta tester. In this case, that's analogous the +1 find count. It seems there's no lasting 'reward' for creating one, at this point only finding one. (I wouldn't mind seeing a record of number of Lab Caches created though )

And just like a beta tester can say they were "playing a game", of course a geocacher can say they were "geocaching". Saying something is different than keeping a record of it Now, the beta tester couldn't say they were playing "Game XYZ" - because they weren't, they were playing the "Game XYZ Beta", which could be very very different than the final product (and potentially even have no inherent record of them being a beta tester).

The game beta testing analogy was yours not mine. My point was, using the game beta testing example, if the example game player kept stats on the games they played, I agree it would be invalid to count the beta testing of game XYZ as playing the resulting released game XYZ as they may be very different, but it is *not* invalid for the player to count the number of times he has played 'generic beta test game'... But yeah it's not a very good analogy to begin with... ;-)

 

See, the other problem is, what if Groundspeak wants to beta test a very very different technical type of cache? They have the system set up to track activity with the temporal and flexible Lab Cache functionality - but if they make huge changes to how it works just for this particular experiment, then what does anyone's past "12 Lab Caches Found" actually represent? Not the current cache concept, that's for sure. That stat doesn't record what they actually found, what type of experiment they completed - only that they participated in the testing of a new cache concept via the Lab Cache 'type'. What they actually found may never see the light of day; OTOH, it might be the Next Big Thing. Either way, what they found as recorded was a "success" in completing an arbitrary process designed to test a concept.

 

That's the Lab Cache.

Precisely - it seems you agree with me. Essentially, the number of times someone has found an experimental cache that could be any experimental cache type within the test lab environment, can be counted. Fact is, they are counted right now, included in the overall find count and shown with a "lab cache" icon on our profiles.

[Jayme H]

So, if I read the KB correctly, the Lab needs to be created by the end of February. Is there any time constraints on the find?

Good question! All Lab Caches are built with a set start/end time. At Mega Events the organizers get to decide what that time frame is. For I <3 Geocaching Lab Caches, creators and finders will have until midnight on February 28th (your local time) to create or or enter the correct find code and receive or give a smiley to someone.

[Jayme H]

If I later choose not to participate, can I give my code to my single-parent neighbor (also a PM) with two daughters?

In her eyes, both are special.

Unfortunately, I <3 Geocaching won't quite work like that. Every Premium Member account will be able to create a Lab Cache. The Lab Cache will be tied to your account's username, so you won't be able to give it to your neighbor.

 

What a sweet idea though...you are nice person. Maybe we will look into this concept more in the future.

[Jayme H]

1) That's too bad. It would be great to see what "adventures" (or lack of adventures) people came up during this experiment.

We will be collecting stories from folks who play and sharing them with the rest of the world via Facebook, blog posts, etc. I'll get a forum thread going once it starts so we can all participate in the fun, as well.

[Jayme H]

I'm thinking my Lab Cache will be a day-long multi that ends with an outdoor concert where the lead singer shouts out the code during the drum solo.

Such a FANTASTIC idea! Love where you are headed with this...keep those juices flowing.

[+thebruce0]

No, I think you were clear enough. I agree there is *some* confusion, but I think most in *this* thread understand that the title "Lab Cache" is the umbrella term for any expermintal cache that takes place in the laboratory. I just think that it's not so much different than a "Mystery Cache", which is also an umbrella term for a variety of different types of cache, so I see no reason to treat them differently on that basis alone.

But the "Mystery Cache" is a standard cache type, stored in a very different system than Labs, and also has a well-fleshed out guideline 'book' that helps determine what values should be stored for all the standard geocache listing properties. Lab caches do not. Fundamentally, lab caches are quite different than standard geocaches.

 

They can't be integrated right now but the intention is to integrate them in the future:

I know all that... that's why I was asking for clarification as to 1) whether they were actually referring to the experiment currently being performed as becoming an official type in the future, or 2) if significant overhauls to the profile and statistics system would be implemented in order to treat "Lab Caches" (explicitly) as on par with standard geocaches (this is where I think they should not be, should be kept segregated, for various reasons; and I'm sure others disagree with me )

 

Where? Where is any person's global stats of game beta testing stored? If at all, it would be in a system designed by the creators of a series of games (franchise, eg) as a way to 'reward' their loyal beta tester. In this case, that's analogous the +1 find count. It seems there's no lasting 'reward' for creating one, at this point only finding one. (I wouldn't mind seeing a record of number of Lab Caches created though )

And just like a beta tester can say they were "playing a game", of course a geocacher can say they were "geocaching". Saying something is different than keeping a record of it Now, the beta tester couldn't say they were playing "Game XYZ" - because they weren't, they were playing the "Game XYZ Beta", which could be very very different than the final product (and potentially even have no inherent record of them being a beta tester).

The game beta testing analogy was yours not mine. My point was, using the game beta testing example, if the example game player kept stats on the games they played, I agree it would be invalid to count the beta testing of game XYZ as playing the resulting released game XYZ as they may be very different, but it is *not* invalid for the player to count the number of times he has played 'generic beta test game'... But yeah it's not a very good analogy to begin with... ;-)

Oh I know the analogy was mine; you expanded on it, so I responded to the expansion ;P.

If the player kept their own stats, then they can do whatever they want with their own stats... as it stands, we're talking Groundspeak's implementation of stats tracking using their own data. In that case, the player is able to track 'generic beta test game' - that's the Lab Cache find count. And I'm fully on board with that. I still don't yet see a problem with the analogy

 

Precisely - it seems you agree with me.

I was getting that sense... I was just hoping for clarification on a couple of points (from tptb).

 

Essentially, the number of times someone has found an experimental cache that could be any experimental cache type within the test lab environment, can be counted. Fact is, they are counted right now, included in the overall find count and shown with a "lab cache" icon on our profiles.

Exactly.

And yeah, in this forum the general understanding about Lab Caches may be more accurate, but I've seen plenty of comments and rants and raves out in the wild internets on blogs and soc.med that don't seem to grasp the 'experiment' nature of the Lab Cache entity, not that, for example, ALL Lab Caches EVER are and will only be defined by the "I <3 Geocaching" concept or the "temporary" caches tested at mega events. I've seen plenty of people thinking that "temporary cache" IS exactly what the Lab Cache is; when no, it just happened that the experiment at the time was about event-based temporary caches (which happened to coincide with the nature of the lab cache which is temporary)

yaddayadda...

 

My only point: I don't think it's necessarily clear to the layperson that the "Lab Cache" is fundamentally an experimental 'thing', and not inherently some kind of test cache type that will become an official "Lab Cache" geocache listing type (at least if Groundspeak keeps it as what I believe it was intended to be - a sandboxed container entity in which to try out dynamic and varying ideas, quite different than a standard geocache, technically speaking)

*shrug*

Edited January 29, 2014 by thebruce0

[Jayme H]

My guess is that romantic emotions have led someone at Groundspeak to come up with this February experiment without fully analysing the pros and cons. A lot of decisions taken at Groundspeak seem to be heart-based ones.

We just went through a mandatory harassment training here at HQ. We, unfortunately, aren't allowed to make decisions based on or express anything remotely close to a romantic emotion while at work.

 

Sharing Lab Caches with the community was decidedly important because we care about what the community thinks. We have created things before, without asking for input from the community...this is us trying to make a change in the process.

[+CanadianRockies]

They are only relaxing a few of the GEOCACHING rules (mainly proximity and longevity), not saying that anything goes.

Really? Where did you read or hear that? According to the recent blog, "You’re only bound by your imagination, a Find Code and, of course, local laws, regulations and just common sense." For example, commercial lab caches will be allowed.

The imagination limit applies to all geocaches, as do local laws, etc..

Yes, imagination and local laws also apply to normal caches. But in addition to imagination and local laws, Groundspeak has created its own set of guidelines that apply to normal caches. It doesn't appear that those Groundspeak guidelines apply to lab caches. Instead, for lab caches, "you’re only bound by your imagination, a Find Code and, of course, local laws, regulations and just common sense."

 

Hopefully, the actual guidelines, when published, will prevent most of the anticipated stupidity.

Yes, hopefully Groundspeak will apply some of its own guidelines when they officially release the lab caches.

[cezanne]

Sharing Lab Caches with the community was decidedly important because we care about what the community thinks. We have created things before, without asking for input from the community...this is us trying to make a change in the process.

 

Thanks for your answer, but I think that I did not manage to get my message through. I tried to speculate why Groundspeak decided to come up with the Febnruary experiment in exactly this form, i.e. allow only single person as a finder and why the provided examples all go into the direction of making up a lab cache for a special person and not making up a special cache for then potentially many people.

 

Did I manage this time to explain why I speculated about the romantic background? It was not intended in any way as a negative comment or question from my side. I'm just someone who thinks very analytically and I just wondered why the experiment has been set up in exactly this manner.

 

I would not be able at all to evaluate a lab cache that someone had set up for me as a present despite my analytical mind. Would you be able to do that in a reasonably objective manner?

 

It appears to me that Groundspeak mixed two components into the February experiment that in my opinion do not match well with each other.

One is the idea to offer a kind of present to every PM that in turn could be forwarded to a single specially selected cacher and the other is to learn about what the community's creativity for caches outside of the conventional setting.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 29, 2014 by cezanne

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

So, if I read the KB correctly, the Lab needs to be created by the end of February. Is there any time constraints on the find?

Good question! All Lab Caches are built with a set start/end time. At Mega Events the organizers get to decide what that time frame is. For I <3 Geocaching Lab Caches, creators and finders will have until midnight on February 28th (your local time) to create or or enter the correct find code and receive or give a smiley to someone.

Darn, I won't be ready to pop the question to Shark by then...been working on it for six years Well, now I can get creative w/o the pressure or jitters of that plan.

[+thebruce0]

I would not be able at all to evaluate a lab cache that someone had set up for me as a present despite my analytical mind. Would you be able to do that in a reasonably objective manner?

hm. I don't think they'd be looking explicitly for objective evaluations of specific caches.

I think they'd welcome both objective evaluations and subjective opinions of caches that were set up for ourselves by someone else, as well opinions (they're never objective ) about the "I <3 Geocaching" concept as whole...

 

The way they're promoting this really seems to pulling on the 'heart strings' of people to do something special for someone special. So, really, I'd think any feedback (that is constructive - positive or negative, objective evaluations or opinions) would be welcome.

[+CanadianRockies]

Don't ignore that they also mentioned abiding by all laws and local regulations, which in most places in the world would include laws about vandalism.

While some local vandalism laws might include carving trees, nailing signs onto trees, and writing on rocks, certainly not all of them do. That's why Groundspeak's guidelines, in addition to requiring that local laws be obeyed, also has an extra guideline that forbids destroying, defacing, or damaging property.

 

Plus, most local vandalism laws probably don't forbid burying objects, placing objects near schools/dams/highway bridges/military facilities, hiding objects in ancient British dry walls, etc.

 

In any case, I think it's an over-reaction to assume there is this group of otherwise law and guideline-abiding geocachers out there just chomping at the bit to get out and do some vandalism just because Groundspeak hasn't spelt out in black and white to not do it.

As others have pointed out, many geocachers already do violate Groundspeak guidelines. So, I don't think it's an over-reaction to assume that some geocachers will hide lab caches in ways that violate Groundspeak guidelines when those guidelines no longer apply.

[Jayme H]

According to the recent blog, "You’re only bound by your imagination, a Find Code and, of course, local laws, regulations and just common sense." For example, commercial lab caches will be allowed.

 

Perhaps Jayme H will be so kind as to clarify this concern.

I would be happy to clarify. Yes, commercial lab caches would be allowed.

 

This is an experiment and an opportunity to try something that you wouldn't normally be able to do with a non Labs geocache. It can be located in a business (on a menu that someone is reading), or be a moving cache (on a cruise ship), or have an agenda (religious, political, charitable or social).

[+SirDonB]

ok, from the get go when I first saw the term "Lab Cache" I was curious about them and green that it was only at the HQ mega event at that time as I wanted the chance to find one, but couldn't. Now I thought initially that it could be some new event based, cache type being implemented. After reading the info Jayme H provied around post 150ish, I have a better understanding of what the lab cache is.

 

When you break it down to its individual parts, a lab is short for laboratory which is associated with testing and experiments. And a cache which we all should know what it is, is a major component associated with Geocaching. And since it appears that the counting for stats is not the same as the rest of the system, the floating data that allows your icon to show and the +1 to your find count, to me, falls as an abstract construct or better known as an idea. So when you put it all together, Here is my undestanding of it...

 

A lab cache is GroundSpeaks "idea testing container" with it being an umbrella cache simular to a mystery cache. Mystery caches can be a number of different cache subtypes like puzzles, historical, etc. A lab cache could also be any number of subtypes like "I <3 Geocaching," The mega event lab caches, etc. If this concept was out at the time, the "31 Days of Geocaching" could have fallen as a lab cache in therory. In the future I see other ideas coming from Groundspeak and falling under the lab cache umbrella.

 

Again, just my opinion. If I am wrong, let a mod, lackey, or other power that is correct me.

[+DanOCan]

Sharing Lab Caches with the community was decidedly important because we care about what the community thinks. We have created things before, without asking for input from the community...this is us trying to make a change in the process.

 

Thanks for your answer, but I think that I did not manage to get my message through. I tried to speculate why Groundspeak decided to come up with the Febnruary experiment in exactly this form, i.e. allow only single person as a finder and why the provided examples all go into the direction of making up a lab cache for a special person and not making up a special cache for then potentially many people.

I think what you are describing is exactly what they did with lab caches last year at Mega events. Those were experiments to see how one person placing a lab cache for a group of people for a specific period of time would work. Now they're doing a different experiment in the lab -- one hider and just one finder within a specific period of time.

 

Maybe the next experiment will be "Hide a traditional cache but only use a qr code instead of a logbook." That one might be open to multiple finders for six months or something. Or, more likely, some idea I'd never be able to dream up.

 

It's a great idea. Did the community enjoy the experiment? What issues arose that we never even considered until it was releases to the masses? How could this idea for a new cache integrate into our I.T. systems?

 

I admit it, I've changed my view now that I get the idea behind Lab Caches, and not just the I <3 Geocaching experiment. I'm enthusiastic now!

[+funkymunkyzone]

In any case, I think it's an over-reaction to assume there is this group of otherwise law and guideline-abiding geocachers out there just chomping at the bit to get out and do some vandalism just because Groundspeak hasn't spelt out in black and white to not do it.

As others have pointed out, many geocachers already do violate Groundspeak guidelines. So, I don't think it's an over-reaction to assume that some geocachers will hide lab caches in ways that violate Groundspeak guidelines when those guidelines no longer apply.

I don't believe your concerns are not valid concerns - I just think it's an over-reaction. I've also made bold the important bit in my post that you might have missed - you'll never stop those who will break guidelines anyway, unless you follow them around everywhere they go.

Edited January 29, 2014 by funkymunkyzone

[+NYPaddleCacher]

So, if I read the KB correctly, the Lab needs to be created by the end of February. Is there any time constraints on the find?

Good question! All Lab Caches are built with a set start/end time. At Mega Events the organizers get to decide what that time frame is. For I <3 Geocaching Lab Caches, creators and finders will have until midnight on February 28th (your local time) to create or or enter the correct find code and receive or give a smiley to someone.

Darn, I won't be ready to pop the question to Shark by then...been working on it for six years Well, now I can get creative w/o the pressure or jitters of that plan.

 

I take it that Shark doesn't read the forums.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

My guess is that romantic emotions have led someone at Groundspeak to come up with this February experiment without fully analysing the pros and cons. A lot of decisions taken at Groundspeak seem to be heart-based ones.

We just went through a mandatory harassment training here at HQ. We, unfortunately, aren't allowed to make decisions based on or express anything remotely close to a romantic emotion while at work.

 

Sharing Lab Caches with the community was decidedly important because we care about what the community thinks. We have created things before, without asking for input from the community...this is us trying to make a change in the process.

 

I think that there still may be some confusion regarding Lab Cache and it may be due to the terminology being used.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but as I see it, a Lab Cache is a program/platform for testing out new ideas. In that sense, the Mega-Event and Block Party "lab caches" could be thought of as implementations of a location based game that uses the Lab Cache platform to deliver the new idea. In that case, only GS and Mega Event creators can create that kind of cache. In the case of the February experiment, the Lab Cache platform (by creating a mechanism which allows premium members to create a game piece that can only be found by one person), that allows premium members to come up with their own ideas. I assume that the goal of this experiment is to solicit ideas for new cache (or more accurately, a location based game) type. If my interpretation is correct then perhaps it might more sense to call the Lab Cache something like Groundspeak Labs. As I suggested earlier, many have a preconceived notion of what a "cache" is, and because the platform doesn't support many of the features associated with a standard cache (e.g. a formal review process) but it's being *called* a Lab Cache, and the implementations (the temporary block party and mega event caches and the February experiment caches) might bear little resemblance to what we've come to know as a cache.

[+CanadianRockies]

In any case, I think it's an over-reaction to assume there is this group of otherwise law and guideline-abiding geocachers out there just chomping at the bit to get out and do some vandalism just because Groundspeak hasn't spelt out in black and white to not do it.

As others have pointed out, many geocachers already do violate Groundspeak guidelines. So, I don't think it's an over-reaction to assume that some geocachers will hide lab caches in ways that violate Groundspeak guidelines when those guidelines no longer apply.

I don't believe your concerns are not valid concerns - I just think it's an over-reaction. I've also made bold the important bit in my post that you might have missed - you'll never stop those who will break guidelines anyway, unless you follow them around everywhere they go.

I didn't miss the bold part. The point I'm making is that pounding a nail into a tree won't break the guidelines for lab caches, since that guideline apparently doesn't apply to lab caches. So, people who normally obey the guidelines will be free to pound nails when they place their lab caches.

 

Is pounding a nail into a tree vandalism? In some areas, perhaps so. In other areas, probably not. Many law- and guideline-abiding geocachers (and some land managers) don't think pounding a nail into a tree harms the tree. Since pounding nails into a tree isn't illegal in some areas and doesn't violate Groundspeak's guidelines regarding lab caches, it doesn't take a big leap to imagine that some geocachers who normally wouldn't pound nails into trees will do so with their lab caches.

 

Others will bury their caches. Some will hide their caches near schools/cemeteries/dams/highway bridges/military facilities.

 

In any case, Groundspeak is about to announce to the world that they will allow the placement of unreviewed caches "only bound by your imagination, a Find Code and, of course, local laws, regulations and just common sense." I don't think it's an over-reaction to be concerned about the effect that such an announcement might have on Groundspeak's relations with land managers.

Edited January 30, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+wimseyguy]

If I later choose not to participate, can I give my code to my single-parent neighbor (also a PM) with two daughters?

In her eyes, both are special.

Unfortunately, I <3 Geocaching won't quite work like that. Every Premium Member account will be able to create a Lab Cache. The Lab Cache will be tied to your account's username, so you won't be able to give it to your neighbor.

 

What a sweet idea though...you are nice person. Maybe we will look into this concept more in the future.

 

You could conspire with your neighbor and hide one for one daughter and let her hide one for the other daughter.

[+journey374]

From YouTube:

Breaking news! On Feb 3rd, 2014 Geocaching.com is allowing premium members to hide a lab cache for one person! Watch the video for details!

 

Is this real? Can't seem to find anything on here about it.

 

how in the world do you place these lab caches with out them going on the geocaching page and would you share the link

[+SirDonB]

From YouTube:

Breaking news! On Feb 3rd, 2014 Geocaching.com is allowing premium members to hide a lab cache for one person! Watch the video for details!

 

Is this real? Can't seem to find anything on here about it.

 

how in the world do you place these lab caches with out them going on the geocaching page and would you share the link

 

you place them like any other cache... exception is they do not show up on the map and are a private listing that only the person you give the HTML link to will be able to view the cache page.

 

At least this is my understanding.

[+cerberus1]

If I later choose not to participate, can I give my code to my single-parent neighbor (also a PM) with two daughters?

In her eyes, both are special.

Unfortunately, I <3 Geocaching won't quite work like that. Every Premium Member account will be able to create a Lab Cache. The Lab Cache will be tied to your account's username, so you won't be able to give it to your neighbor.

 

What a sweet idea though...you are nice person. Maybe we will look into this concept more in the future.

 

You could conspire with your neighbor and hide one for one daughter and let her hide one for the other daughter.

Yeah, thought of that.

But if one cache is tied to my username and the other to their Mom's, I'd think the other might question, "why Mom picked her".

Not quite teens, you know how kids are...

[+SirDonB]

If I later choose not to participate, can I give my code to my single-parent neighbor (also a PM) with two daughters?

In her eyes, both are special.

Unfortunately, I <3 Geocaching won't quite work like that. Every Premium Member account will be able to create a Lab Cache. The Lab Cache will be tied to your account's username, so you won't be able to give it to your neighbor.

 

What a sweet idea though...you are nice person. Maybe we will look into this concept more in the future.

 

You could conspire with your neighbor and hide one for one daughter and let her hide one for the other daughter.

Yeah, thought of that.

But if one cache is tied to my username and the other to their Mom's, I'd think the other might question, "why Mom picked her".

Not quite teens, you know how kids are...

 

I think that the "tied to username" bit is more for the system so that you can't create 2+ lab caches. And given the limit, if they know that MOM made both for them to find with your help since she could only create one from her account, then I think it should be fine with the kids. I would hope the kids would be understanding that for Feb lab caches are 1 PM account, 1 lab cache only, no exceptions. You thinking about offering to help that mom to create a special lab cache so both her daugters can have one to find speaks volumes about your charactor.

[+ChileHead]

We just went through a mandatory harassment training here at HQ.

 

I opted out of the harassment training at work. I already know how to harass people, and I'm surprised people need training to learn how to do it.

[+funkymunkyzone]

So, people who normally obey the guidelines will be free to pound nails when they place their lab caches.

So you do think there is a group of otherwise law and guideline-abiding geocachers out there just chomping at the bit to get out and do some vandalism. Interesting. I don't and I continue to think that's over-reacting to the whole thing.

 

Time will tell of course, and if the sky falls at the end of Feb, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong and you were right. If the sky doesn't fall...?

[+SirDonB]

We just went through a mandatory harassment training here at HQ.

 

I opted out of the harassment training at work. I already know how to harass people, and I'm surprised people need training to learn how to do it.

 

Agreed, sarcasm and all... I work in an envorment were the staff is 98% women, no amount of training will help me either way, if its my turn, I will be accused. I just try to keep my integrity so that is the one thing that can not be questioned or at least when it is, I am not the one that is wrong.

[+SirDonB]

So, people who normally obey the guidelines will be free to pound nails when they place their lab caches.

So you do think there is a group of otherwise law and guideline-abiding geocachers out there just chomping at the bit to get out and do some vandalism. Interesting. I don't and I continue to think that's over-reacting to the whole thing.

 

Time will tell of course, and if the sky falls at the end of Feb, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong and you were right. If the sky doesn't fall...?

 

Like you I try to see the best people have to offer, yet not putting past them the worst they can do as well. I have seen that the person you least suspect to do something wrong is often the one that will. With the group I work with, it has been most often the quitest one that has the worst temper and foulest mouth, yet till provoked, the impression they give you would never guess it in a million years. This is why I never put anything past anyone. We all have that rebel in us that wants to get out and break the rules. It just depends on when and who lets that rebel out.

 

So is it possible that law/guideline abidine cachers could go ape when the rules are relaxed? absolutly, I have no doubt that some will do it. I hope that they dont, but I acknowldge that the possibility does exist.

[+JesandTodd]

]

 

We just went through a mandatory harassment training here at HQ.

 

I opted out of the harassment training at work. I already know how to harass people, and I'm surprised people need training to learn how to do it.

 

Seriously, I just spit my wine out on my iPad.

 

Lol

I've literally been told to tone down my "that's what she said"'s at work.

 

Sheesh. This world...

[cezanne]

The way they're promoting this really seems to pulling on the 'heart strings' of people to do something special for someone special. So, really, I'd think any feedback (that is constructive - positive or negative, objective evaluations or opinions) would be welcome.

 

I have a similar impression regarding the "heart string" and that's why I feel that this experiment is not well suited for the purpose of seeing how creative people can be in the general geocaching context and that the term evaluation that has been used is not appropriate. Terms like feedback or something similar would then be much betters suited.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

I think what you are describing is exactly what they did with lab caches last year at Mega events. Those were experiments to see how one person placing a lab cache for a group of people for a specific period of time would work. Now they're doing a different experiment in the lab -- one hider and just one finder within a specific period of time.

 

Actually what I had in mind is certainly nothing that would be suited for mega events and I also did not necessarily have a restricted period in mind and even less just a day or a weekend.

 

I would find the February experiment so much more interesting if instead of the dedication to a single person, the lab caches could be opened up to everyone who goes for them in February (they still could also offer the option of dedicating it to a single person).

 

It would be interesting to see which ideas are enjoyed by more than person and outside of a personal context.

 

I guess what I really miss the most is the online log aspect and noone so far explained why this aspect is not present in lab caches.

Why in the world should someone be forced to go to a blog or use social media to express his experience with a particular lab cache? Would anyone want to browse through tons of posts to find a comment on some local lab caches? I definitely wouldn't.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 30, 2014 by cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

My guess is that romantic emotions have led someone at Groundspeak to come up with this February experiment without fully analysing the pros and cons. A lot of decisions taken at Groundspeak seem to be heart-based ones.

We just went through a mandatory harassment training here at HQ. We, unfortunately, aren't allowed to make decisions based on or express anything remotely close to a romantic emotion while at work.

 

Was that before or after GS decided to use the heart emoticon for these new lab caches?

 

 

[+thebruce0]

I have a similar impression regarding the "heart string" and that's why I feel that this experiment is not well suited for the purpose of seeing how creative people can be in the general geocaching context and that the term evaluation that has been used is not appropriate. Terms like feedback or something similar would then be much betters suited.

the "heart string" I would say is a key element in people's creativity! Emotion, wanting to do something special for someone, originality, uniqueness... by marketing it as an opportunity for this type of creativity, I think they stand a very good chance of seeing what people are capable of creating; whether in a short time or a longer term (by end of Feb) creation process...

 

---

Just to re-iterate my tldr from earlier:

 

1) Lab Caches technically aren't "geocaches" themselves. They are experiments that reward those who contribute and 'Find' one a +1 to their findcount. I think too many people think "Lab Caches" are all the same type of thing (equivalent to standard physical/virtual geocaches), even across different experiment periods, thus some of the confusion.

 

2) Being a formless data 'container', the way they exist in the database is fundamentally different than standard geocaches and finds (logs) and so can't be simply included in profile statistics without enormous work

2b) They don't have properties and rules because those are presented in the form of themes and guidelines for the experiment being done; this is also a reason why they are only available temporarily, since different experiments may require different 'container' programming (like multiple code 'finds' vs one-time finds).

 

3) I think having Lab Caches displayed and function in the profile similar to Benchmark finds would be more favourable, and likely less controversial

 

4) Finding a lab cache does not make you a "special person" to Groundspeak. In this experiment, they make you a "special person" to the one who gave you the link to their I <3 Geocaching Lab Cache link.

 

5) Code swapping may well happen -- but so what? It's a valid sample case in the context of this lab cache experiment. Those people consider each other "special" enough to not actually do anything except take a code and enter it online for an icon in their profile.

 

6) Groundspeak should put more emphasis on the point that Lab Cache is not a standard geocache, and that at any particular time a new experiment is being run, the current "Lab Cache" you may find may actually be completely different (practically speaking) than any previous Lab Cache you may have found. People are 'finding' (participating in) experiments.

 

7) Like beta testing a game, the option to partake (the creation portion of the experiment) is not open to everyone. To 'make the cut' as a participant in that element of the experiment you need to be a Premium Member. That is not a "gift", it's a right afforded by being a paying member. Even then, anyone can find one of these lab caches and 'earn' a +1 Find.

 

Why would anyone want to find an experiment?

Well if you don't, then don't.

If you do, do.

Simple as that.

 

Be a beta tester and find [anyone can], or create [paying members only] - but realize that you're not buying the full release of the game, you're helping forge the final release through constructive (positive or critical) feedback. And Groundspeak has decided that our contribution (as finders) will be rewarded with 1 more find count. Don't like it? Don't find it, or delete it (they've provided instructions for how to do so)

[+thebruce0]

Also, not sure if you skipped or didn't see my inquiry, but I was wondering what it is Groundspeak is referring to when they say they'll eventually have Lab Caches more built in to profile stats? Does that mean that the 'lab cache' concept itself will become trackable in user profile stats moreso than just as a find count increment, but somehow incorporated into geocache property statistics?

 

Just wondering, if so, how that'll happen? Would the lab cache listing still not have any standard properties, or will they be given things like difficulty and terrain for the creators to define?

 

I think the thing is, at this point, you could take any classification of statistic that encompasses you're entire find count, and break it down. Whether the DT (every row/column summed = find count) or cache type (total = find count), etc... How would "Lab Caches" fit into that structure? Or is structure going to change to make room for the 'Lab Cache' type?

 

(am I/are we misunderstanding, those of us who think that the intention is that lab caches will remain distinct from standard geocaches and it's actually the experiments that were implied to potentially become official geocaches?)

Edited January 30, 2014 by thebruce0