Jump to content

Place your own Lab Cache!?!?!


geocat_

Recommended Posts

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.

:blink:

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...

 

I do not agree except if the idea is just to see what type of ideas cachers can come up for private caches (birthday caches, proposals and many other things) that are devoted to a single person.

 

It makes a huge difference if I try to create something for a single person or for a larger group of not preselected people. If someone chose to create a lab cache for a beloved person, a dear friend etc, then it is quite tempting to adapt the concept to this special person, to add insider information, special gifts. lead to locations that play a special role in the life of the selected person etc - these are all nice ingredients for a private cache, but not for a public one where one does not know the finders in advance. It is way easier to create something which is special for a single preselected person one known very well than to come up with something which is perceived as special by an a priori unknown audience.

 

If the idea of the experiment is mainly to see how private caches could work and whether such an offer might be added to gc.com, then I agree with you. The point I tried to make is that it would be more interesting to see what potential there exists for lab caches that are not going to be private caches as this seems to me to have a larger potential to be interesting for the community at large.

 

I do not need to read your long posting more than once. I understood the experimental character of lab caches right from the beginning. The aspect which is in the centre of this line of discussion is what are the exact goals of the February experiment and whether the chosen experimental design and the intended approach of evaluation is optimal for the chosen objective.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

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.

 

So, if I place one of these, will I get the 'Found It' log from the finder? Where else will that 'Found It' story be visible?

Do I need to be aware that my "Found It' log for this Personal Cache Experience from someone who <3 s me, may be for public view?

We have had the idea posted about these being done in Strip Clubs, How graphic can the story of the I <3 Geocaching experience be?

Link to comment

I do not agree except if the idea is just to see what type of ideas cachers can come up for private caches (birthday caches, proposals and many other things) that are devoted to a single person.

Which... seems to be the point of this experiment... so...

 

Many of the official statements about the February experiment sounded however more general (in terms of learning about the community's creativity)

and that was what I was commenting on.

 

Moreover, I still think that the term evaluation is improperly used in this context.

 

My comments were not directed to the experiment itself which has not had started, but to some of the statements available.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

So, if I place one of these, will I get the 'Found It' log from the finder? Where else will that 'Found It' story be visible?

 

If I understood it correctly there are no logs at all. The finder can however of course e-mail you privately or tell you his/her experiences in person.

 

It disappoints me very much that lab caches do not incorporate the online log concept.

Link to comment

We have had the idea posted about these being done in Strip Clubs, How graphic can the story of the I <3 Geocaching experience be?

 

There's no review so you can post whatever you want. Be aware though that if it's graphic I would assume you might risk having your account suspended for a violation of terms of use (I believe it covers such things?)

 

Likely, since this is meant as a private cache for one person, nobody but your intended person will see what you post.

Link to comment

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.

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...? :)

As I previously explained (see bold part, above), there are some local jurisdictions and geocachers who don't consider it vandalism to pound nails into trees. Many geocachers and land managers don't consider such actions to be harmful to the trees.

 

I never claimed any of these people are chomping at the bit to pound those nails, but some of them certainly might find it convenient to do so when placing their lab caches. (Nails would have made placing several of our normal birdhouse caches easier.) Since there doesn't appear to be a Groundspeak guideline that prohibits them from doing so, some of them might just do that (even though they wouldn't do so with their normal caches due to the guideline that forbids it). Others might bury their caches, place them beneath highway bridges, etc.

 

While I never said the sky would fall due to lab caches, I did express some concern that Groundspeak might be poised to open the gates too widely. I expressed that concern, in part, because I realize Groundspeak and local geocachers have worked out understandings with many land managers.

 

In the case of my city, the parks department essentially was going to ban geocaches from being placed in a fair number of parks and from all city-owned trees. Over the course of several months, local geocachers had discussions with city officials where the geocachers explained that Groundspeak guidelines forbid pounding nails into trees or damaging them in any way. They said if caches violate those guidelines, then the city could remove them and report them to Groundspeak. Groundspeak then could archive those caches, warn the cache owners about the guidelines, and even ban owners who repeatedly violated the guidelines. The number of parks where caches were entirely banned was reduced, and our local volunteers no longer publish caches in those parks.

 

My guess is that if these city officials learn that Groundspeak now will allow lab caches to be nailed onto trees, buried, and placed in prohibited parks, then they might have second thoughts about how effective that agreement is. I hope this doesn't happen.

 

I know we aren't the only geocachers who have reached these general kinds of understandings with land managers, and I hope none of those agreements suffer either. But just hoping probably isn't be the best way to address this concern. I think it's worthwhile for Groundspeak to consider how their lab cache idea might effect their relations with land managers. Perhaps, when they launch their lab caches on Feb. 3, they will impose a few more guidelines other than just following local/regional/national laws and regulations.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

My guess is that if these city officials learn that Groundspeak now will allow lab caches to be nailed onto trees, buried, and placed in prohibited parks, then they might have second thoughts about how effective that agreement is. I hope this doesn't happen.

Well, I wouldn't say Groundspeak "will now allow"... that sounds like if someone asks Groundspeak would say "Yep, that's ok!" On the contrary, the structure of this particular experiment makes it unenforceable. If asked, they can easily say that they do not condone damage to nature, and I think it's been shown that that can be part and parcel of their wording about local laws and regulations and common sense. If it's in private property like a conservation area, they still need permission and would likely be told no damage to trees if it were an issue. In a public place, would there be someone to ban geocaching because one person decided there to nail a tree even though Groundspeak fundamentally does not approve of the practice?

*shrug*

 

I don't think the sky will fall with this lab cache event.

I don't think there are people chomping to break rules they couldn't before.

I think in some places people may do something they wouldn't otherwise do for a regular cache.

I don't think this occurrence (rare, at most) will happen in any context or location where it could get geocaching actively banned.

IMO. :P

Link to comment
Likely, since this is meant as a private cache for one person, nobody but your intended person will see what you post.

Never post anything on the Internet - even on a "private" web page - that you don't want others to see. :ph34r: There is always the possibility of someone seeing it that you didn't intend.

Link to comment

I do not agree except if the idea is just to see what type of ideas cachers can come up for private caches (birthday caches, proposals and many other things) that are devoted to a single person.

Which... seems to be the point of this experiment... so...

 

Agreed, however, the way it has been explained, the platform would allow the creation of a Lab Cache that can only be found by one person, but by posting the URL in a public place rather than sharing it with a single person "offline", it can only be found by one person but not a specific person.

 

The kind of cache one might create if it's for a specific person might be quite different from the kind of cache one might create if it's not specified which person can find it. Whether the cache was created for a specific person or not would seem to me to be valuable information collected by the survey.

 

Link to comment

I do not agree except if the idea is just to see what type of ideas cachers can come up for private caches (birthday caches, proposals and many other things) that are devoted to a single person.

Which... seems to be the point of this experiment... so...

 

Agreed, however, the way it has been explained, the platform would allow the creation of a Lab Cache that can only be found by one person, but by posting the URL in a public place rather than sharing it with a single person "offline", it can only be found by one person but not a specific person.

 

The kind of cache one might create if it's for a specific person might be quite different from the kind of cache one might create if it's not specified which person can find it. Whether the cache was created for a specific person or not would seem to me to be valuable information collected by the survey.

True, and agreed.

The way they presented it was that it was intended for a targeted individual, though it's feasible to make it a sort of "FTF game" by allowing you to present it to many.

 

I guess to clarify, I should say that the "heart string" idea seems presented for the cases where they suggest it for a "special person". They've of course suggested other ways of creating a lab cache, including that it could target multiple people even though only 1 can 'find' it. And so all of it really is still a call for people to be creative in some manner. Whether it's for a "special person" or not, if you have an idea of your target individual(s), Groundspeak is hoping that that is sufficient enough to inspire some kind of creativity and uniqueness in its construction (as opposed to just the idea of exchanging codes with a buddy, which I think was the point that spawned this line of comment ;P)

 

I'm interpreting this "I <3 Geocaching" experiment as a way for Groundspeak to encourage a more targeted creativity, whether it be for one individual or a group, knowing that only one person can 'find' it.

How this study might ultimately apply to a cache type idea they're brewing - who knows. But it's clearly intended to be fun and enjoyable. If anyone doesn't enjoy it (or want to), they don't have to take part :)

Link to comment

I never claimed any of these people are chomping at the bit to pound those nails, but some of them certainly might find it convenient to do so when placing their lab caches....

 

While I never said the sky would fall due to lab caches, I did express some concern that Groundspeak might be poised to open the gates too widely....

 

My guess is that if these city officials learn that Groundspeak now will allow lab caches to be nailed onto trees, buried, and placed in prohibited parks, then they might have second thoughts about how effective that agreement is. I hope this doesn't happen.

Well, I wouldn't say Groundspeak "will now allow"... that sounds like if someone asks Groundspeak would say "Yep, that's ok!" On the contrary, the structure of this particular experiment makes it unenforceable. If asked, they can easily say that they do not condone damage to nature, and I think it's been shown that that can be part and parcel of their wording about local laws and regulations and common sense.

Okay, you can say "Groundspeak now will not forbid lab caches from being nailed onto trees, buried, and placed in prohibited parks...," but that doesn't really make it much better, does it? Simply saying that Groundspeak doesn't condone damage to nature might not be a sufficient assurance for some land managers. They might want to know that guidelines forbid such behavior and consequences will result if that behavior is reported. By removing key guidelines from lab caches, Groundspeak will make it more difficult to give sufficient assurance to those land managers.

 

In a public place, would there be someone to ban geocaching because one person decided there to nail a tree even though Groundspeak fundamentally does not approve of the practice?

As I noted in Post #191, it was precisely one board screwed into a city-owned tree that caused Calgary city officials to move towards effectively banning geocaching in many city parks and all city-owned trees. It took months of effort, concrete assurances, and the cooperation of our local reviewers to get them to back down.

 

If I recall, it was precisely one buried cache that caused physical geocaches to effectively be banned in U.S. national parks for a long period of time. There are plenty of other places where one bad cache also has led to bans or serious restrictions.

 

I don't think the sky will fall with this lab cache event.

I don't think there are people chomping to break rules they couldn't before.

As you can see in the bolded portions in the post you quoted from (see above), I don't think so either. But that doesn't mean I don't have concerns.

 

I do think Groundspeak should apply some of its key guidelines (e.g., damaging nature, burying caches, etc.) to lab caches. I don't see this as an undue constraint on the lab cache experiment, and it could save Groundspeak some grief with their current and future land manager relationships.

Link to comment

Okay, you can say "Groundspeak now will not forbid lab caches from being nailed onto trees, buried, and placed in prohibited parks...," but that doesn't really make it much better, does it? Simply saying that Groundspeak doesn't condone damage to nature might not be a sufficient assurance for some land managers. They might want to know that guidelines forbid such behavior and consequences will result if that behavior is reported. By removing key guidelines from lab caches, Groundspeak will make it more difficult to give sufficient assurance to those land managers.

Local laws and regulations apply, and common sense.

Land manager - are you talking about private property? Wherein permission is required? Wherein rules and regulations will be in place? Covered.

 

As I noted in Post #191, it was precisely one board screwed into a city-owned tree that caused Calgary city officials to move towards effectively banning geocaching in many city parks and all city-owned trees.

Local laws and regulations apply, and common sense.

City-owned trees, city parks? Wherein permission is presumed? Wherein rules and regulations will most likely be in place? Covered.

 

If I recall, it was precisely one buried cache that caused physical geocaches to effectively be banned in U.S. national parks for a long period of time. There are plenty of other places where one bad cache also has led to bans or serious restrictions.

Local laws and regulations apply, and common sense.

US nation park - private property? Wherein permission is required? Wherein rules and regulations will be in place? Covered.

 

But that doesn't mean I don't have concerns.

And they are certainly good concerns. But I think you may be blowing the potential damage from this particular experiment a bit out of proportion.

 

I do think Groundspeak should apply some of its key guidelines (e.g., damaging nature, burying caches, etc.) to lab caches. I don't see this as an undue constraint on the lab cache experiment, and it could save Groundspeak some grief with their current and future land manager relationships.

Nor do I, and I agree it wouldn't hurt to emphasize what "common sense" means in the context of geocaching. Rules and regulations still apply for any placement requiring permission (that is, where it would otherwise be trespassing), any private property, any city-owned publicly-accessible property, and common sense applies for respect of nature.

With placement only being allowed by paying (generally considered experienced and respectful-to-the-hobby) members, I think the chance of someone causing any damage to 'geocaching' is made even far slimmer.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Local laws and regulations apply, and common sense.

Yes, and that's good. But my point is that it might not be enough.

 

Many public lands don't have laws or regulations that forbid pounding nails into trees or digging holes. But that doesn't necessarily mean these public land managers won't be upset if they learn that people are pounding and digging. Maybe even upset enough to ban or seriously restrict geocaching, as we've seen from experience.

 

As far as common sense goes, it's good that Groundspeak encourages it (as do I). But common sense means different things to different people, and different people have different amounts of common sense. Groundspeak's appeal to common sense might not appease many land manager's concerns; they might want something more concrete, like guidelines and consequences for violating those guidelines (as was the case with the city of Calgary).

 

Some public land managers believe pounding nails into trees doesn't do any significant harm and that it actually makes good sense to nail cross-country ski trail markers into trees. Similarly, some geocachers think it makes more sense to use a nail instead of rope to place a birdhouse cache. They might not realize that using that nail could upset the public land manager in the park where they place that birdhouse.

 

Some people (and some public land managers) believe digging holes in certain areas doesn't do any significant harm. Indeed, some public land managers even allow people with metal detectors to dig holes within their parks. But other public land managers might be upset to learn that people are digging in their parks.

 

Land manager - are you talking about private property?

No, I'm talking about managers of public lands, many of whom (currently) do not require special permission to place geocaches. Many of these lands do not have laws or regulations that forbid pounding nails or digging holes, but doing so could upset these land managers. Maybe even enough for them to ban or severely restrict geocaching.

 

In a public place, would there be someone to ban geocaching because one person decided there to nail a tree even though Groundspeak fundamentally does not approve of the practice?

... If I recall, it was precisely one buried cache that caused physical geocaches to effectively be banned in U.S. national parks for a long period of time. There are plenty of other places where one bad cache also has led to bans or serious restrictions.

... US nation park - private property? Wherein permission is required? Wherein rules and regulations will be in place?

U.S. national parks are public property, not private. Yes, these parks now restrict geocaching and require permission. I believe it's because one ranger in one of these parks discovered a buried cache that all the U.S. national parks now have these restrictions. You seemed to doubt that one bad cache could have significant consequences. The city of Calgary and the U.S. national parks are just two examples of these significant consequences.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

I don't think I would try to GET a lab cache...but I might actually consider creating one that would give someone a very useful hint on one or more of my puzzles that don't get any traffic.

 

Is there some working example of the setup of a lab cache that will enable those who wish to use there experimental one lab cache of the options so that I (and others) can start working on the idea of creating the one come Feb 1'st. I say this because I have something in mind that needs to be executed on a certain date and is within the first week of Feb.

Link to comment

I don't think I would try to GET a lab cache...but I might actually consider creating one that would give someone a very useful hint on one or more of my puzzles that don't get any traffic.

 

Is there some working example of the setup of a lab cache that will enable those who wish to use there experimental one lab cache of the options so that I (and others) can start working on the idea of creating the one come Feb 1'st. I say this because I have something in mind that needs to be executed on a certain date and is within the first week of Feb.

 

I have no idea. I don't even see any mention of it on the official blog or website. I gather there will be some announcement Monday?

Link to comment

I don't think I would try to GET a lab cache...but I might actually consider creating one that would give someone a very useful hint on one or more of my puzzles that don't get any traffic.

 

Is there some working example of the setup of a lab cache that will enable those who wish to use there experimental one lab cache of the options so that I (and others) can start working on the idea of creating the one come Feb 1'st. I say this because I have something in mind that needs to be executed on a certain date and is within the first week of Feb.

 

I have no idea. I don't even see any mention of it on the official blog or website. I gather there will be some announcement Monday?

 

These links may help in the meantime...

 

In preparation for February 3rd and the launch of I <3 Geocaching we have released a new blog post, an official FAQ, and a new Knowledge Book in the Help Center. I will continue to answer questions here while adding additional information to the Knowledge Books as we go along.

Link to comment

Is there some working example of the setup of a lab cache that will enable those who wish to use there experimental one lab cache of the options so that I (and others) can start working on the idea of creating the one come Feb 1'st. I say this because I have something in mind that needs to be executed on a certain date and is within the first week of Feb.

Groundspeak has said that premium geocachers will have access to the lab cache development platform from Feb. 3 to Feb. 28. If you want your lab cache executed during the first week of Feb., it should be possible to do so.

Link to comment

I have a feeling that the one Lab Cache/one finder set-up has nothing to do with singling out someone special. What it does is minimize damage as cachers experiment. With no review process, a cacher might be led into a potentially dangerous situation - like a crazy gun-totin' land owner's field or a highway overpass. One cacher will likely not be noticed, but a parade of them is going to be cause for alarm.

 

One strange person pawing through your azaleas is an irritating anomaly. Two or more is a lawsuit. Smart decision!

Link to comment

I think what was meant that lab caches would eventually be more built into the profile stats is that as Jayme H stated a number of posts ago, the current stats system and the lab cache system are on 2 different systems. So when the current stats system is brought over and intergrated with the newer system that lab caches were created on, then it will be possible to show lab caches in the stats as we are complaining that they should be now. The problem is that most people dont understand that it will take time to make it so, and they expect that the problems with the intergration should already be solved and want it NOW with out having to wait.

Link to comment

The last time Groundspeak announced something new & wonderful, I dove in with both feet, from the perspective of creator and seeker. Though there were many folks quite vocal in opposition to the new idea, I found many of them to be interesting, (kinda like geocaches, some suck and some are great), and I sought to create interesting ones for the community. Then Groundspeak not only ended the idea, they went so far as to erase any trace of it. All that work, gone in a mouse click. "Poof!"

 

I was one of the many opposed to those and am very pleased to see them gone but I will agree that they didn't have to make them disappear altogether, unless of course corp discovered something about them that was worse than we all previously had advised?

 

In any case, I'm one of the old timers I guess. I use my GPS (not a phone), seek the hide and sign the log. Anything else really isn't geocaching to me. Not sure I'll spend any time looking into these 'Labs' either.

Link to comment

In any case, I'm one of the old timers I guess. I use my GPS (not a phone), seek the hide and sign the log. Anything else really isn't geocaching to me. Not sure I'll spend any time looking into these 'Labs' either.

I think that's a shame, because you could have some really valuable feedback to provide. Maybe you won't like them because of some certain thing, and your feedback could contribute to that "problem" being fixed. You just never know! :)

Link to comment

Since we were asked for opinions/comments and since this is a lab, my $0.03 (inflation):

 

1) I like the idea of Groundspeak trying new ideas and appreciate them trying to keep the game fresh and fun (while also maintaining most of the old - virtuals, etc. aside).

2) I do not like the idea that these Lab caches are not subject to certain rules and requirements - a game, even a hobby, is defined in part by guidelines. Otherwise, it really isn't an organized or agreed-upon activity, it is just (I don't want to use the terms anarchy or chaos) something else. If this is part of Geocaching, I think certain rules should apply: a physical log, proximity restrictions, no schools, on-line logging requirement (even the boring old "TFTC"), etc.

3) Because of #2, I do believe they should be reviewed prior to publication (my apologies to our overworked reviewers). It helps maintain the integrity of the game.

4) To me, the element of limiting it to a single finder is the least desirable aspect of this Lab Cache idea. I make caches, quite a few, and the reason I do so is because I want cachers (note the plural) to enjoy the find. I think the CO should be allowed to select the number of people allowed to use the code - the CO can select a specific number or opt for "unlimited". That addresses, what I see, as the Lab idea of making it possible to create a personalized cache, but not making it mandatory. A CO can open it up to the whole Geocaching community, limit it to a significant other, only allow his/her children to log, create a larger logging pool say for an event or a club, etc.

 

Edit: Oh - if this is a Lab - to test out things, see how it is implemented, learn from it.....how does Groundspeak do that? If there are no on-line logs, how is feedback learned? If there is no GC.com cache listing, how are the new and creative structures seen? Aside from limited word-of-mouth, geocachers themselves won't really learn how others implemented their Lab caches or how the finders felt about it.

 

My thoughts anyway.

Edited by caccbag
Link to comment

Just a though and question arose from the last post... I know I read that a dedicated thread would be created to allow those who created or found a lab cache to share their thoughts, however once the code is entered, the cache is automaticly archived. Now my question is this, once the cache is archived, can we post up the link we shared with the finder so other may follow it and see what we created? Or once archived, is it no longer accessable?

Link to comment

2) I do not like the idea that these Lab caches are not subject to certain rules and requirements - a game, even a hobby, is defined in part by guidelines. Otherwise, it really isn't an organized or agreed-upon activity, it is just (I don't want to use the terms anarchy or chaos) something else.

I don't know the structure of the Lab design page or HQ's ultimate intention, but it would be cool if it was something else. I would like a function that allowed me to set-up a location based activity for one or more people and did not impact my Geocaching at all. I would use it with friends, family and other cachers. It would be great if Premium Members could create as many as they wanted, but you wouldn't even need an account to find it. I would like the ability to choose if it was private or available to all GS Members.

Link to comment

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.

You are definitely on the right track! Lab Caches are an umbrella cache type for new and different ideas (experiments) that we want to get feedback from the community on. So far, we've seen "Adventures" at various Mega Events and soon, personal geocaches through I <3 Geocaching.

 

"31 Days of Geocaching" was a fun way to get people to try a different aspect of the current game - streaking. It can be fun to challenge ourselves and HQ wanted to see who was up for trying something new, last August. These wouldn't have fallen under the Lab Cache umbrella. Does this make sense?

Link to comment

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?

 

The program is experimental enough at this point that there is not really a definitive answer to this. However, the general goal is to eventually better integrate the labs into the existing profile, whether by promoting labs to a "normal" cache type or by simply including them in more-or-less their current form in site-generated statistics. The fact that they are tracked in an entirely new database of a different design than existing caches means that it will take some time to see how the experiments are going, make decisions about their future status, and then engineer the integration.

Link to comment

 

You are definitely on the right track! Lab Caches are an umbrella cache type for new and different ideas (experiments) that we want to get feedback from the community on. So far, we've seen "Adventures" at various Mega Events and soon, personal geocaches through I <3 Geocaching.

 

"31 Days of Geocaching" was a fun way to get people to try a different aspect of the current game - streaking. It can be fun to challenge ourselves and HQ wanted to see who was up for trying something new, last August. These wouldn't have fallen under the Lab Cache umbrella. Does this make sense?

 

My problem is that Lab Caches are/are not real caches. They count in some stats, but not all stats. Are they caches? Or are they not?? Make up your mind! Yes, or no? If not, then they should count anywhere. (Like temporary event caches, or challenge caches). Locationless were all archived, but they count in all statistics. Whybother caches are not caches, they only count in Whybothercaching. So they are not caches.

I do not understand this concept of sorta/maybe/but not really caches. Are they caches? or not? GS needs to make up its mind.

Link to comment

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.

You are definitely on the right track! Lab Caches are an umbrella cache type for new and different ideas (experiments) that we want to get feedback from the community on. So far, we've seen "Adventures" at various Mega Events and soon, personal geocaches through I <3 Geocaching.

 

"31 Days of Geocaching" was a fun way to get people to try a different aspect of the current game - streaking. It can be fun to challenge ourselves and HQ wanted to see who was up for trying something new, last August. These wouldn't have fallen under the Lab Cache umbrella. Does this make sense?

 

So in other words, a lab cache is like an abstarct container as apposed to the physical containers we associate with geocaching. So the confusion comes in the wording and using cache in the name when used on the site given the auto perception. Let us not forget that cache has more meanings outside the box of geocaching.

 

Cache:

noun

1. a hiding place, especially one in the ground, for ammunition, food, treasures, etc.: She hid her jewelry in a little cache in the cellar.

2. anything so hidden: The enemy never found our cache of food.

3. Alaska and Northern Canada. a small shed elevated on poles above the reach of animals and used for storing food, equipment, etc.

verb (used with object), cached, cach·ing.

4. to put in a cache; conceal; hide.

 

Taken from "http://dictionary.reference.com/"

 

There is a technology meaning to it as well that was not covered in the above definition...

 

Cache (computing), a collection of data duplicating original values stored elsewhere on a computer

CPU cache, a small area of fast memory used by the central processing unit

Disk buffer, the small amount of buffer memory present on a hard drive

Page cache, the cache of disk pages kept by the operating systems, stored in unused main memory

Web cache, a mechanism for the temporary storage of web documents to increase performance

DNS cache, a server in the domain name system which stores queried results for a period of time

P2P caching, a technique used to reduce bandwidth costs for content on peer-to-peer networks

Database caching, a mechanism used to cache database content in multi-tier applications

InterSystems Caché, an object / relational database

 

Taken from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache"

 

So depending on your point of view, your definition of a lab cache can vary from person to person. And more so when one starts to speculate what another means or has in mind. I think Jayme H has done an outstanding job to try and get us to understand what Groundspeak means and defines as a lab cache, with many of us missing the mark becasuse we are focused on the negative percieved outcome of the "I <3 Geocaching" experiment. If we could think outside of our small narrow minded boxes, I think there may be a little less confussion over these lab caches.

Link to comment

A married couple who cache under a team will be precluded from placing this type of cache for each other. This is a pity, since it appears that is a force behind the experiment, doing something nice for ONE other cacher.

I agree. Most couples we know have only the team account.

Creating another just for this one shot probably won't happen much, but who knows?

Though CJ has a basic account for coins an' stuff, she's sticking with us being a team.

- The reason I was trying to find another worthwhile use of the lab code.

She's a stat nut though and I'd bet that's what it's really all about... :lol:

Link to comment

Is there some working example of the setup of a lab cache that will enable those who wish to use there experimental one lab cache of the options so that I (and others) can start working on the idea of creating the one come Feb 1'st. I say this because I have something in mind that needs to be executed on a certain date and is within the first week of Feb.

Groundspeak has said that premium geocachers will have access to the lab cache development platform from Feb. 3 to Feb. 28. If you want your lab cache executed during the first week of Feb., it should be possible to do so.

 

I am not asking to set any up I just want to see what can be setup so I can work on creating an idea that I can put into practice on Feb 3,4,5

Link to comment

So, if I place one of these, will I get the 'Found It' log from the finder? Where else will that 'Found It' story be visible?

Do I need to be aware that my "Found It' log for this Personal Cache Experience from someone who <3 s me, may be for public view?

We have had the idea posted about these being done in Strip Clubs, How graphic can the story of the I <3 Geocaching experience be?

Not this time around. There are no 'Found It' logs for the I <3 Geocaching Lab Caches. If we hear a lot of people wanting to add logs into the mix (via the soon-to-be-available surveys), maybe we'll add it to the next fun test.

 

I haven't glanced at Facebook's TOS lately, but you might want to check them out before sharing a (potentially graphic) story there.

 

It sounds like the wheels are turning on a unique idea...good luck!

Link to comment

My problem is that Lab Caches are/are not real caches. They count in some stats, but not all stats. Are they caches? Or are they not?? Make up your mind! Yes, or no? If not, then they should count anywhere. (Like temporary event caches, or challenge caches). Locationless were all archived, but they count in all statistics. Whybother caches are not caches, they only count in Whybothercaching. So they are not caches.

I do not understand this concept of sorta/maybe/but not really caches. Are they caches? or not? GS needs to make up its mind.

I guess I can accept that for some people the definition of what is a cache is based on how it participates in one's statistics. There are certainly people who find it absurd to refer to events as caches, but since they count in stats just like everything else other will insist these are caches.

 

On the other hand it has been shown that creating things that don't count in statistics such as waymarks or the now defunct challenges result in many geocachers bypassing them altogether - no matter how much fun or how related to geocaching they might be. Benchmarks are so well hidden that most people are probably not even aware that they exist.

 

Lab caches certainly fall into a new ground in that they get counted in one statistic (overall find count) but are ignored in all others. This is certainly causing consternation to those who define things by statistics. Are they caches or not?

 

There are many people for whom statistics is not all that important. They may actually enjoy visiting waymarks or scanning QR codes for the game who must not be named. They might view all of these activities as geocaching, whether or not they are listed on Geocaching.com.

 

There are other people for whom the record of geocaching is the logs they create to share their experience. So long as lab caches don't have written logs that can be reviewed and reminisced over at a later time, it might not matter what statistics they are counted in. They wont be caches.

 

It's kinda sad that instead of trying things to see if they are fun or interesting to us we need to put numbers to them (or have souvenirs) or else we deem them to have no value.

 

(I fully expect that at the end of February, Groundspeak will tout the statistics for how many I <3 Geocaching lab caches were created and found.)

Link to comment

GS needs to make up its mind.

We would like more feedback from the community around them before we make up our minds. So we are testing them to see what folks think. We have decided things without the community's input before and realized that it's an incredibly important piece to the puzzle.

Link to comment

This is certainly causing consternation to those who define things by statistics.

Incorrect and more than a little patronising. The argument for correcting the statistics is simply that if there is a statistic, it should be correct. Otherwise the statistic is meaningless.

 

Having participated in "Adventures at Mega Events" lab caches, on both sides of the fence, I'm looking forward to see what happens with this "I <3 Geocaching" lab cache experiment, stats or no stats. The statistics will ultimately get fixed, one way or the other, and from what I can tell the discussion of stats has diminished greatly since Jayme kindly explained the present situation.

Link to comment

My problem is that Lab Caches are/are not real caches. They count in some stats, but not all stats. Are they caches? Or are they not?? Make up your mind! Yes, or no? If not, then they should count anywhere. (Like temporary event caches, or challenge caches). Locationless were all archived, but they count in all statistics. Whybother caches are not caches, they only count in Whybothercaching. So they are not caches.

I do not understand this concept of sorta/maybe/but not really caches. Are they caches? or not? GS needs to make up its mind.

I guess I can accept that for some people the definition of what is a cache is based on how it participates in one's statistics. There are certainly people who find it absurd to refer to events as caches, but since they count in stats just like everything else other will insist these are caches.

 

On the other hand it has been shown that creating things that don't count in statistics such as waymarks or the now defunct challenges result in many geocachers bypassing them altogether - no matter how much fun or how related to geocaching they might be. Benchmarks are so well hidden that most people are probably not even aware that they exist.

 

Lab caches certainly fall into a new ground in that they get counted in one statistic (overall find count) but are ignored in all others. This is certainly causing consternation to those who define things by statistics. Are they caches or not?

 

There are many people for whom statistics is not all that important. They may actually enjoy visiting waymarks or scanning QR codes for the game who must not be named. They might view all of these activities as geocaching, whether or not they are listed on Geocaching.com.

 

There are other people for whom the record of geocaching is the logs they create to share their experience. So long as lab caches don't have written logs that can be reviewed and reminisced over at a later time, it might not matter what statistics they are counted in. They wont be caches.

 

It's kinda sad that instead of trying things to see if they are fun or interesting to us we need to put numbers to them (or have souvenirs) or else we deem them to have no value.

 

(I fully expect that at the end of February, Groundspeak will tout the statistics for how many I <3 Geocaching lab caches were created and found.)

 

I don't post attended logs, rather notes for events. I never did a challenge, but would have refrained from logging. This I :wub: GC thing gives us an out as our joint account won't allow us to mistakenly log our own lab...pretty cool.

Edited by Sharks-N-Beans
Link to comment

Are they caches? Or are they not?? Make up your mind! Yes, or no?

 

Let me sleep on it, Baby, baby let me sleep on it (sorry, that song came to mind after reading that ...)

 

We won't know till it's tried of course. With geocaching challenges, they came out and counted as caches, then shortly afterward no longer counted as caches (count wise.) At least this time it is being presented as an experiment, all bets are off ... some things will work, some will not. Maybe we'll see monthly things like this where some are complete flops, and some are things that get rolled into geocaching.com as peers of what we normally see as geocaches.

Link to comment

So, if I place one of these, will I get the 'Found It' log from the finder? Where else will that 'Found It' story be visible?

Do I need to be aware that my "Found It' log for this Personal Cache Experience from someone who <3 s me, may be for public view?

We have had the idea posted about these being done in Strip Clubs, How graphic can the story of the I <3 Geocaching experience be?

Not this time around. There are no 'Found It' logs for the I <3 Geocaching Lab Caches. If we hear a lot of people wanting to add logs into the mix (via the soon-to-be-available surveys), maybe we'll add it to the next fun test.

 

I haven't glanced at Facebook's TOS lately, but you might want to check them out before sharing a (potentially graphic) story there.

 

It sounds like the wheels are turning on a unique idea...good luck!

 

No chance of anything I type ending up on TwitBook. Also no chance of me being involved in something that would lead to unseemly behavior.

 

With no logs, what is the purpose of the survey? Anyone chosen to find one of these "Extremely Rare" caches will laud the experience, if for no other reason than to thank the person who chose them to find it. Likely the only useful data from the hider's survey will be related to the ease-of-use of the on-line form to place the cache and the complaints of the lack of the found-it log from that one finder.

 

So. NO review, NO container needed, NO on-line log. Sounds a WHOLE LOT like Waymarking and nothing like Geocaching. Lab or no Lab.

 

Will I be a Beta-Tester of this new idea? Probably. Curiosity has gotten me into several much worse things.:P

Link to comment

GS needs to make up its mind.

We would like more feedback from the community around them before we make up our minds. So we are testing them to see what folks think. We have decided things without the community's input before and realized that it's an incredibly important piece to the puzzle.

I don't think that is what he meant. If you have an experimental cache type that may or may not evolve into something more official, the question is why count it as find but not include it as other statistics?

 

Of course this has been answered, but the explanation is a bit obtuse unless you're a software developer. And even if you are a software developer it's a bit obtuse since "anything is possible with software".

 

I'll repeat it though. The lab caches are being developed on an entirely separate system. The lab cache database has an entirely new design and schema. The software that computes statistics based on user logs in the existing database doesn't work with the new database. Not only would new software have to be written but the new database is likely lacking some of the data that is needed to compute the statistics. While some people seem to believe the missing data could be faked, I still believe that if you don't have data, any statistic that uses fake data is fake.

 

Aside for the argument of whether you can even compute some statistics for lab caches, TPTB have decided not to spend time implementing statistics that include the new database.

 

This is certainly causing consternation to those who define things by statistics.

Incorrect and more than a little patronising. The argument for correcting the statistics is simply that if there is a statistic, it should be correct. Otherwise the statistic is meaningless.

 

Having participated in "Adventures at Mega Events" lab caches, on both sides of the fence, I'm looking forward to see what happens with this "I <3 Geocaching" lab cache experiment, stats or no stats. The statistics will ultimately get fixed, one way or the other, and from what I can tell the discussion of stats has diminished greatly since Jayme kindly explained the present situation.

Sorry you find my statement patronizing. I know it will come across to some people that way if they don't understand the use of statistics or the reasons why Groundspeak may choose not to include the lab caches when computing certain statistics.

 

Not everyone who is complaining about the lab cache not being included in statistics find it confusing or believe it means that lab caches aren't really caches. But there have been posts in this thread that seem to indicate that some people will not accept these as real caches unless they are included in statistics and who may find it hard to log their finds on lab caches because the "total find count" statistic is now out of whack with the milestone stats or some other statistic based solely on their non-lab cache finds.

 

People may use the excuse that they just want their stats to be correct. The stats are correct because they measure what they state they measure. The stats that appear on geocaching.com are correct since it has been stated that lab caches don't count except for the total number of finds. Perhaps an asterisk is needed to show that lab caches aren't included (though I would be more inclined for an asterisk on the total find count that says "*includes [n] lab caches")

Link to comment
We would like more feedback from the community around them before we make up our minds.
Speaking only for myself, I don't care whether lab caches are counted separately (like benchmarks) or counted as geocaches (like virtual caches, locationless caches, etc.). What bothers me is that they may or may not count as geocaches, depending on which set of statistics I'm looking at. My find count may be meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but I'd like to have one find count. Right now, logging a lab cache breaks that, so if I ever log a lab cache (to help Groundspeak with its user testing), then I'll delete it afterwards (to fix my find count).

 

As far as the I <3 Geocaching lab caches go, I have some ideas that might be interesting, but I don't really want to invest a lot of effort into something that's essentially a one-shot. If I could offer it to more than one person, then it might be worth investing more in its creation.

Link to comment

As far as the I <3 Geocaching lab caches go, I have some ideas that might be interesting, but I don't really want to invest a lot of effort into something that's essentially a one-shot. If I could offer it to more than one person, then it might be worth investing more in its creation.

 

I think I'm in this camp also.

 

I've always tried to do something different with my cache hides, often incorporating technology aspects and have sometimes struggled to mould them into a form deemed OK to publish, or even had to provide a tandem alternative which does not rely on the technology to facilitate finding by those who don't have that required technology.

 

So the opportunity to produce something free of those constraints is appealing BUT the comparatively short notice, the fact it would be archived after only one finder and the fact it won't even show up in my hides down the line are all things that put me off investing a lot of time and effort.

 

I do though highly value the fact that GS have offered up the opportunity for our input - for me that's the major step forward here.

Link to comment

There are no 'Found It' logs for the I <3 Geocaching Lab Caches. If we hear a lot of people wanting to add logs into the mix (via the soon-to-be-available surveys), maybe we'll add it to the next fun test.

 

I have already mentioned that the no log feature is what disturbs me the most with respect to the lab cache idea. For me it feels like doing away with one of the most important components of what geocaching means for me. Nice stories and photos in logs make geocaching much more attractive for me than Waymarking (logs exist there but are hardly used as there to share stories is no log tradition there), letterboxing, the m..... game and other location based activities.

 

Somehow I cannot help the lab cache idea (like it happened also for the challenge idea back then) also makes me believe that the developpers have smartphone users as their main target in use who only wish to press a button to obtain a find (like in the m..... game). I'm aware that there are technological restrictions and lab caches are available also to those who have no smartphone, but this does not change my impression of what the developpers might have had in mind.

 

Your weekend forum thread (very nice idea by the way!) is a good example of how interesting it can be to read about the experiences of others and to look at the photos. Of course there also could be a forum thread, but for those who would like to stay focused on their own area and their native language going to international forum threads will not what they really want to do.

 

As the survey is concerned, how will it work and to whom it will be presented and in which languages?

Hopefully it will not be Facebook based. There is a considerable number of geocachers who do not wish to use Facebook and Co and have no accounts there.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
We would like more feedback from the community around them before we make up our minds.
Speaking only for myself, I don't care whether lab caches are counted separately (like benchmarks) or counted as geocaches (like virtual caches, locationless caches, etc.). What bothers me is that they may or may not count as geocaches, depending on which set of statistics I'm looking at. My find count may be meaningless in the grand scheme of things, but I'd like to have one find count. Right now, logging a lab cache breaks that, so if I ever log a lab cache (to help Groundspeak with its user testing), then I'll delete it afterwards (to fix my find count).

 

As far as the I <3 Geocaching lab caches go, I have some ideas that might be interesting, but I don't really want to invest a lot of effort into something that's essentially a one-shot. If I could offer it to more than one person, then it might be worth investing more in its creation.

 

^^ All of this. I'm not obsessed about numbers in the sense that I have to get more and more. Just admittedly a little OCD(ish) about keeping my stats "clean". The one or two times my "distinct caches" number was off from my total number of finds, I made sure to correct it.

 

But I suppose if the intent is to work the lab cache count into the stats at some point in the future, it's less of a concern for me if they are off for a while.

Link to comment

But I suppose if the intent is to work the lab cache count into the stats at some point in the future, it's less of a concern for me if they are off for a while.

 

A question to Groundspeak:

 

Will all existing Lab Cache finds be rolled into the full-up find counts (in statistics, etc), or just new ones found after the merging?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...