Place your own Lab Cache!?!?!

[+Team Microdot]

It appears to me that the system I have in mind would appeal to a larger audience.

 

How do you know that?

 

As I said before, those who do not need more than 1000 characters, those who do not want to use waypoints, those who do not want to write a online log,

can decide not to make use of all this.

 

 

You've not answered my question.

 

The question was how do you know that the system you have in mind would appeal to a larger audience

 

Stating that your system would cope with people with different wishes says nothing at all about what type of system people will prefer or how wide the respective audiences might be.

 

Can you answer the question? Any evidence to support your hunch?

 

How do you know that your rigid ideas will appeal to more people than the ideas which could potentially arise from this experiment? How do you know that your ideas are better than the ideas of other people - especially as you don't know what those ideas are yet?

 

If someone wants to use external systems for storing files or providing information, this can be done in the system I have in mind too.

You can link to external sites regardless of whether there is limit for the description length.

 

Again - you've ignored the question and instead tried to promote the benefits you perceive in your imagined system.

 

Can you answer the question?

 

Not everyone has the same access to reliable external locations for storing large files. If Groundspeak wants to have a look at the ideas the cachers come up with, the

sources should however be sources viewable also to the Groundspeak people.

 

This is the same argument as not every cache suits every cacher - and the standard reply applies - should we therefore archive every cache that doesn't suit every cacher? Or should we enjoy what we can of the diversity that is available?

 

 

Moreover, I still cannot see any reasonable explanation for the length restriction of 1000 characters and the no online logs than my concern that Groundspeak tries to come up with an offer to the target audience that is fond of the m.... game and related activities.

 

You need an explanation for this? Would it be OK if it were 1001 characters? 999? Which arbitrary value would suit you and, more importantly - why?

 

As I said early on in this thread, I do not have an issue with marketing the experiment as a Valentines present type of thing.

 

I'm sure Groundspeak will be glad of your blessing on that small aspect of their experiment

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Stifled by the 1000 character limit? Construct yourself a one million page website that's as elaborate, colourful and media rich as you like - and place the hyperlink to that in the 1000 character text box. Job done.

 

I guess that brings up a question on who they are targeting with the lab cache process. A GPS doesn't lend itself to use with a hyperlink while a smartphone can. I am guessing GC is trying to get out of the dedicated GPS game and come up with something for the smartphone crowd.

 

Ya think? That's been pretty obvious for some time.

 

 

[cezanne]

Actually, I was not necessarily thinking of the same system of find logs that exist for classical caches. I cannot see an argument that would have kept them from offering a field in the description where the finder enters a log that is only visible to those who have access to the lab cache.

In this case, the lab is for one person. They can probably chat in person about it, instead of posting a text log that no one will see-- except the owner. Who they can contact.

 

As said above, I had the probably wrong idea in mind that Groundspeak might look at some of the lab caches and the logs.

 

Of course they can send out feedback forms, but then it might much harder to match the lab cache with the received feedback and I do not think that they will set out to do that matching at that stage of the process. Having the link between lab cache and feedback right where it belongs to is something different than general cluttered feedback in social media etc

but after having thought about it for a minute I agree that this is most probably what Groundspeak is interested into and not what I had in mind.

 

Some of the terms they used like evaluation, laboratory, experiment etc however make it easy to end up with a wrong idea about what they really plan to do (at least this is the case for me given my background and my understanding of those terms).

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

You've not answered my question.

 

I tried to do so, but apparently failed.

 

The question was how do you know that the system you have in mind would appeal to a larger audience

 

Stating that your system would cope with people with different wishes says nothing at all about what type of system people will prefer or how wide the respective audiences might be.

 

Can you answer the question? Any evidence to support your hunch?

 

My argument was a formal one. What I have in mind can incorporate all what the existing system can incorporate, but not the other way round. So by definition it excludes less people.

I see now that appeal was not the appropriate word - I should have formulated my statement a bit differently.

 

 

Again - you've ignored the question and instead tried to promote the benefits you perceive in your imagined system.

 

My attempt was not to promote my imagined system, but to explain why I think that everything that can be done in the

existing lab system can be done also in what you call my imagined system - so it is not a rigid system at all.

I still think that I failed to explain what I have in mind.

 

You still could call what I have in mind rigid, but then the existing lab system is super rigid.

I do not want to exclude anything that is possible with the existing form. I just would like to add

more options.

 

 

This is the same argument as not every cache suits every cacher - and the standard reply applies - should we therefore archive every cache that doesn't suit every cacher? Or should we enjoy what we can of the diversity that is available?

 

No what I tried to say is something completely different. I argued on the hider's point of view and not on the finder's point of view.

 

Certainly not every cache suits everyone and that's perfectly fine. I welcome diversity and do not want to restrict it.

 

But why does it make sense to discourage someone from setting up a nice cache that would have pleased another person

by limiting the potential hiders to those who either are satisfied with 1000 characters or have access to appropriate external sources?

Would it effect anyone whose lab cache does need less than 1000 characters? Does it take anything away from anyone?

 

 

You need an explanation for this? Would it be OK if it were 1001 characters? 999? Which arbitrary value would suit you and, more importantly - why?

 

Actually, I do not see a reason for a limit at all, but if there is a limit it should be very high, at least 20000 characters in my opinion.

 

 

I'm sure Groundspeak will be glad of your blessing on that small aspect of their experiment

 

There is no reason to become sarcastic. Groundspeak is a company. They can come up with whatever they want. This is however a thread which is devoted to discussing about

lab caches and a location where questions can be asked. I did not get involved into the stat based discussion in this thread as it is irrelevant from my personal point of view.

In the same way, you and others are free to think that the points that I see as weak points are irrelevant.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 4, 2014 by cezanne

[+thebruce0]

Of course they can send out feedback forms, but then it might much harder to match the lab cache with the received feedback

(presuming emailed request for feedback is the route they'll be taking) The reason someone gets the email is precisely because in the system they're connected to a lab cache. IF Groundspeak even wants to see the details of the cache, they have complete knowledge of the Lab Cache as stored in their database and its owner, and the finder. But I'm confident they'd prefer to hear the opinions from the people, and then if they're more curious about the cache, check out the listing (they wouldn't need to ask for that), or if necessary (in the case of your example of private external content they can't see), ask to view the full experience as the owner created it. If it gets to that point, I'd bet they've already decided they may want to use that particular creator's I<3G sample cache in one of their video documentaries.

 

In short, if an owner gets a feedback request email, Groundspeak knows which Lab Cache was theirs, and who found it, and can view whatever they have stored in the system. Thus, not a concern. Any more than that? All they need to do is ask that creator directly.

 

Having the link between lab cache and feedback right where it belongs to is something different than general cluttered feedback in social media etc

but after having thought about it for a minute I agree that this is most probably what Groundspeak is interested into and not what I had in mind.

Pretty sure they're already gathering thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and ideas from social media. Any explicit feedback they may request from hiders and finders would most certainly be drawn from the connections they have in the system, and would most certainly be more focused and relevant to their purposes than free-speaking opinionated fans and critics in social media

[+Team Microdot]

You've not answered my question.

 

I tried to do so, but apparently failed.

 

You tried? Then I must have missed it.

 

My argument was a formal one. What I have in mind can incorporate all what the existing system can incorporate, but not the other way round. So by definition it excludes less people.

I see now that appeal was not the appropriate word - I should have formulated my statement a bit differently.

 

Given that, as I said earlier, the existing system is capable of acting as a front-end, a mere gateway to just about any content a person might think of, I can't imagine that what you have in mind can incorporate any more than that.

 

My attempt was not to promote my imagined system, but to explain why I think that everything that can be done in the

existing lab system can be done also in what you call my imagined system - so it is not a rigid system at all.

I still think that I failed to explain what I have in mind.

 

Agreed on the final point. And you've still not answered the question.

 

You still could call what I have in mind rigid, but then the existing lab system is super rigid.

 

No - it isn't. Only a blank sheet of paper would be less rigid. Is your system a blank sheet of paper?

 

I do not want to exclude anything that is possible with the existing form. I just would like to add

more options.

 

I think a better description for what you want to add is rigidity and complexity.

 

Again - it's the difference between using a pre-printed form to solicit information versus a blank sheet of paper.

 

If you want to tap into people's creativity - hand them a blank sheet of paper to record their thoughts on. If you want specific types of answers to specific types of questions i.e. something more rigid - hand them a pre-printed form geared towards obtaining specific results.

 

Certainly not every cache suits everyone and that's perfectly fine. I welcome diversity and do not want to restrict it.

 

But why does it make sense to discourage someone from setting up a nice cache that would have pleased another person

by limiting the potential hiders to those who either are satisfied with 1000 characters or have access to appropriate external sources?

 

Could we try to stick to the facts? Where has anyone discouraged anybody from setting up a nice cache?

 

This is the thing you see - your arguments don't seem grounded in reality, so I struggle to understand them - or take them seriously.

 

Actually, I do not see a reason for a limit at all, but if there is a limit it should be very high, at least 20000 characters in my opinion.

 

Maybe Groundspeak set the field to 1000 characters intentionally - to see what people would come up with in such a space - or maybe they wanted to see what alternative arrangements people would come up with to get around that 1000 character limit.

 

 

There is no reason to become sarcastic. Groundspeak is a company. They can come up with whatever they want. This is however a thread which is devoted to discussing about

lab caches and a location where questions can be asked.

 

Sure - it's a thread for the purposes of discussion - and a discussion based on facts and real world observations rather than imagined scenarios with such miniscule odds of actually becoming a reality that they are irrelevant works better for me.

 

I could argue that we should all nail one foot to the floor because if gravity suddenly ceased to exist, we would all float off into space - but don't expect people would take me very seriously if I did.

[+Manville Possum]

After taking the poll and praising how wonderful the new Lab cache had worked for me allowing me to create a limited 1000 character history hike for my son, now that we both checked it today the system auto corrected my exact coordinates to the code needed to log the listing by 0.4 miles!

Yes you can imagine that I am unhappy with being your Lab cache test rat Groundspeak. I'm sure it's my fault for not looking closer at the coordinates before I published the listing. The listing is on top of a mountain on a hiking trail and some how the published cordinates ended up at the nearest road. That would be great if you were lost. I see no way of correcting the mistake once published, and if it auto corrected my coordinates it's likely there was nothing I could have done other than enter the final on the cache page. Thanks for nothing.

[cezanne]

You still could call what I have in mind rigid, but then the existing lab system is super rigid.

 

No - it isn't. Only a blank sheet of paper would be less rigid. Is your system a blank sheet of paper?

 

I start to think that our understanding of what rigidity means differ, or maybe rather we differ with respect to what concept we apply the term rigid to. Somehow your point seems to be that using the existing system (without the need of using any feature one does want to use) would have effects on the creative process of cache hiders and would them make think in certain directions only they have seen in classical caches.

 

My way of thinking is very formal. I argued about the available tools that make setting up certain ideas convenient and not on the process of coming up with ideas.

So I applied the term rigid to the technological tool and its limitations and you applied to something different.

 

 

I think a better description for what you want to add is rigidity and complexity.

 

Not in my understanding of rigidity. As complexity is regarded, I just have in mind to allow everything from very simple to very complex.

 

Again - it's the difference between using a pre-printed form to solicit information versus a blank sheet of paper.

 

If you look at the matter from your point of view, yes. If you look at it from the technological point of view, no.

 

If you want to tap into people's creativity - hand them a blank sheet of paper to record their thoughts on. If you want specific types of answers to specific types of questions i.e. something more rigid - hand them a pre-printed form geared towards obtaining specific results.

 

See the above. You talk about coming up about the phase of coming up with ideas and I talk about the phase of making the implementation of already available ideas reasonable convenient so that people will not throw them away just due to implementational inconveniences that do not seem to make sense to me.

 

Could we try to stick to the facts? Where has anyone discouraged anybody from setting up a nice cache?

 

I think that limiting the description to 1000 characters, no option for waypoint up and download etc will discourage some people from implementing some of their ideas for lab caches.

 

Suppose there existed no computers. Then many ideas never would be checked as only a small group of people would be willing to get involved in cumbersome manual work.

 

Of course that's only an analogy that does not match the lab cache case 1:1, but maybe you get that from the example that we talk about two different things.

 

 

Maybe Groundspeak set the field to 1000 characters intentionally - to see what people would come up with in such a space - or maybe they wanted to see what alternative arrangements people would come up with to get around that 1000 character limit.

 

That certainly could be. There also could be other reasons we are not aware of. Asking the question why there is this limit is legitimate in any case.

 

 

Sure - it's a thread for the purposes of discussion - and a discussion based on facts and real world observations rather than imagined scenarios with such miniscule odds of actually becoming a reality that they are irrelevant works better for me.

 

I would be happy anyway if the lab experiment is not central for how the future of geocaching will look like. This is certainly nothing one can argue about.

 

It is hard to discuss only about facts if Groundspeak is promoting lab caches in the way they are doing it. Actually, the main issue I have is not with their experiments and how it is set up, but with the language with which it is promoted.

 

 

Cezanne

[+thebruce0]

To be a tiny bit of devil's advocate... I can get, a bit, I think, of what cezanne is trying to say. I think...

 

I think a better description for what you want to add is rigidity and complexity.

...

If you want to tap into people's creativity - hand them a blank sheet of paper to record their thoughts on.

...

Maybe Groundspeak set the field to 1000 characters intentionally - to see what people would come up with in such a space - or maybe they wanted to see what alternative arrangements people would come up with to get around that 1000 character limit.

When it comes to creativity, sometimes limitations can be freeing, or inspiring.

I think, to cezanne, having a form with many technical limitations (as opposed to a blank sheet) is actually a nudge that can indirectly inspire people to come up with more creative and/or complex ideas, that they may not otherwise have with just a blank sheet.

 

So while we're discussing the fact that technically the Lab Cache is a blank slate that doesn't limit anyone in what they create (though a 1000 character limit is a limit, there's no restriction for creating endlessly outside the site), a form that asks and prompts for things like terrain, difficulty, cache types, a hint, photo galleries, etc etc, may actually encourage people to be more creative - either by facilitating new ideas, or by finding a way around the limitations (which obviously wouldn't happen if there were no limitations).

 

So in that context, I think both perspectives are valid.

 

However, cezanne, Groundspeak was attempting to offset the lack of properties and prompts with the theme, and with sample ideas in the hopes of sparking some creativity. Whether that's enough? YMMV.

 

Nonetheless, Lab Caches allow for more creativity, though the standard geocache listing format may (inherently) encourage creativity.

Edited February 5, 2014 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

Lots of interesting stuff which is in the post directly above - so for efficiency I'll avoid duplicating here

 

While you make some fair points - I'm not convinced that either the forms used in the regular format OR the forms used in the LAB format encourage creativity.

 

Creativity I would say arises from within rather than being driven from outside by either a pre-printed form / predefined mould / cookie-cutter template or even a blank piece of paper.

 

Facilitation maybe - direction / suggestion / steering / moulding /freedom to dream or blocking even but encouragement?

 

Within the context of this current experiment (I think we're safe to call it that) the target audience - for creation at least - is premium members. I'm inclined to imagine those premium members are well aware of the form the current system takes and how to be creative within its confines. Thus I don't see how more of the same would encourage or enhance their creativity in any way.

 

Newcomers to the game may benefit from more structure and more guidance - but they are not part of this current target audience.

 

I also imagine that many of those target members will have been able to express their individual creativity within the confines of that existing framework - to the extent that the framework permits it. I know myself that my own creativity has in the past been stifled rather than encouraged by current systems / guidelines and that I've had to take my creative ideas and modify them, to re-shape, refine them to fit within the confines of that framework. In some instances I've had to abandon what I considered highly creative (or at least novel) ideas - either because they simply would not fit into the mould defined by the current system or because in making them fit so much of the original creative idea was lost that continuing with what was left seemed pointless.

 

Not that I take great issue with the way things are - I've always advocated the fact that geocaching is a structured activity and that people tend to seek out, enjoy and invest in structured activities more than in unstructured ones.

 

So I'm happy with the form the LAB takes at this present time AND I realise that the creative ideas which (hopefully) arise from it* might be translated into some standardized format and become more aligned with the existing systems at some point in the future - and I'm cool with that too.

 

If Groundspeak announced tomorrow that LAB caches in their current form were going to become a production model I'm not sure that would be a good thing, I think that loss of structure would be a detriment to the game - but I think that for its intended purpose as an experiment it's an appropriate and useful tool.

 

*I hid my LAB cache last night - and I think it was fairly creative - although I've invested considerably more effort in standard caches in the past because I knew they would be found by more than one person and I knew I would get to hear about their experiences through their logs.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Team Microdot

[+lumbricus]

Yesterday I placed a lab cache and found one. It was fun!

 

 

You should give it a try!

-lumbricus

[cezanne]

I also imagine that many of those target members will have been able to express their individual creativity within the confines of that existing framework - to the extent that the framework permits it.

 

I fully agree with this statement.

 

I know myself that my own creativity has in the past been stifled rather than encouraged by current systems / guidelines and that I've had to take my creative ideas and modify them, to re-shape, refine them to fit within the confines of that framework. In some instances I've had to abandon what I considered highly creative (or at least novel) ideas - either because they simply would not fit into the mould defined by the current system or because in making them fit so much of the original creative idea was lost that continuing with what was left seemed pointless.

 

Given the strictness of the Groundspeak guidelines in 2014 (this has been way different when I started with geocaching), what you write above does not surprise me at all when it concerns geocaching.

 

I still think that a certain extent of provided technical infrastructure is of help to a certain group of people and will not hinder anyone else who does not need that infrastucture.

 

We all know that there exist sites like Picasa and others where photos can be stored, but I'm sure that the amount of provided geocaching photos would decrease considerably if there existed no photo upload for cache logs directly at gc.com.

 

Along the same lines there are certainly people who will refrain from implementing certain ideas that are cumbersome to implement with the environment that the lab experiment provides.

 

I never said that this concerns the majority.

 

I agree that if the February experiment is seen as a standalone experiment the effect of restrictions like 1000 characters in the description and no online logs will not be dramatic. Groundspeak will still see (at least to a reasonable extent) whether the idea of private caches is appreciated by the community. This does not change however my feeling that nearly all ideas with which the people at Groundspeak come along (Waymarking, challenges, lab caches etc) are set up in a way that excludes several aspects that I appreciate as interesting elements in geocaching-related activities. Lab caches are new and experimental but that's not the case for the other mentioned projects and the general message sent out remains the same.

There are regions in the world where more complex set ups are much more appreciated than they are in North America. For example, I know a number of local cachers who feel bad when their percentage of found traditionals exceeds 50% (no typo) of their finds.

 

Cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

I never said that this concerns the majority.

 

True - but you never said that it didn't. And while I haven't got the time right now to review all of your posts, I think the reasons for your apparent dislike of the LAB model revolve around how it will affect the majority - or perhaps just how it will affect you? And when I read your posts I gain the distinct impression that you are looking at LAB caches in a much, much broader context than I think the current experiment is contained within, and that you worry that the LAB cache format will replace or completely undermine the existing platform - and I don't think that will be the case at all. At least I certainly hope that will not be the case.

 

LAB caches might affect the existing platform at some future date - and they might not. For the time being I am happy to go along with the experiment on the basis that if Groundspeak has seen fit to solicit our input at this stage - they are likely to solicit our further input going forward.

 

At this stage the LAB caches are a neat, self contained parcel which hasn't touched ANY of the existing systems - which I think should please you - and I think that's the right way to go.

[cezanne]

True - but you never said that it didn't. And while I haven't got the time right now to review all of your posts, I think the reasons for your apparent dislike of the LAB model revolve around how it will affect the majority - or perhaps just how it will affect you?

 

Short answer. Neither nor. It was neither about the majority of cachers worldwide (I do not care how geocaching develops outside of my region) nor about my own person as a cache hider.

What of course concerns me is the local future development of geocaching, including who will decide to leave geocaching due to frustration and how many caches are set up locally that I enjoy.

 

 

And when I read your posts I gain the distinct impression that you are looking at LAB caches in a much, much broader context than I think the current experiment is contained within, and that you worry that the LAB cache format will replace or completely undermine the existing platform - and I don't think that will be the case at all. At least I certainly hope that will not be the case.

 

Yes, you are definitely right. I'm looking at the experiment in a much broader context than just this single small February experiment and prior experiences with Groundspeak definitely also play a role.

 

I'm not worried that the lab cache format will undermine the existing platform, but some official statements from Groundspeak and some of their actions they took throughout recent years make me concerned that their idea of the future of geocaching has not much in common with my idea of the future.

 

I already mentioned before that it might well be that part of my different understanding comes from the fact that I take what others call marketing speak for serious.

 

 

At this stage the LAB caches are a neat, self contained parcel which hasn't touched ANY of the existing systems - which I think should please you - and I think that's the right way to go.

 

I did not ask them to change this specific parcel. I found it disappointing that instead of incorporating at least some of the feedback they received with respect to challenges and also with respect to Waymarking they either stopped the projects at all or stopped working on them.

 

Lab caches (in general and restricted to a certain type of lab cache experiment) could e.g. have a potential in setting up adventurous types of scavenger hunts along the lines of detective stories (including visits to indoor locations like libraries for research etc) and many other interesting projects which right now have no home whatsoever. All these ideas have in common that they could not be set up as conventional caches without giving up certain ideas, they are not fitting to Waymarking and letterboxing and they did not fit to challenges.

 

I'm aware of the fact that the interest into such complex activities where the process of creation will take several days and also the process of a visit might take several days is not what the big mass is interested in. The market of smartphone owners who just want to try out a new game is certainly much larger. So I could understand if Groundspeak argues that investing time and effort into a smaller target group where they do not see potential for a substantial increase in income is not worth the deal. What somehow annoys me however is that I obtained the feeling that the people there do not understand at all that there many cache-like ideas for which currently no home exists. When challenges started, the message was also that everything is possible and Waymarking is also continuously promoted as a home for locationless and virtual caches which is not the case.

Over all the months that challenges were available, all the limitations (the length restriction was present already there) remained the same. So I somehow got the feeling that whatever new product they come up with, it comes along with length restrictions and other limitations. They never made any statement about plans to do away with some of those limits in the future. They simply did not understand that such limitations can cause any issues at all.

 

Cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

True - but you never said that it didn't. And while I haven't got the time right now to review all of your posts, I think the reasons for your apparent dislike of the LAB model revolve around how it will affect the majority - or perhaps just how it will affect you?

 

Short answer. Neither nor. It was neither about the majority of cachers worldwide (I do not care how geocaching develops outside of my region) nor about my own person as a cache hider.

What of course concerns me is the local future development of geocaching, including who will decide to leave geocaching due to frustration and how many caches are set up locally that I enjoy.

 

OK - let's take each point by itself - perhaps then I'll be able to understand what it is you're actually saying - because it seems to change from moment to moment.

 

According to the above statement your dislike of the LAB model revolves around your concern it may cause some local cachers to leave the game due to frustration and that this will mean there will be fewer local caches of the type you enjoy.

 

Yes or no.

[+Camborne Round Table]

How do you log a find on a lab cache at a mega event?

[cezanne]

According to the above statement your dislike of the LAB model revolves around your concern it may cause some local cachers to leave the game due to frustration and that this will mean there will be fewer local caches of the type you enjoy.

 

Yes or no.

 

It is not as simple as that. Many local cachers have already left geocaching due to the developments that took place over time (allowing power trails and other developments in the direction of mass caching have played an important role). From those who started out 2002 or early in 2003, I'm the only one in area who is still actively caching on a regular basis and who is still considering to hide future caches.

 

I do not have an issue with the current lab cache experiment (if it increases the happyness of some cachers, why not?), but rather with the way it is promoted and with what I think to be behind these types of experiments/projects (including the challenges some time ago). It makes me feel that Groundspeak is desperately fighting for new smartphone customers and that what they really care about is quantity and something which they refer to as cool in order to appeal to their idea about a young new audience. I feel that the room for cachers outside of the mass trend becomes smaller and smaller.

 

Some of my other comments were not about disliking the lab cache concept, but about my belief that the set up of the February experiment is not the optimal way to learn about the creativity of the community and that the obtained results will be biased and a true evaluation will not be possible.

(NB: My understanding of experiment, evaluation etc come from a scientific point of view.)

 

Cezanne

Edited February 5, 2014 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

According to the above statement your dislike of the LAB model revolves around your concern it may cause some local cachers to leave the game due to frustration and that this will mean there will be fewer local caches of the type you enjoy.

 

Yes or no.

 

It is not as simple as that. Many local cachers have already left geocaching due to the developments that took place over time (allowing power trails and other developments in the direction of mass caching have played an important role). From those who started out 2002 or early in 2003, I'm the only one in area who is still actively caching on a regular basis and who is still considering to hide future caches.

 

I do not have an issue with the current lab cache experiment (if it increases the happyness of some cachers, why not?), but rather with the way it is promoted and with what I think to be behind these types of experiments/projects (including the challenges some time ago). It makes me feel that Groundspeak is desperately fighting for new smartphone customers and that what they really care about is quantity and something which they refer to as cool in order to appeal to their idea about a young new audience. I feel that the room for cachers outside of the mass trend becomes smaller and smaller.

 

Cezanne

 

Let's try again.

 

You originally said - and in fact stressed with the use of of course:

 

What of course concerns me is the local future development of geocaching, including who will decide to leave geocaching due to frustration and how many caches are set up locally that I enjoy.

 

It was simple enough when you said it - so it's simple enough to be verified or otherwise with a simple yes/no question.

 

Or are you changing your position now and stating that the above isn't actually your concern at all?

 

If the above statement isn't your concern now we can dismiss it as irrelevant to the discussion.

 

If you make a statement you need to stick to it - otherwise the discussion is doomed to loop around in an ever decreasing spiral until it becomes pointless.

[+thebruce0]

While you make some fair points - I'm not convinced that either the forms used in the regular format OR the forms used in the LAB format encourage creativity.

The creativity I'm referring to could be considered creative limitation (often discussed online). That the imposition of (some) rules makes one think harder or differently, and thus encourage more creativity. In artistry, that's often a key element, and heck contests are formed that way - eg, who creates the best submission within the guidelines?

 

Of course the alternate view, as I mentioned, was that any limitation is inherently restrictive.

And, of course, not everyone will have the same level of creative 'inspiration', as it were, within any imposed guidelines.

Also I didn't say I fully agree with what cezanne was saying, but I could understand, a bit, perhaps, in the context of encouraging creativity...

Perhaps in a discussion like this one first needs to be asked to define "creativity"

[+Team Microdot]

While you make some fair points - I'm not convinced that either the forms used in the regular format OR the forms used in the LAB format encourage creativity.

The creativity I'm referring to could be considered creative limitation (often discussed online). That the imposition of (some) rules makes one think harder or differently, and thus encourage more creativity. In artistry, that's often a key element, and heck contests are formed that way - eg, who creates the best submission within the guidelines?

 

Of course the alternate view, as I mentioned, was that any limitation is inherently restrictive.

And, of course, not everyone will have the same level of creative 'inspiration', as it were, within any imposed guidelines.

Also I didn't say I fully agree with what cezanne was saying, but I could understand, a bit, perhaps, in the context of encouraging creativity...

Perhaps in a discussion like this one first needs to be asked to define "creativity"

 

I was hoping to avoid a discussion based on semantics - but then I suppose I opened the door when I queried encouragement

 

I would struggle to accept the idea that creative drive came from anywhere except within the individual. People create things - and may be influenced by systems, rather than the other way around - I think

[+geodarts]

I created a lab cache. I played one. I completed the survey. I have no idea what kind of data Groundspeak is seeking or how it relates to the future of this game. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. Although the creative drive might come from the individual, how it is expressed depends on the structures in place.

 

Could the idea behind the lab caches be incorporated into this game? Perhaps. But I could have said the same thing about the abandoned challenges. And I could say the same thing about virtuals.

 

Would I play a lab cache type of game if it were not incorporated into geocaching? Probably no more than I played Groundspeak's egg hunt iphone game.

Edited February 5, 2014 by geodarts

[+thebruce0]

The creativity I'm referring to could be considered creative limitation (often discussed online). That the imposition of (some) rules makes one think harder or differently, and thus encourage more creativity. In artistry, that's often a key element, and heck contests are formed that way - eg, who creates the best submission within the guidelines?

 

Of course the alternate view, as I mentioned, was that any limitation is inherently restrictive.

And, of course, not everyone will have the same level of creative 'inspiration', as it were, within any imposed guidelines.

Also I didn't say I fully agree with what cezanne was saying, but I could understand, a bit, perhaps, in the context of encouraging creativity...

Perhaps in a discussion like this one first needs to be asked to define "creativity"

 

I was hoping to avoid a discussion based on semantics - but then I suppose I opened the door when I queried encouragement

 

I would struggle to accept the idea that creative drive came from anywhere except within the individual. People create things - and may be influenced by systems, rather than the other way around - I think

 

Yeah, that's a discussion for another place . It's not really a debate about facts, but opinions, art and philosophy... that kinda stuff don't belong in no geocaching forums!

 

Suffice to say, I think we agree (by the following wording) that Groundspeak was hoping that the format of Lab Caches (an effect blank slate) and their promotion of I <3 Geocaching (single find, and a theme with examples) would encourage creativity, being relatively free from technical restriction. Yeah?

Edited February 5, 2014 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

Suffice to say, I think we agree (by the following wording) that Groundspeak was hoping that the format of Lab Caches (an effect blank slate) and their promotion of I <3 Geocaching (single find, and a theme with examples) would encourage creativity, being relatively free from technical restriction. Yeah?

 

In the sense that it would allow the pre-existing, possibly dormant creativity to flow forth - yes

[cezanne]

You originally said - and in fact stressed with the use of of course:

 

What of course concerns me is the local future development of geocaching, including who will decide to leave geocaching due to frustration and how many caches are set up locally that I enjoy.

 

It was simple enough when you said it - so it's simple enough to be verified or otherwise with a simple yes/no question.

 

Or are you changing your position now and stating that the above isn't actually your concern at all?

 

If the above statement isn't your concern now we can dismiss it as irrelevant to the discussion.

 

If you make a statement you need to stick to it - otherwise the discussion is doomed to loop around in an ever decreasing spiral until it becomes pointless.

 

The above plays the key role for me when it comes to building up my personal opinion about all sorts of developments in geocaching. This is nothing specific for lab caches and the February experiment. It holds for all cache-like activities. I'm not changing my position. I wrote the above because you asked me whether I have the majority of cachers or myself in mind and the answer was neither nor and I then explained on which group I tend to focus regardless of the specific question under consideration.

 

I'm not so naive to think that a time-limited experiment like the February experiment itself will have any essential effect on the future of geocaching. It is the statement with which lab caches are promoted along with many other actions of Groundspeak from the last years that makes me concerned about the ever increasing gap between their idea of the future of geocaching and the idea of the target group that plays a role for me.

 

If I listen or read some statements by Groundspeak staff I often think that an arbitrarily selected member of a hiking club has much more in common with me than these people, but that's definitely not a lab cache specific aspect, but true in general.

 

Cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

You originally said - and in fact stressed with the use of of course:

 

What of course concerns me is the local future development of geocaching, including who will decide to leave geocaching due to frustration and how many caches are set up locally that I enjoy.

 

It was simple enough when you said it - so it's simple enough to be verified or otherwise with a simple yes/no question.

 

Or are you changing your position now and stating that the above isn't actually your concern at all?

 

If the above statement isn't your concern now we can dismiss it as irrelevant to the discussion.

 

If you make a statement you need to stick to it - otherwise the discussion is doomed to loop around in an ever decreasing spiral until it becomes pointless.

 

The above plays the key role for me when it comes to building up my personal opinion about all sorts of developments in geocaching. This is nothing specific for lab caches and the February experiment. It holds for all cache-like activities. I'm not changing my position. I wrote the above because you asked me whether I have the majority of cachers or myself in mind and the answer was neither nor and I then explained on which group I tend to focus regardless of the specific question under consideration.

 

I'm not so naive to think that a time-limited experiment like the February experiment itself will have any essential effect on the future of geocaching. It is the statement with which lab caches are promoted along with many other actions of Groundspeak from the last years that makes me concerned about the ever increasing gap between their idea of the future of geocaching and the idea of the target group that plays a role for me.

 

If I listen or read some statements by Groundspeak staff I often think that an arbitrarily selected member of a hiking club has much more in common with me than these people, but that's definitely not a lab cache specific aspect, but true in general.

 

Cezanne

 

So you are concerned about the local future development of geocaching, including who will decide to leave geocaching due to frustration and how many caches are set up locally that you enjoy?

 

I'd like to try to keep things simple so that I can understand them and we can move the discussion forward in a logical, linear fashion rather than round and round in circles with vague and constantly changing parameters.

[+Manville Possum]

How do you log a find on a lab cache at a mega event?

The ones I logged a Lackey gave me the coordinates and the URL.

And yes, the coordinates were off to one of theirs also. I'm not happy at all with mine being off by 0.4 miles. I gave them a good rating in the poll before I caught their mistake that the system auto corrected my coordinates. I say it was a failure.

[+Team Microdot]

How do you log a find on a lab cache at a mega event?

The ones I logged a Lackey gave me the coordinates and the URL.

And yes, the coordinates were off to one of theirs also. I'm not happy at all with mine being off by 0.4 miles. I gave them a good rating in the poll before I caught their mistake that the system auto corrected my coordinates. I say it was a failure.

 

I actually noticed that the coords on the one I placed changed by themselves - for no apparent reason - they even changed format away from WGS84 to some other format.

 

Fortunately I spotted and addressed it before it caused a problem.

[cezanne]

So you are concerned about the local future development of geocaching, including who will decide to leave geocaching due to frustration and how many caches are set up locally that you enjoy?

 

You could say that this is a kind of umbrella for my view on the development of geocaching and related activities. If something effects geocaching e.g. only in the US, I do not care a bit.

 

With respect to lab caches, my opinion is somehow ambiguous. Subconsciously it might also play a role that I've been against the introduction of mega events and additional icons as I feel that it increases the trend that it's not any longer the cache hunt itself that plays the major role.

 

While I could see some potential for lab caches to provide an option for those who enjoy types of virtual caches that currently have no home, I have learnt from the experience with challenges and other actions undertaken by Groundspeak, that I better should not have any hopes that anything will happen in this direction that will please me.

It seems to me that all the concepts will always suffer from the same deficiencies when it comes to the implementation of complex projects with mystery and multi stage character.

 

As the local community is regarded, the February experiment will not have large effects, but if the development continues that more or more old timers who like hiking and being in the nature leave geocaching and are replaced by people who play an urban smartphone game, then this is definitely a negative effect from my point of view. That's one of the reasons why I react somehow allergic when I get the feeling that a certain action is taken in order to promote geocaching as a cool smartphone game (the stress is on game in the sense of PC games - I do not care whether one uses a dedicated GPS-device or a smartphone for navigation).

 

I hope that I managed this time to explain from which direction I come from - viewed from there everything what I wrote fits together and is not contradictory.

 

I considered for a moment to set up a lab cache for a friend (via the help of another friend who is PM) and I have ideas for much more than one such lab caches ready in my head, but taking into account that I would have needed to make heavy use of external sources (1000 characters do not even suffice for most of my cache logs) and moreover the find stats of my friend would have got disturbed, the final resume is negative. As a consequence of all these it makes much more sense for me to create this cache outside of gc.com. Others will make their own decision based on their situation.

 

Cezanne

[+thebruce0]

Ok, honestly, there is nothing about the current period of lab caches that promotes smartphone caching!

Really, there isn't.

[+Team Microdot]

So you are concerned about the local future development of geocaching, including who will decide to leave geocaching due to frustration and how many caches are set up locally that you enjoy?

 

You could say that this is a kind of umbrella for my view on the development of geocaching and related activities. If something effects geocaching e.g. only in the US, I do not care a bit.

 

So the short answer is YES then.

 

With respect to lab caches, my opinion is somehow ambiguous.

 

I find your opinions on most things ambiguous - they certainly seem to shift under scrutiny, or trigger another long, nuanced monlogue rather than a simple answer to a simple question.

 

Subconsciously it might also play a role that I've been against the introduction of mega events and additional icons as I feel that it increases the trend that it's not any longer the cache hunt itself that plays the major role.

 

Why would that concern you? as far as I can tell from your user profile the hunt is one of the least important aspects of the game for you:

 

• container is easy to find (the faster the better) - I prefer standard hideouts by far to creative ones
  
• container is easy to retrieve, to handle (no or few trading items) and to rehide
  
• game-character does hardly play any role (I do not regard geocaching as a game)
  

 

Sorry - you don't see it as a game.

 

While I could see some potential for lab caches to provide an option for those who enjoy types of virtual caches that currently have no home, I have learnt from the experience with challenges and other actions undertaken by Groundspeak, that I better should not have any hopes that anything will happen in this direction that will please me.

 

So focus on the enormous number of caches in the existing system that will please you.

 

Although again - judging from your profile the journey and the location are far more important than the cache anyway - so I really don't see why the way the cache is delivered should matter to you at all.

 

And given that you're playing for free (for over a decade?) I don't think you have a strong basis for complaint.

 

It seems to me that all the concepts will always suffer from the same deficiencies when it comes to the implementation of complex projects with mystery and multi stage character.

 

So long as they have a nice walk leading to a nice location, how is that a problem for you?

 

I hope that I managed this time to explain from which direction I come from - viewed from there everything what I wrote fits together and is not contradictory.

 

I'd have preferred simple answers to simple questions - but I guess that doesn't fit with your communication style.

 

I considered for a moment to set up a lab cache for a friend (via the help of another friend who is PM)

and I have ideas for much more than one such lab caches ready in my head, but taking into account that I would have needed to make heavy use of external sources (1000 characters do not even suffice for most of my cache logs) and moreover the find stats of my friend would have got disturbed, the final resume is negative. As a consequence of all these it makes much more sense for me to create this cache outside of gc.com. Others will make their own decision based on their situation.

 

I would say that's probably a good idea - then you can make it just the way you want it and you won't have to rely on the fact that you know someone who contributes financially to Groundspeak's efforts to deliver your ideas.

[+Team Microdot]

Ok, honestly, there is nothing about the current period of lab caches that promotes smartphone caching!

Really, there isn't.

 

I feel almost certain cezanne can grind you down to the point where you'll that there is though

[cezanne]

Ok, honestly, there is nothing about the current period of lab caches that promotes smartphone caching!

 

Smartphone caching is probably not the right term as I said I do not care with which device someone navigates as

this has no effect on the cache offer and my own way of caching.

 

It appears to me that aspects like length restrictions for the descriptions (which have been present also in challenges

and exist on some other geocaching sites as well) come mainly from targeting to the paperless audience, but maybe I'm wrong.

So far there never has been an explanation (neither for challenges nor now for lab caches).

 

Cezanne

[+coachstahly]

 

It makes me feel that Groundspeak is desperately fighting for new smartphone customers and that what they really care about is quantity and something which they refer to as cool in order to appeal to their idea about a young new audience.

 

Cezanne

 

Of course they're fighting for new customers. If GS doesn't get new cachers, then we're left with a stagnant base of geocachers (eventually shrinking due to death and loss of interest), monetary intake stagnates (no new premium members to add to the core), and geocaching dies a slow death as what GS can offer to its core members will become even more limited as time passes. The more people you can introduce to caching, in whatever form that might take, the more likely you are to get a small percentage of them take up this activity for an extended period of time and become premium members. If ANY company can't attract new consumers, it's eventually going to go out of business.

 

Nowhere does the LAB cache idea eliminate the type of caching that many of us enjoy and you are afraid might be eliminated or trivialized (long term outlook on your part if I understand you correctly). Do you honestly believe that they'll kill off traditionals, multis and unknowns (as well as the other types) if this idea moves forward? I see this as a way to attract new geocachers and then, once they're interested, introduce them to the types of caches you love so much (I do as well) that they get hooked on ALL the types of caching available to us, not just the new ones.

 

The addition of new cache types is GS simply attempting to get more cachers involved so that this hobby of ours reaches a bigger audience and can continue on into the future. Yes, some cachers are more concerned about how many icons, what types, how many caches, etc... However, that doesn't affect YOU and your caching. What affects your caching is who, in your area, is still hiding caches that you would like to find, not the addition of new icons. If GS can attract new cachers (in your area) with a new concept, what is to keep you from introducing them (once they're hooked) to what you love to do so that they start hiding more of the kind you like? Pass that on to the next generation so they can get out and enjoy nature as much as you do.

 

The great thing about geocaching is that there are so many ways to play. People can choose what they wish to enjoy and it doesn't affect your enjoyment of the way you cache. I've only been doing this for just under 4 years and I don't agree with all that GS has done since I've joined. However, very few of those policies have had a direct impact on my caching and what I attempt to find and what I enjoy. Those policies that have, I learn to adapt and if I don't, I choose not to partake. The "challenges" that came out are just such an example. I had no interest and I never did one. Same with LAB caches. As of right now, I have no interest and will choose to ignore them until such a time as they either become fully integrated or go away.

 

I don't see this as a negative idea or a positive one. There are some aspects I like and some I don't but I don't see how the possible implementation of this idea is going to wreak havoc on a more "traditional" form of geocaching. That part will always appeal to a segment of geocachers while newer forms or types of caches will appeal to others and that's part of the beauty of this hobby. There is not ONE way to cache, but many different ways. To each his own.

[+Manville Possum]

How do you log a find on a lab cache at a mega event?

The ones I logged a Lackey gave me the coordinates and the URL.

And yes, the coordinates were off to one of theirs also. I'm not happy at all with mine being off by 0.4 miles. I gave them a good rating in the poll before I caught their mistake that the system auto corrected my coordinates. I say it was a failure.

 

I actually noticed that the coords on the one I placed changed by themselves - for no apparent reason - they even changed format away from WGS84 to some other format.

 

Fortunately I spotted and addressed it before it caused a problem.

I was not so lucky. I rate that as a failure. So, how were you able to correct the coordinates and format?

[+Team Microdot]

How do you log a find on a lab cache at a mega event?

The ones I logged a Lackey gave me the coordinates and the URL.

And yes, the coordinates were off to one of theirs also. I'm not happy at all with mine being off by 0.4 miles. I gave them a good rating in the poll before I caught their mistake that the system auto corrected my coordinates. I say it was a failure.

 

I actually noticed that the coords on the one I placed changed by themselves - for no apparent reason - they even changed format away from WGS84 to some other format.

 

Fortunately I spotted and addressed it before it caused a problem.

I was not so lucky. I rate that as a failure. So, how were you able to correct the coordinates and format?

 

Typed them in and hit SAVE again - and they seemed to stick.

 

I've just looked at it again though and the format has reverted again - turns out is in WGS84 format but is decimal degrees format.

[cezanne]

Of course they're fighting for new customers. If GS doesn't get new cachers, then we're left with a stagnant base of geocachers (eventually shrinking due to death and loss of interest), monetary intake stagnates (no new premium members to add to the core), and geocaching dies a slow death as what GS can offer to its core members will become even more limited as time passes.

 

At least in my area the changes that took place in the community have actively kicked out many of those who have been there in the early days and had an outdoor background (without those people geocaching would not even exist in my country) and as a replacement there has been a huge increase in urban geocachers who are there to play a game and many of them miss the appropriate respect for the nature.

 

Having more customers also increases the costs - you need more support staff, translators, larger servers, more bandwith etc.

So it is really clear to me whether for geocaching it is that simple as mentioned above.

 

Do you honestly believe that they'll kill off traditionals, multis and unknowns (as well as the other types) if this idea moves forward? I see this as a way to attract new geocachers and then, once they're interested, introduce them to the types of caches you love so much (I do as well) that they get hooked on ALL the types of caching available to us, not just the new ones.

 

No, I do not think that the lab cache idea will eliminate the other cache types. The comment with regard to the number of cachers was with respect to mega events, powertrails etc

I mentioned mega events only because the first time lab caches showed up was in connection with mega events.

 

 

The addition of new cache types is GS simply attempting to get more cachers involved so that this hobby of ours reaches a bigger audience and can continue on into the future.

 

I had a look at your profile and I saw that you come from the US. The situation of geocaching in the US is very different from the situation in countries like Germany and Austria.

Most of the caches in my country are hidden without knowledge of the property owner (a huge proportion of the land is privately owned). We do not have a land manager system.

What made geocaching survive relatively well for the first years was the small number of cachers which did not attract the attention of non-geocachers. This has changed in recent years and more and more troubles showed up. Sooner or later there will be laws that seriously restrict geocaching. In Germany the Groundspeak reviewers have already started a while back to become much stricter with the effect that many caches types never get published as no permission is obtainable for them. The number of hidden caches in many areas and in particular of involved and complex caches is decreasing as a result and this leads to more cachers leaving geocaching as it became boring to them. Typically my country is 3-4 years behind Germany - so what one can watch there now will happen in some years in my country.

 

Maybe what I wrote above explains better why I think that an exponential growth in the number of cachers harms geocaching considerably in my area.

 

Virtual caches could offer solutions to some of these issues (not to all, and they would create new issues as well), but is is clear that they never will return in the way they have existed.

 

Personally, I would see a huge potential in lab caches for experiments with virtual caches, but I have lost all my hope that this ever will happen.

 

 

Yes, some cachers are more concerned about how many icons, what types, how many caches, etc... However, that doesn't affect YOU and your caching. What affects your caching is who, in your area, is still hiding caches that you would like to find, not the addition of new icons.

 

New icons were just one of many examples that influence the way many people are caching. All sorts of stats play a role as well.

Some years ago I chose the D and T rating of my caches in the manner it seemed appropriate to me. Nowadays one needs to consider whether one uses a rare D/T combination which

might encourage people to visit a puzzle or multi cache without having solved the puzzle or having visited the stages just to gain the rare D/T combination.

The main reason behind powertrails are numbers too. In areas where powertrails show up, normal caches often get archived because the owners get annoyed by the many mass logs they get for their non mass caches. Some of them leave geocaching at all.

 

 

 

If GS can attract new cachers (in your area) with a new concept, what is to keep you from introducing them (once they're hooked) to what you love to do so that they start hiding more of the kind you like?

 

Those people who do not like walking and hiking and spending time in forests and on mountains and prefer to play computer games, are simply not the right audience to be convinced that hiking is beautiful. I'm also not the right audience for being convinved that playing computer games is enjoyable.

There is nothing bad about preferring playing computer games over hiking. It's just a different group of people and the types of caches they enjoy will differ.

 

The "challenges" that came out are just such an example. I had no interest and I never did one. Same with LAB caches. As of right now, I have no interest and will choose to ignore them until such a time as they either become fully integrated or go away.

 

Unlike you I had some potential interest into both challenges and lab caches, but only as a replacement for the abolished virtuals, or more specifically the type of more complex virtual that I enjoy. I do not care about the integration into the site. What makes me a bit disappointed is rather that like in the case of the challenges the lab caches are again set up in a manner so that they cannot serve as a replacement for the type of virtual I'd like to see.

 

But as I said, of course this February experiment seen on its own will not effect my way of geocaching at all. I was just worried about the statement that visitors of lab caches help shape the future of geocaching, but of course I took this seriously and word by word.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

But as I said, of course this February experiment seen on its own will not effect my way of geocaching at all. I was just worried about the statement that visitors of lab caches help shape the future of geocaching, but of course I took this seriously and word by word.

 

I would be more worried by the prospect that geocaching might be shaped by individuals with a very, very narrow prescriptive view of what geocaching should be for everyone - and also that it might be influenced by individuals who invest little to nothing in the game themselves.

 

Personally I'd like to think that the best / most creative ideas arising from LAB cache experiments could help to enhance geocaching in ways that many people will enjoy - while retaining the best of what has gone before

[cezanne]

I find your opinions on most things ambiguous - they certainly seem to shift under scrutiny, or trigger another long, nuanced monlogue rather than a simple answer to a simple question.

 

They do not shift - I rather can be blamed for sometimes sticking stubbornly with my opinion. I'm not a simple person however and I cannot give simple answers to questions which are complex for me. Also all of my caches and cache ideas are complex.

 

As our discussion is in danger to get too far off-topic, I decided not to reply in detail.

If you wish, I can send you a PM with comments on what I leave out of this post.

 

Let me just address briefly two statements I cannot leave uncommented.

 

Why would that concern you? as far as I can tell from your user profile the hunt is one of the least important aspects of the game for you:

 

The search for the container if of no relevance to me. With hunt I meant the whole experience including the journey. Maybe I used a misleading term - I'm writing in a foreign language.

My most impressive cache experience has been at this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3EFT1_vulkanland?guid=bc6fc608-511d-4790-91a6-63898366b82c

which for all visitors was a unique experience which explains the special logs and the 100% favorite percentage.

 

This epic experience has been made possible only by the the way the cache has been set up. A traditional hidden at the

final location would have been way boring and not of interest to any of the visitors. One might be able to hide an intruiging

traditional in Siberia where just the coordinates and a container suffice to provide an extraordinary adventure, but that's not

the case in my area.

 

I would say that's probably a good idea - then you can make it just the way you want it and you won't have to rely on the fact that you know someone who contributes financially to Groundspeak's efforts to deliver your ideas.

 

My reasons for not becoming a PM are not financial ones and almost all PMs I know are PMs because they want to use PQs, ignore lists etc

I would not have asked a friend to publish my lab cache idea under her account in order to be able to create a lab cache, but just to demonstrate

how lab caches could like and that there exists potential for interesting virtuals within the lab cache concept. Also from this point of view

it would have been attractive if a wider audience could have viewed the lab cache description and if all information were available right at the

cache page. For a personal Valentine's present all these issues are clearly irrelevant.

 

I'm convinced that by hiding and maintaining caches all the cachers who have helped to build up geocaching in my area, have contributed much more to the

local community than gc.com as a pure service provider will ever be able to contribute. The local community does not profit at all if many cachers are PMs.

Switching over to some local database with no interest into making a living out of the site would probably have been the wiser decision

anyway for my country but now it is too late anyway. It is perfectly legitimate that Groundspeak wants to earn money with geocaching, but geocaching is something which in the long run will be influenced in a harmful manner by the financial dependencies introduced by the company approach.

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

But as I said, of course this February experiment seen on its own will not effect my way of geocaching at all. I was just worried about the statement that visitors of lab caches help shape the future of geocaching, but of course I took this seriously and word by word.

 

I would be more worried by the prospect that geocaching might be shaped by individuals with a very, very narrow prescriptive view of what geocaching should be for everyone - and also that it might be influenced by individuals who invest little to nothing in the game themselves.

 

To each his own. Be concerned about whatever you want. My own approach to geocaching is narrow, but I never said that geocaching should be like this for everyone.

I'm just fighting against a trend that so many of those who hide caches that I do enjoy leave geocaching due to the development (and not because they lost the interest into old school geocaching).

 

My own investments into hiding and maintaining my own caches and helping other caches with their caches in terms of time and energy goes way beyond PMship fees can ever accumulate for.

Without the cachers who have been around in the early days and who have hidden caches, geocaching would not exist at all in my area.

 

 

Personally I'd like to think that the best / most creative ideas arising from LAB cache experiments could help to enhance geocaching in ways that many people will enjoy - while retaining the best of what has gone before

 

There is nothing bad about this wish of yours. Based on some feedback I received, I'm however definitely not the only one who sees issues with the 1000 character limit and other technical restrictions. I have quite a difficult time here as I'm the only participant in this thread who comes from a completely different geocaching tradition where more complex and longer cache descriptions are nothing uncommon. The 1000 character limit does not even allow for the standard birthday geocache which regularly shows up on gc.com in my area.

 

If you happen to think that the 1000 character limit will increase the creativity, then go along with your belief. I rather think that it will make people come up with simpler projects that they originally had in mind and will eventually lead to frustrated cachers.

 

Cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

My most impressive cache experience has been at this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3EFT1_vulkanland?guid=bc6fc608-511d-4790-91a6-63898366b82c

which for all visitors was a unique experience which explains the special logs and the 100% favorite percentage.

 

Putting the rest of your yet again very long posts to one side...

 

That cache has 16 - that's sixteen found logs and 13 - that's thirteen favourite points.

 

Now I'm not a great mathematician - but even I know that isn't a 100% favourite percentage.

 

And this is just one example of how your assertions / predictions aren't grounded in reality.

[+geodarts]

Redundant post

Edited February 5, 2014 by geodarts

[cezanne]

Putting the rest of your yet again very long posts to one side...

 

That cache has 16 - that's sixteen found logs and 13 - that's thirteen favourite points.

 

Now I'm not a great mathematician - but even I know that isn't a 100% favourite percentage.

 

And this is just one example of how your assertions / predictions aren't grounded in reality.

 

It has 13 founds by PMs - the three non PMs (including myself) cannot award a FP and are thus not counted by Groundspeak, but that's not my fault.

I can assure you that every single finder of this cache would award to it at least 10 FPs if that were possible. I've met almost all finders in person and

have had contact with all of them.

 

How do you measure the favourite percentage of a cache? (A notion introduced by Groundspeak and not by me)

[+niraD]

That cache has 16 - that's sixteen found logs and 13 - that's thirteen favourite points.

 

Now I'm not a great mathematician - but even I know that isn't a 100% favourite percentage.

Groundspeak calculates Favorites percentages based on finds by premium members, not based on all finds. So if 13 premium members find it, 3 basic members find it, and the cache has 13 Favorite points, then the cache has a Favorites percentage of 100%. Edited February 5, 2014 by niraD

[+Team Microdot]

That cache has 16 - that's sixteen found logs and 13 - that's thirteen favourite points.

 

Now I'm not a great mathematician - but even I know that isn't a 100% favourite percentage.

Groundspeak calculates Favorites percentages based on finds by premium members, not based on all finds. So if 13 premium members find it, 3 basic members find it, and the cache has 13 Favorite points, then the cache has a Favorites percentage of 100%.

 

Do they indeed?

 

Is that favourite percentage shown somewhere on the site? I don't recall ever seeing it.

[cezanne]

Is that favourite percentage shown somewhere on the site? I don't recall ever seeing it.

 

If you click on the arrow right to where the number of FPs is displayed on the cache page you get the percentage and a further click also shows you who has awarded FPs.

Edited February 5, 2014 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

Is that favourite percentage shown somewhere on the site? I don't recall ever seeing it.

 

If you click on the arrow right to the number of FPs display you get the percentage and a further click also shows you who has awarded FPs.

 

Ineed it does!

 

You learn something new every day

 

In the face of clear, documentary evidence contrary to my opinion I happily concede .

[+Manville Possum]

How do you log a find on a lab cache at a mega event?

The ones I logged a Lackey gave me the coordinates and the URL.

And yes, the coordinates were off to one of theirs also. I'm not happy at all with mine being off by 0.4 miles. I gave them a good rating in the poll before I caught their mistake that the system auto corrected my coordinates. I say it was a failure.

 

I actually noticed that the coords on the one I placed changed by themselves - for no apparent reason - they even changed format away from WGS84 to some other format.

 

Fortunately I spotted and addressed it before it caused a problem.

I was not so lucky. I rate that as a failure. So, how were you able to correct the coordinates and format?

 

Typed them in and hit SAVE again - and they seemed to stick.

 

I've just looked at it again though and the format has reverted again - turns out is in WGS84 format but is decimal degrees format.

I'm sure one of the Lackey's will help me correct the coordinates on my Lab cache. I'll just sit here in front of my computer and wait.

[cezanne]

I'm sure one of the Lackey's will help me correct the coordinates on my Lab cache.

 

Do you think that the coordinates are correctible once the lab cache has been sent away and has been logged? A friend of mine reported that she experienced coordinate issues too.

I think there is something wrong with the system or it must be very user-unfriendly.

 

In any case it might be probably better to open a new thread which is devoted only to reporting technical issues with creating and or finding lab caches. This kind of problems reports will get lost in this very general thread which has been started way before February 3 and which by nature contains a lot of debate about the pros and cons of the February lab cache experiment and these discussion is not focussed on specific problems with lab caches.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 5, 2014 by cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

.

Edited February 6, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+Manville Possum]

I'm sure one of the Lackey's will help me correct the coordinates on my Lab cache.

 

Do you think that the coordinates are correctible once the lab cache has been sent away and has been logged? A friend of mine reported that she experienced coordinate issues too.

I think there is something wrong with the system or it must be very user-unfriendly.

 

In any case it might be probably better to open a new thread which is devoted only to reporting technical issues with creating and or finding lab caches. This kind of problems reports will get lost in this very general thread which has been started way before February 3 and which by nature contains a lot of debate about the pros and cons of the February lab cache experiment and these discussion is not focussed on specific problems with lab caches.

 

Cezanne

Yes, it could be corrected. Mine has not been logged yet, it may take a few days due to weather conditions. I agree that we should start a new thread reporting technical issues with creating and or finding I < 3 lab caches. Looks like a few of us encountered the same issue. Maybe a Lackey or moderator can take part and help us relsove this issue, or not. I feel it's worth discussing because I took my time to help test their idea, so they can hear my input.

 

OK, been tinkering with my I <3 Geocaching Lab Rat and was able to change the coordinates. I hate to stay on topic when I got lost in the discussion a few pages ago. Time for a new thread.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Manville Possum Hunters