Jump to content

Place your own Lab Cache!?!?!


geocat_
Followers 11

Recommended Posts

We should be thanking gc.com for allowing us to try some of their ideas.

 

That might be true for you. I do know that I do not like the idea and I'm not interested at all into trying it out. Sure, it is Groundspeak's site. So they can decide what they offer there, but it's me who decides what I'm thankful for.

 

I do not feel annoyed by your video (actually I looked at it only for less than a minute), but I once again realized that's about a completely different world. When I hear geocaching I have interesting places, scenic views, peaceful landscapes and gorgeous hikes in mind and not things like game, fun, loud laughter, mega, cool, experiments etc

 

 

Cezanne

I did not feel annoyed by the video, it was the loud laughter that got to me. I'm glad that geocachingvlogger posted here because I turned down the volume and watched his video again. I don't think that I would be interested in this type of Lab cache, but I am sure that others will. I'm more into the peaceful hikes and scenic views also.

Link to comment

We should be thanking gc.com for allowing us to try some of their ideas.

 

That might be true for you. I do know that I do not like the idea and I'm not interested at all into trying it out. Sure, it is Groundspeak's site. So they can decide what they offer there, but it's me who decides what I'm thankful for.

 

I do not feel annoyed by your video (actually I looked at it only for less than a minute), but I once again realized that's about a completely different world. When I hear geocaching I have interesting places, scenic views, peaceful landscapes and gorgeous hikes in mind and not things like game, fun, loud laughter, mega, cool, experiments etc

 

 

Cezanne

 

I just listened to the podcacher podcast. One things that they repeated over and over is that the type of cache one creates for this new kind of lab cache is that it is unconstrained. They used phrases like, "users define how it's used", "we're not telling people what to do", and "it's an open platform". If someone wanted to create a lab cache that took someone to an interesting place, a scenic view, peaceful landscape, or gorgeous hike it sounds like there is nothing that would prevent someone from doing so. The only constraint appears to be that in order to claim the find, the finder has to enter a "Find Code" and that the experiment ends at the end of February.

 

 

Link to comment

If someone wanted to create a lab cache that took someone to an interesting place, a scenic view, peaceful landscape, or gorgeous hike it sounds like there is nothing that would prevent someone from doing so. The only constraint appears to be that in order to claim the find, the finder has to enter a "Find Code" and that the experiment ends at the end of February.

 

But why should someone set this up as a lab cache? There are no advantages.

Link to comment

Even GC's own site says what geocaching is:

 

The Game

What is geocaching?

Geocaching is a real-world, outdoor treasure hunting game using GPS-enabled devices. Participants navigate to a specific set of GPS coordinates and then attempt to find the geocache (container) hidden at that location.

 

Their lab experiment is a completely different game so it really shouldn't be associated with geocaching. Sounds to me that someone is worried about the M game taking a bite out of their profits and trying to come up with some new twist to offset this.

No doubt the intent is to discover a new twist. We've only been doing this for a few years and already noticed the decline of higher terrain caches locally. The tree climbing group has pretty much disappeared and most new caches do not interest us. We still get excited about using GC to discover places when we travel. This experiment will either offer something new that we fall in love with locally, or just be an aspect of the web site that we ignore. It seems too early to express an opinion.

Link to comment

While it is possible to set one up and just e-mail the recipient the code word, I suspect the experiment is to see what ways people can use their imagination and ingenuity to do something cool.

 

That's the impression I got as well. If you use google and enter: new type of cache site:Groundspeak.com

 

You'll see that there have been lots of threads where people have proposed new cache or location based games and it seems like this is an opportunity to give it a try.

 

Several years ago I started a thread called "A new type of geocache"

 

Basically, the idea was to create a cache that was a variation on a puzzle cache, but the cache owner could keep adding hints (perhaps, once a day) to the listing until the cache was found. Each hint would reveal a digit for the final coordinates, so eventually someone would find it, or the exact coordinates would be revealed. For example, the first hint might be:

 

North: _____ The ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything.

 

The answer, of course, is 42 which only tell potential finders that the degrees portion of the North coordinate is 42.

 

I could see something like that working for one of these new lab caches.

Link to comment

Hey gang,

 

Thanks for being patient over the weekend and this morning waiting for an official response from HQ...and thanks for the fun video, geocachingvlogger - love your enthusiasm, it's always welcome here! :D

 

The OFFICIAL announcement will happen on February 3rd, with all the pomp and circumstance of a proper, exciting HQ announcement. Although, I am here now to verify for you that via I <3 Geocaching, every Premium Member will get their chance at hiding a special "private" cache for someone else to find. I will attempt to answer all questions that get tossed my way...and if I don't know the answer to them I will go find the person who does know. I want you guys to feel informed of what the Lab Caches entail so you can make an educated choice of if you would like to participate, or not.

 

Here are some basics:

  • A Lab Cache is an experimental and extremely rare geocache type. These geocaches are a way for us to innovate, test new ideas, and look for new ways to find adventure in the world.
  • These finds will add a smiley to your find count, BUT will not count as a typical geocache would in your milestones and various other stats. (Just making sure everyone is aware that to keep a streak up you will need to find a non-labs geocache for a streaking day.)
  • These hides will not add to your hide count.
  • These are one time hides, and are temporary.
  • These caches were only available at Mega events, but we thought it might be fun to let more folks try them. They will still be available at some Mega events.
  • These hides are not replacing Virtuals. They won't be reviewed and there aren't any special logging requirements other than entering the code that you find at the end of your hunt.
  • These hides are not replacing Challenges. Challenges required a separate app, were owned by the community, and had a variety of completion requirements. This form of lab cache lives on the web, can be used privately, and has no special requirements past entering the find code.
  • If you find a Lab Cache and don't want it to show on your profile or count as a find, you are able to delete them. Click on “Lab Caches” on your Public Profile under “Geocaches Found," log in and select the garbage can next to each Lab Cache you would like to delete. Keep in mind that once you delete, you will not be able to get a Lab Cache find reinstated later.

 

We have increments of development time set aside for fixing bugs and adding community requested features. We also have increments of development time set aside for exploring where else Geocaching can take us. These Lab Caches are part of that increment...we are excited to share them with everybody to be able to get feedback and evaluate what value they may carry for the geocaching community. We didn't offer that option with Challenges and now know that it's an incredibly important step in the innovation process. For what it's worth - this feature (private geocaches) are requested on a daily basis...through marriage proposals, Mega Events, education requests to share lessons about GPS usage/maps with students, corporate retreats, family reunions, birthday presents, etc. Before now we haven't had a good answer - now there are possibilities.

 

We don't expect everyone to want to try them or like them, but we are hoping for the community's feedback. There will be surveys posted that both the hider and finder can complete about the experience.

 

Like I said, I am happy to answer questions that you may have about the Lab Caches or I <3 Geocaching. Please keep questions and comments constructive - they speak the loudest to us and get remembered during development meetings. Deliberately negative comments tend not to accomplish those goals, unfortunately.

 

Alright...I'm done. Let's hear questions and have some good discussion.

Link to comment

Hey gang,

<snip>

 

Like I said, I am happy to answer questions that you may have about the Lab Caches or I <3 Geocaching. Please keep questions and comments constructive - they speak the loudest to us and get remembered during development meetings. Deliberately negative comments tend not to accomplish those goals, unfortunately.

 

Alright...I'm done. Let's hear questions and have some good discussion.

 

Pardon me for speaking frankly, but that (to me) reads "if you don't have happy, positive comments, we tend to ignore them". Not exactly a sound business principle.

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

If someone wanted to create a lab cache that took someone to an interesting place, a scenic view, peaceful landscape, or gorgeous hike it sounds like there is nothing that would prevent someone from doing so. The only constraint appears to be that in order to claim the find, the finder has to enter a "Find Code" and that the experiment ends at the end of February.

 

But why should someone set this up as a lab cache? There are no advantages.

 

cezanne, if I were local to you (and locally knowledgable) I could set up a Lab Cache for you.

I'd think about the kind of walking tour multi-cache with points of interest that you seem to enjoy.

advantages It doesn't need any container, I could build the logging codeword from information in various stops. I don't have to struggle to get a container placed in an environment that's not suited to it. OR, if I did want a container, I can ignore cache saturation, I can use something that might be to theme, but too fragile for regular cache use. I can put the container indoors, all or part of the cache could be indoors.

 

I don't think that I would be interested in this type of Lab cache, but I am sure that others will. I'm more into the peaceful hikes and scenic views also.

 

Well someone could build a Lab Cache for you as peaceful hike with view. Or not, no telling whether someone will. But there isn't a "type" of Lab Cache. It's wide opened. Making it available to all premium members ought to be the route to seeing what's possible.

Should be some cool stuff, though the one time only thing does limit how much work a person is going to put into it.

 

In my limited experience with Lab Caches (I've found them at 2 Mega Events) their primary weakness is the lack of an online log. Enter codeword only. I logged 1 of 6 from NV and 1 of 4 from FL. I don't see why I'd log the rest, as the logs themselves are literally nothing. I don't know if the Lab Cache owner knows when they're logged, or sees logging numbers?

 

Obviously, this is just a personal viewpoint. Lots of folks logging TFTC over and over, and someone in the forums recently asking how to do blank logs. Many clearly don't care about their own logs. I do. If I can't use the online log to say something, something that I want to share with the cache owner, and for my own enjoyment down the road, I'm not going to log, mostly. I might still do them. Right now I find caches with logs in tiny containers that I'm not going to fool with, so I sign nothing and log nothing... could do the same with Labs.

Link to comment

Thanks Jayme H for your input. I think you cleared up some questions and certainly have left room for others. So am I correct in hearing you say that at this time, Groundspeak does not have a final goal with regard to Lab Caches. That is to say, this is not the first step in an already determined plan for something specific...is that correct?

 

I like the idea but will have to wait and see how this play out. I will likely give them a try as I am the curious type (curious geocat that is) tongue.gif

Link to comment

Please keep questions and comments constructive - they speak the loudest to us and get remembered during development meetings. Deliberately negative comments tend not to accomplish those goals, unfortunately.

 

Alright...I'm done. Let's hear questions and have some good discussion.

Deliberately negative comments, in this case, probably reflect the views of those who make them. While many people are open to new possibilities in geocaching - or at least in allowing those who wish to try new possibilities to do so - there are many who are stuck in their ways. They prefer a clear and simple definition of not only what geocaching is but what a geocaching find is.

 

I don't believe you can silence these people. Even referring to them by the "p" word has no effect.

 

So far I have little interest in the lab cache ideas that have been proposed, the I <3 Geocaching ones included. I find it amusing that some people get so giddy over the idea of gaining a new icon or a +1 smiley on a cache that only they can find. But I find it even more amusing that some people have gotten their knickers twisted because Groundspeak cares to cater that first group.

Link to comment

When I hear geocaching I have interesting places, scenic views, peaceful landscapes and gorgeous hikes in mind and not things like game, fun, loud laughter, mega, cool, experiments etc

 

Why do you do geocaching if you do not find it fun? Of course you can chose what you like doing, and what you don't; But why cache if you don't want to have fun doing so? I as well enjoy hikes, scenery, and interesting places. But I also enjoy meeting new cachers, and over everything else, having fun. That's why I started. To have fun, and find caches. When I discovered some caches had scenery and nice hikes that was just a bonus.

Link to comment

Thanks for your frankness. :) I will clarify, comments do not need to be "happy and positive," just constructive. Destructive comments are the ones that don't get the job done.

 

Jayme thank you for responding, and for even coming to the Forums to get some feedback. I have often wondered if anyone from HQ ever came in here to see how the pulse was beating.

 

I still feel like you are asking only for "positive" feedback on this new idea. I hope the Admins and Developers can recognize the difference between a "negative" experience one might have with a new feature, and the resulting "negative" post, ...and someone just trying to break down the process.

 

"Negative" feedback can be constructive to the process.:)

 

Thanks for participating in this thread!!!

 

 

Link to comment

 

Alright...I'm done. Let's hear questions and have some good discussion.

 

As I said, I just listened to podcacher pod cache where some of what you posted was described. One of the things that Brian said was "premium users can create a geocache" but then seemed to use the term "adventure" interchangeably.

 

I think that one of the issues that comes up frequently here whenever new cache types are discussed is that, accurate or not, a lot of people have a preconceived notion of what is a geocache. For many, it's a container with a log book, which optionally has some swag in and there are a number of attributes and processes associated with it that makes it a geocache. It has a review process which attempts to ensure that it complies with the "Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines". It has a set of lat/long coordinates, difficulty/terrain ratings, optional hints, and has a set of log types that can be posted to reflect the finders experience. As soon as a "geocache type" starts to diverge from these attributes and processes we've come to associated with a geocache we hear the inevitable "but that's not real geocaching". If you call it a geocache, but it doesn't meet the definition of what people have come to think of as geocache, people are going to complain.

 

I always thought that this was exemplified when Geocaching Challenges were created. Even though Challenges were not promoted as a type of geocache, many saw them as an alternative to Virtual Caches, but because the processes such as a review process, the inability of a "creator" to delete bogus logs, no difficulty/terrain ratings, etc. were not available most of the criticism revolved around the notion that "it's not geocaching" rather than consider them as a different location based game created by Groundspeak. I have to wonder if they were called Groundspeak Challenges rather than Geocaching Challenges that they might have been better accepted.

 

What I am afraid of is that Lab Caches are going down the same path. They're being described as geocaches, but they don't necessarily comply with all the criteria we've used to to describe a container with a log book that is reviewed, found using a set of coordinates with a GPS enabled device, and logged using Found It/DNF, etc logs. Perhaps, if Groundspeak could promote that idea more that they're a location based game company, rather that just a geocache listing service, some of these new ideas might be better accepted.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Thanks Jayme H for your input. I think you cleared up some questions and certainly have left room for others. So am I correct in hearing you say that at this time, Groundspeak does not have a final goal with regard to Lab Caches. That is to say, this is not the first step in an already determined plan for something specific...is that correct?

You are welcome! I am always happy to help answer questions from you guys.

 

Yep, you are correct. There is no current final goal with regard to Lab Caches. We want to see what the community thinks and get feedback to help direct any potential paths.

Link to comment

"Negative" feedback can be constructive to the process.:)

I wholeheartedly agree. The "deliberately negative" comments I was referring to look more like personal attacks...those are the destructive ones. We are definitely open to hearing both pros and cons of this idea.

The difference between;

 

"This is stoopid! I h8 it!"

 

And

 

"I gave lab caches a try, and in their current configuration, they didn't impress me. Here are some thoughts off the top of my head which may make the end product more desirable..."

 

Both are examples of negative feedback.

 

One is productive. The other is not.

Link to comment

OK, so it sounded like there were no rules for this singular Lab adventure. Keep in mind that I haven't read anything about the Mega Labs. Permission is a given, but what about physical elements and saturation?

 

Since these are one time things, I don't think we have to worry too much about saturation. Plus-as my understanding(an I may be wrong) it is go to to this location. Open up the URL/webpage in your smartphone. Type in the keyword. Since you open up a specific page for each cache, you could have 10 in the same place and not log the wrong one.

Link to comment

OK, so it sounded like there were no rules for this singular Lab adventure. Keep in mind that I haven't read anything about the Mega Labs. Permission is a given, but what about physical elements and saturation?

There won't be any saturation limitations and the cache can be something physical to find and open (revealing the find code) or it can be just a word that is written at the final destination (in the sand on a pretty beach). All local, state, federal laws will apply. :)

Link to comment

OK, so it sounded like there were no rules for this singular Lab adventure. Keep in mind that I haven't read anything about the Mega Labs. Permission is a given, but what about physical elements and saturation?

There won't be any saturation limitations and the cache can be something physical to find and open (revealing the find code) or it can be just a word that is written at the final destination (in the sand on a pretty beach). All local, state, federal laws will apply. :)

I assume the developers aren't concerned w/ cachers mistaking another cache for their Lab because there is only one finder. That sort of provides us with a false sense of freedom doesn't it? If some outcome from this goes into production, I can't see saturation of physical elements being ignored. [He pauses] Geez, here I go trying to stuff all the thinking back into the box. What I meant to say was...WOOHOO! There won't be any saturation limits! :laughing:

Link to comment

OK Jayme H. Maybe I would like this type of Lab cache now that you better explained it to us, and I have an idea. I have Virtual listings with code phrases, I'm a Waymarker, and enjoyed the Challenges while they lasted. I also have logged 5 Lab caches at a Mega event and really enjoyed them. One even took me to a Benchmark listed as a Waymark. Three for one. My question is how do I get started with my new Lab cache? :)

 

Thanks,

 

MPH.

Link to comment

More info needed here. Is this a 'plan a hide, build a cache page, submit for review' process? What are the "placement" rules guidelines for placing these X-caches? How will the code be submitted for those who see the listing pop on their e-mail and go out to find it? How many times will the code be allowed to be submitted? Can non-Premium members log a find with the code? Can I use the license plate on a Greyhound bus as the code & location(s)? Is a phone required to log these things?

Link to comment

So many questions, K13! You will see the details soon.

 

This isn't like building a cache page at all; it is an entirely different and simpler form. The Lab Cache does not go through any review process. The "guidelines" are simple: all local laws apply. You can place your special cache inside a business with the owner's permission, for example.

 

The cache can only be "found" by the first account that enters the confirmation code -- that is, your intended recipient -- your spouse, significant other, child, parent, caching buddy, co-worker, etc.

 

You can find a Lab Cache using a GPS or - even simpler - by using a smartphone that can connect to a web page. There is no "App" needed to find the Lab Cache. The recipient of your special Lab Cache will be notified of the URL to begin their adventure.

Link to comment

Alright...I'm done. Let's hear questions and have some good discussion.

Questions:

  • Will the find (ability to enter find code) on an I <3 Geocaching "private" cache be time-boxed? And if so, how? Ie, does the find have to occur in February? Some duration after cache creation? I understand there is a quantity limit (one time find). I'm asking if there is a time limit to when that one-and-only find can be claimed ... if the cache will auto-expire at some point ... and when that might be ...
  • When creating an I <3 Geocaching "private" cache must a specific account be specified which will be able to find the cache? Or will anyone with the appropriate information (URL/find code) be able to claim the find? Again, I understand the one-time find concept ... I'm asking if there is a way to set up these caches such that any gc.com account can then claim the one find, or if the cache creator has to explicitly identify one single account which can then (optionally) claim the find?

 

Discussion:

In my limited experience with Lab Caches (I've found them at 2 Mega Events) their primary weakness is the lack of an online log.
+1 / I agree. Actually, I'll phrase it slightly differently:

The primary feature I would like to see added to Lab Caches is the addition of an online log.

Link to comment

Hey gang,

...

Alright...I'm done. Let's hear questions and have some good discussion.

 

Hi Jayme,

 

I just posted part of this earlier but in totally the wrong place, so I'll repost it here where it's more appropriate...

 

I had fun doing the lab caches at the Block Party and then setting up the lab caches for the NZ Mega 2013 event in Auckland. It was a bit different than "standard" caching, but it was a bit of fun nonetheless.

 

Admittedly I have not read all the forums to see if anyone has suggested this before, but it seems that a lot of people might be happier, or at least appeased, if lab caches *were* included in the stats better somehow. I'm guessing the limitation may be about how the cache data is stored, as in, not the same database/table as the standard caches and therefore more complicated querying in order to compile statistics. On the other hand, statistics are only calculated occasionally, not upon every page view...

 

My suggestion:

- They have a location so they can be included in the "distance to find" stats

- Consider them a "not chosen" size and include them in the "container type" stats

- Consider them by default a 1/1 and include them in that square on the D/T grid stats

- Include a new line in the "Cache types I've found" for Lab Caches

- They do have a found date, so include them on the "day of the year" grid

- Likewise, include them in the "yearly breakdown", "cumulative" and "finds per month"

- Include them in the count of caches used for milestones

 

That's my wishlist for the lab caches and I'm convinced a lot of the gripes, including those resurfacing because of this new Feb lab cache coming soon, would disappear! It was the number one complaint I received as the mega organiser - that the lab caches had "messed up their stats".

 

Those gripes do have some merit if a lab cache contributes to the total find count but doesn't contribute to any breakdown of that count, and in the case of milestones, not even to the total count.

 

Even if this experiment results in a new time-limited/temporary cache type that is fully incorporated in the stats and the site, and a lab cache becomes a new experiment of some other caching innovation, I believe the lab cache type as a find of an experimental cache should count properly in the stats. :)

 

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer questions and take in the feedback!

 

Cheers,

fmz

Link to comment

funkymunkyzone, what you are describing would be a fully-integrated, new geocache type. Lab caches are still in the Laboratory. They aren't launched with a full feature set. If "special caches for Mega-Events" or "one time only private caches" ever become geocache types, then we might see full integration with statistics, profiles, etc.

 

Learning a lesson from Geocaching Challenges, what Groundspeak is offering is a smiley for finding a Lab Cache, but not a full integration of the experimental concepts. Some of the concepts may work out and others may not. But you can keep your smiley, regardless.

Link to comment

Hey gang,

 

Thanks for being patient over the weekend and this morning waiting for an official response from HQ...and thanks for the fun video, geocachingvlogger - love your enthusiasm, it's always welcome here! :D

 

 

Thanks Jayme!

 

I will continue to bring energy and joy around the hobby I love. No apologies for that! :-)

Edited by geocachingvlogger
Link to comment

I'm game, sounds interesting, but somewhat elitist being limited to one finder. What about the new cacher? Who's going to hide one for him so he can get the icon (although it does offer up an opportunity to welcome newbies)? And why would someone put a whole lot of effort into hiding a Lab Cache that can only be found once? Great idea for someone proposing, but the way my wife feels about geocaching, I'm afraid she might hide one for me with divorce papers instead of a proposal. :rolleyes:

 

Hopefully I have some geo-friends who will hide one for me. :)

Link to comment

funkymunkyzone, what you are describing would be a fully-integrated, new geocache type. Lab caches are still in the Laboratory. They aren't launched with a full feature set. If "special caches for Mega-Events" or "one time only private caches" ever become geocache types, then we might see full integration with statistics, profiles, etc.

 

Learning a lesson from Geocaching Challenges, what Groundspeak is offering is a smiley for finding a Lab Cache, but not a full integration of the experimental concepts. Some of the concepts may work out and others may not. But you can keep your smiley, regardless.

 

Keystone, you're missing the point. I'm not suggesting that lab cache type a, b, c and whatever need to individually be incorporated as a new cache type, but the catch-all, the lab if you will, should be a cache type since people are going out and finding them. The hint is in the name: Lab Cache. They were introduced as a new type of cache. If you find a lab cache, you find an experimental cache, and no matter what the experiment was at the time, you found one.

 

It seemed obvious to me that that is why they were just given the generic label "Lab Cache", so that the cache type "Lab Cache" could be used over and over again for lots of different experiments. It doesn't matter what experiment they were at the time they were "found" by a user, they're lab caches. Why not count them (properly)?

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

I'm game, sounds interesting, but somewhat elitist being limited to one finder. What about the new cacher? Who's going to hide one for him so he can get the icon (although it does offer up an opportunity to welcome newbies)? And why would someone put a whole lot of effort into hiding a Lab Cache that can only be found once? Great idea for someone proposing, but the way my wife feels about geocaching, I'm afraid she might hide one for me with divorce papers instead of a proposal. :rolleyes:

 

Hopefully I have some geo-friends who will hide one for me. :)

 

Great point!!

 

I think I'll have mine be directed towards the new cacher!!

Link to comment

OK, I'll shut up then. I had all sorts of additional inside information to share, including conversations with the developers of Lab Caches, but I'm sad to learn that I'm missing the point.

 

Sorry, Keystone. You were replying to *my* post and you missed the point of *my* post. But it's ok, I'll wait to hear feedback from Jayme because she asked for the constructive feedback and I don't think she needed a bouncer on here to turn it away. Also that's a rather childish response.

Link to comment

funkymunkyzone, what you are describing would be a fully-integrated, new geocache type. Lab caches are still in the Laboratory. They aren't launched with a full feature set. If "special caches for Mega-Events" or "one time only private caches" ever become geocache types, then we might see full integration with statistics, profiles, etc.

 

Learning a lesson from Geocaching Challenges, what Groundspeak is offering is a smiley for finding a Lab Cache, but not a full integration of the experimental concepts. Some of the concepts may work out and others may not. But you can keep your smiley, regardless.

 

Keystone, you're missing the point. I'm not suggesting that lab cache type a, b, c and whatever need to individually be incorporated as a new cache type, but the catch-all, the lab if you will, should be a cache type since people are going out and finding them. The hint is in the name: Lab Cache. They were introduced as a new type of cache. If you find a lab cache, you find an experimental cache, and no matter what the experiment was at the time, you found one.

 

It seemed obvious to me that that is why they were just given the generic label "Lab Cache", so that the cache type "Lab Cache" could be used over and over again for lots of different experiments. It doesn't matter what experiment they were at the time they were "found" by a user, they're lab caches. Why not count them (properly)?

 

I like the idea of lab caches but I also want them counted in GSAK, the stats tab, as a "official" cache type. I agree it does not matter what the experiment is... Lab Caches should be counted as caches. Otherwise make them equal to benchmarks and not count them.

 

If they were treated like benchmarks I would try it or if they were treated like an "official" cache type I would try it.

 

I really want to try them but I wish the decision was made one way or the other.

Link to comment

funkymunkyzone, what you are describing would be a fully-integrated, new geocache type. Lab caches are still in the Laboratory. They aren't launched with a full feature set. If "special caches for Mega-Events" or "one time only private caches" ever become geocache types, then we might see full integration with statistics, profiles, etc.

 

Learning a lesson from Geocaching Challenges, what Groundspeak is offering is a smiley for finding a Lab Cache, but not a full integration of the experimental concepts. Some of the concepts may work out and others may not. But you can keep your smiley, regardless.

 

Keystone, you're missing the point. I'm not suggesting that lab cache type a, b, c and whatever need to individually be incorporated as a new cache type, but the catch-all, the lab if you will, should be a cache type since people are going out and finding them. The hint is in the name: Lab Cache. They were introduced as a new type of cache. If you find a lab cache, you find an experimental cache, and no matter what the experiment was at the time, you found one.

 

It seemed obvious to me that that is why they were just given the generic label "Lab Cache", so that the cache type "Lab Cache" could be used over and over again for lots of different experiments. It doesn't matter what experiment they were at the time they were "found" by a user, they're lab caches. Why not count them (properly)?

I'm totally amused by the passion some people have that every "cache" has to be treated the same way as far as statistics. Perhaps it was a mistake for Groundspeak to decide that lab caches would be counted in the find count.

 

Previously Groundspeak has added benchmarks and these were not counted. Next came Waymarks, and later the now defunct challenges. At the time challenges were announced, they were going to count in the find count. But many people objected to them counting so that idea was nixed. Interestingly, many of the objections were the same as for I <3 Geocaching lab caches - there was no review process, no saturation guide, certainly nothing to find, and no ability to delete bogus logs where the challenge was clearly not met. The difference now seems to be that these new caches are limited and that you need a code word to log them (presumably to prevent bogus logs).

 

Groundspeak says they learn from their mistakes and apparently what they've learned is you should count things in the find count and perhaps that you should have some way to discourage bogus logging :unsure:

 

The other thing they've learned (probably from virtual and locationless caches), is that experimental ideas should be kept separate from the main geocaching database. That allows for them to limit the availability of the experiments and not muck up the general geocaching database with their "mistakes".

 

The statistics that so many geocachers have come to expect are created off the general geocaching database. It is simple enough to get the count of finds off some other database (such as benchmarks or even Waymarking), but creating statistics base on other fields that exist only for the main geocaching database is a problem. While it may be doable, I am certain that it would not be simple and that the cost to compute statistics would increase for everyone, whether or not they have ever logged a lab cache.

 

I don't believe that lab caches will ever count in the statistics other than in the find count. What may happen is that some of the experiments will work well and may result in new cache types being added to the regular geocaching database. New caches of these types (but not the original experiments unless they are relisted and relogged) will count in your statistics.

Link to comment

Perhaps it was a mistake for Groundspeak to decide that lab caches would be counted in the find count.

 

You might be right there, but I disagree with the rest. A cache is a cache and if it's a cache then it's a cache. I'm not all about the numbers - if I was I'd have much bigger numbers - but if a number exists then it should be right, in my opinion, otherwise it's pointless.

Link to comment

Perhaps it was a mistake for Groundspeak to decide that lab caches would be counted in the find count.

 

You might be right there, but I disagree with the rest. A cache is a cache and if it's a cache then it's a cache. I'm not all about the numbers - if I was I'd have much bigger numbers - but if a number exists then it should be right, in my opinion, otherwise it's pointless.

Why in the world would a lab cache be a "not chosen" size or have difficulty 1/1? You are wanting to create a statistic for something that doesn't have a value. As far as I'm concerned doing that would mess up my stats. I wouldn't mind the stats page showing how many lab caches I've found along with the other types, but that's about as far as I'm willing to go.

 

While one finds a lab cache on a particular date, I'm not familiar if this is recorded in the lab cache website or not. My understanding is that you just enter the code word. There is no log, log type, or (possibly) date. I suppose this data could be added, but what would you do with the people who have already logged lab caches?

 

Sorry, but IMO being OCD about geocaching statistics is a bit silly; even more so when you want to make up values that don't apply to lab caches just to be able to compute a wrong number. The statistics that are computed are based on the Found, Attended, and Photo Taken logs you have entered. Since you haven't entered any of these logs for lab caches they don't count and if you try to make them count by assigning arbitrary values you have meaningless statistics.

Link to comment

OK, I'll shut up then. I had all sorts of additional inside information to share, including conversations with the developers of Lab Caches, but I'm sad to learn that I'm missing the point.

 

Sorry, Keystone. You were replying to *my* post and you missed the point of *my* post. But it's ok, I'll wait to hear feedback from Jayme because she asked for the constructive feedback and I don't think she needed a bouncer on here to turn it away. Also that's a rather childish response.

Please, don't be a party pooper. I learn a lot from Keystone, and I don't want him discouraged from posting here helping those of us that are interested in this new Lab cache.

Link to comment
Lab Caches should be counted as caches. Otherwise make them equal to benchmarks and not count them.

I like the benchmark angle and kinda surprised Groundspeak didn't go that route.

There's a disk icon before "NGS Benchmarks" and includes the asterisk * to show it's not (really) counted.

If the showing for the 31 days souvenir thing is any indication, they probably could have had a lot of folks participate in these lab experiments just for the icon.

- With some traveling the other side of the World for a cache icon, maybe a M and I<3 icon showing which you've done in the series might have been enough.

Link to comment

Why in the world would a lab cache be a "not chosen" size or have difficulty 1/1? You are wanting to create a statistic for something that doesn't have a value. As far as I'm concerned doing that would mess up my stats. I wouldn't mind the stats page showing how many lab caches I've found along with the other types, but that's about as far as I'm willing to go.

 

Fair enough.

 

While one finds a lab cache on a particular date, I'm not familiar if this is recorded in the lab cache website or not. My understanding is that you just enter the code word. There is no log, log type, or (possibly) date. I suppose this data could be added, but what would you do with the people who have already logged lab caches?

 

I'm pretty sure date is already there, so is location, so I think it's good to go for the stats I suggested, notwithstanding what you said above and I don't have strong objections to.

 

Sorry, but IMO being OCD about geocaching statistics is a bit silly; even more so when you want to make up values that don't apply to lab caches just to be able to compute a wrong number. The statistics that are computed are based on the Found, Attended, and Photo Taken logs you have entered. Since you haven't entered any of these logs for lab caches they don't count and if you try to make them count by assigning arbitrary values you have meaningless statistics.

 

The lab caches certainly are "found". The ones I found didn't walk over to me and tell me their code word. Wanting stats to be right isn't OCD, it's merely making them meaningful instead of useless. I take your opinion on board about giving them arbitrary ratings/size, fine. The stats can still be made to be correct instead of incorrect, and self-contradicting, as they are now.

 

But I'm glad my lowly opinions are silly, you consider them OCD (in your medical opinion, I assume) and they amuse you.

 

Cheers

Link to comment

OK, I'll shut up then. I had all sorts of additional inside information to share, including conversations with the developers of Lab Caches, but I'm sad to learn that I'm missing the point.

 

Sorry, Keystone. You were replying to *my* post and you missed the point of *my* post. But it's ok, I'll wait to hear feedback from Jayme because she asked for the constructive feedback and I don't think she needed a bouncer on here to turn it away. Also that's a rather childish response.

Please, don't be a party pooper. I learn a lot from Keystone, and I don't want him discouraged from posting here helping those of us that are interested in this new Lab cache.

 

I doubt he will be discouraged, and I stand by my view that his "I'm the big man" response was unwarranted and childish. I wasn't the one who said he was going to pack up his toys and go home. But then, who am I to talk, I'm (happily) just a nobody.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

OK, I'll shut up then. I had all sorts of additional inside information to share, including conversations with the developers of Lab Caches, but I'm sad to learn that I'm missing the point.

 

Sorry, Keystone. You were replying to *my* post and you missed the point of *my* post. But it's ok, I'll wait to hear feedback from Jayme because she asked for the constructive feedback and I don't think she needed a bouncer on here to turn it away. Also that's a rather childish response.

Please, don't be a party pooper. I learn a lot from Keystone, and I don't want him discouraged from posting here helping those of us that are interested in this new Lab cache.

 

I doubt he will be discouraged, and I stand by my view that his "I'm the big man" response was unwarranted and childish. I wasn't the one who said he was going to pack up his toys and go home. But then, who am I to talk, I'm (happily) just a nobody.

OK, enough about our site moderator. Do you plan on taking part in the new Lab caches? I know little about them, but I take part in about everything else that Groundspeak offers.

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...
Followers 11
×
×
  • Create New...