Jump to content

Place your own Lab Cache!?!?!


geocat_
Followers 11

Recommended Posts

It's 6AM in Seattle. Let the guy's come in to work to flip the switch on lab caches. Besides they probably were up late last night at a Superbowl party. :P

Is that a drinking house, then maybe there is an excuse. Maybe the computers have been drinking as well.

 

It's a well known fact that hamsters can't hold their liquor.

I saw it on the TV show Manswers that hamsters CAN hold their liquor, not that I care or would give a hamster booze. Judging from the block party Lab caches at the micro brew pubs and the Octoberfest/beer related geocoins sold at shop Groundspeak, yeah I say it's safe to assume it's a drinking house. :anibad: I drink alot of Coffee myself. :blink: Never give a hamster coffee. :D

Link to comment

Seems like this is not thought-out well.

 

I can publish a lab cache (does not affect my stats). I can find a lab cache (does affect my stats).

So, okay, now I have one found lab cache. My find-counter increased but I can not add it to e.g. GSAK.

 

Is it planned to offer a GPX download for lab caches or add them to the myfinds-PQ?

What happens, if I delete my find of this lab cache?

Link to comment

If the want to write their name in the snow they can do that as well. If they want to hide an ammo can under a pile of sticks and put a log book with the code word on it and filled it up with swag or slap a nano cache on a guard rail, well, the platform allows for that as well.

 

I saw the character length description (1000) and think that for experimental purposes that's quite reasonable. If one really needed more than that their is nothing stopping them from putting into a link to a Google doc or youtube video (Mission Impossible anyone?)

 

With my comment about the QR type I meant something different. In the m.... game and similar activities the descriptions play typically no role at all - the same is true for logs. It is about going to a location and pressing a button to increase a counter.

 

Of course one can use external sources for the data (1000 characters is ridiculous for telling a story and including multi stage and mystery character), but then there is no need for the Groundspeak site at all anyway (except for those who are eager for the icon).

 

If I came up with a lab cache, it would take me a few days to work on it and it definitely would be complex and tailored to the selected person and not something that can be done in a few minutes (neither by me nor by the other person).

 

I think that by the limited length, apparently no photo uploads, no waypoint lists etc it limits the range of experiments considerably.

 

Moreover, if the lab caches are implemented on a new system where they plan to move over the existing caches at a later time, this somehow concerns me. No online logs, 1000 character descriptions, no waypoints etc - instead of offering additional flexibility, it is rather the only way round.

 

While of course the restrictions are circumventable, I still see it as a kind of inherent message as the target audience is regarded and that definitely seems to be directed to the group using the paperless approach and devices with small screens and potential length restrictions for texts that can be stored.

 

The kind of experiences you report (pinning the map etc) rather regard something I would expect a few beta testers to test and only regard usability of the new site.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Seems like this is not thought-out well.

 

I can publish a lab cache (does not affect my stats). I can find a lab cache (does affect my stats).

So, okay, now I have one found lab cache. My find-counter increased but I can not add it to e.g. GSAK.

 

Is it planned to offer a GPX download for lab caches or add them to the myfinds-PQ?

What happens, if I delete my find of this lab cache?

 

I was going to pose the same question. I hope someone gives an explanation...

 

I mean. Seems obvious that the Lab Cache shouldn't be counted towards stats. It has no difficulty, no terrain ratin, etc. BUT why does it cound towards the total finds?? I mean, now I have 1068 "geocache" finds plus 1 "lab cache" find, which displays 1069 "finds" even though my stats show 1068. What am I going to do when I log the next "geocaches"? Will the next one be the 1070 or the 1069?

Edited by Glory Hunters
Link to comment

Seems like this is not thought-out well.

 

I can publish a lab cache (does not affect my stats). I can find a lab cache (does affect my stats).

So, okay, now I have one found lab cache. My find-counter increased but I can not add it to e.g. GSAK.

 

Is it planned to offer a GPX download for lab caches or add them to the myfinds-PQ?

What happens, if I delete my find of this lab cache?

 

I was going to pose the same question. I hope someone gives an explanation...

 

I mean. Seems obvious that the Lab Cache shouldn't be counted towards stats. It has no difficulty, no terrain ratin, etc. BUT why does it cound towards the total finds??

 

Because they thought that if it didn't count as a find, a lot of people wouldn't try it. Since this is basically just an experience I don't think it would be unreasonable for it *not* to count as a find. Awarding the Lab Cache Icon for both the finder and the hider would, to me, be good enough and would indicate that one has participated in the experiment.

Link to comment

Seems like this is not thought-out well.

 

I can publish a lab cache (does not affect my stats). I can find a lab cache (does affect my stats).

So, okay, now I have one found lab cache. My find-counter increased but I can not add it to e.g. GSAK.

 

Is it planned to offer a GPX download for lab caches or add them to the myfinds-PQ?

What happens, if I delete my find of this lab cache?

 

I was going to pose the same question. I hope someone gives an explanation...

 

I mean. Seems obvious that the Lab Cache shouldn't be counted towards stats. It has no difficulty, no terrain ratin, etc. BUT why does it cound towards the total finds??

 

Because they thought that if it didn't count as a find, a lot of people wouldn't try it. Since this is basically just an experience I don't think it would be unreasonable for it *not* to count as a find. Awarding the Lab Cache Icon for both the finder and the hider would, to me, be good enough and would indicate that one has participated in the experiment.

 

Does the hider get an icon?

 

The stuff I've read so far indicated that the hider got nothing at all :(

Link to comment

Does the hider get an icon?

 

The stuff I've read so far indicated that the hider got nothing at all :(

 

Not yet, but in a blog comment area Jeremy wrote that there are plans to change that in future (and it will be retroactive) - see here

http://blog.geocaching.com/2014/01/iheartgeocachingfaq/

 

Somehow browsing through some of the responses from Groundspeak people in the blog comment area, I come to the conclusion that they seem to think that the icon and the increased find counter are indeed what the experiment is mainly about and what will motivate people to do the work for only one person.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Seems like this is not thought-out well.

 

I can publish a lab cache (does not affect my stats). I can find a lab cache (does affect my stats).

So, okay, now I have one found lab cache. My find-counter increased but I can not add it to e.g. GSAK.

 

Is it planned to offer a GPX download for lab caches or add them to the myfinds-PQ?

What happens, if I delete my find of this lab cache?

 

I was going to pose the same question. I hope someone gives an explanation...

 

I mean. Seems obvious that the Lab Cache shouldn't be counted towards stats. It has no difficulty, no terrain ratin, etc. BUT why does it cound towards the total finds??

 

Because they thought that if it didn't count as a find, a lot of people wouldn't try it. Since this is basically just an experience I don't think it would be unreasonable for it *not* to count as a find. Awarding the Lab Cache Icon for both the finder and the hider would, to me, be good enough and would indicate that one has participated in the experiment.

 

Does the hider get an icon?

 

The stuff I've read so far indicated that the hider got nothing at all :(

 

No, but I was suggesting that instead of counting lab caches as a find, that giving an icon to the hider and the finder would an adequate award for participating in the experiment. Perhaps, they'll do that next time.

Link to comment

 

No, but I was suggesting that instead of counting lab caches as a find, that giving an icon to the hider and the finder would an adequate award for participating in the experiment. Perhaps, they'll do that next time.

 

As to their plans see my post above.

 

I'm probably really old fashioned as I think that the adequate award for a personal cache would be that the recipient enjoys it. Icons could not motivate to do whatever.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

Does the hider get an icon?

 

The stuff I've read so far indicated that the hider got nothing at all :(

 

No, but I was suggesting that instead of counting lab caches as a find, that giving an icon to the hider and the finder would an adequate award for participating in the experiment. Perhaps, they'll do that next time.

 

I agree - I would like to get an icon as the hider.

Link to comment

Does the hider get an icon?

The stuff I've read so far indicated that the hider got nothing at all :(

No, but I was suggesting that instead of counting lab caches as a find, that giving an icon to the hider and the finder would an adequate award for participating in the experiment. Perhaps, they'll do that next time.

I agree - I would like to get an icon as the hider.

 

I am against awarding icons to the hiders of one-shot lab caches. For mega-event related Lab-s, OK, they do require a lot of work, so the hiders should be awarded with the icons.

Link to comment

Does the hider get an icon?

The stuff I've read so far indicated that the hider got nothing at all :(

No, but I was suggesting that instead of counting lab caches as a find, that giving an icon to the hider and the finder would an adequate award for participating in the experiment. Perhaps, they'll do that next time.

I agree - I would like to get an icon as the hider.

 

I am against awarding icons to the hiders of one-shot lab caches. For mega-event related Lab-s, OK, they do require a lot of work, so the hiders should be awarded with the icons.

 

Congratulations - your Leaping To Conclusions and Sweeping Generalisation scores have both increased by 1 point :lol:

Link to comment

I am against awarding icons to the hiders of one-shot lab caches. For mega-event related Lab-s, OK, they do require a lot of work, so the hiders should be awarded with the icons.

 

I'm not interested into icons at all and I'm not a PM, but be assured that I invest more time and effort in every of my caches (and that would include private caches for a single person selected by myself) than has been invested into those lab caches I have heard about up to now.

 

Not everyone would come up with a one-shot lab cache within less than an hour that also can be found within less than hour.

Not every mega-event related lab cache is special.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Not yet, but in a blog comment area Jeremy wrote that there are plans to change that in future

So why don't they finish coding it, before adding it to the website?

 

I would guess this is a rough draft - something quick, dirty and cheap to test out ideas as a basis for future development road maps - just like one might do in a real LAB environment.

 

One alternative would be to invest large amounts of resource - time, money etc. developing something that either doesn't work or isn't what people want.

 

If it were my business, I'd go with the LAB method :)

Link to comment

I would guess this is a rough draft - something quick, dirty and cheap to test out ideas as a basis for future development road maps - just like one might do in a real LAB environment.

Sure, that's okay. But don't add it "half". I now have one find more, but can't handle it. The only thing I (perhaps) could do to "correct" my statistics, is deleting the lab-find.

Link to comment

Sure, that's okay. But don't add it "half". I now have one find more, but can't handle it. The only thing I (perhaps) could do to "correct" my statistics, is deleting the lab-find.

 

You probably know this, but just in case ... you are able to delete the lab find if you go to your found caches page and click the lab icon. At least it shows a list of lab caches you found with an icon to delete.

Link to comment

I would guess this is a rough draft - something quick, dirty and cheap to test out ideas as a basis for future development road maps - just like one might do in a real LAB environment.

Sure, that's okay. But don't add it "half". I now have one find more, but can't handle it. The only thing I (perhaps) could do to "correct" my statistics, is deleting the lab-find.

 

I'm with you on the stats side of things - I like facts and seeing them accurately recorded - out of wack stats are my main gripe with this whole thing - especially as the chances are that while GS has plans to resolve / integrate more fully the stats side of things, that could be a L-O-N-G time coming - and very possibly even never. (And daring to comment on same might also see one's comments classed as unhelpful or even rude - and being uninvited from the thread :ph34r:)

Link to comment

I would guess this is a rough draft - something quick, dirty and cheap to test out ideas as a basis for future development road maps - just like one might do in a real LAB environment.

 

One alternative would be to invest large amounts of resource - time, money etc. developing something that either doesn't work or isn't what people want.

 

If it were my business, I'd go with the LAB method :)

 

Yup. If this doesn't work out, or turns into a "kiss a frog" idea, they can just turn it off and not have to worry about detangling the code from the main production code. Even ripping code out carries risk. Or, refactor the idea based on input from people here and they only risk breaking the new game, not the mainline game.

 

It's always best to try things out in a sandbox area with beta testers, in this case it's an open beta and anybody can choose to participate.

Link to comment

I'm with you on the stats side of things - I like facts and seeing them accurately recorded - out of wack stats are my main gripe with this whole thing

 

If the lack of stat integration bothers you, then don't find a lab cache. Think of it as a side game, like Waymarking.com, that just happens to be hosted on geocaching.com.

Link to comment

I am against awarding icons to the hiders of one-shot lab caches. For mega-event related Lab-s, OK, they do require a lot of work, so the hiders should be awarded with the icons.

 

It can be argued that caches with ratings less than 2/2 don't require a lot of work. Should Groundspeak remove those from our hide counts too?

Link to comment

I'm with you on the stats side of things - I like facts and seeing them accurately recorded - out of wack stats are my main gripe with this whole thing

 

If the lack of stat integration bothers you, then don't find a lab cache. Think of it as a side game, like Waymarking.com, that just happens to be hosted on geocaching.com.

 

I think I can manage to make my own decisions just fine thanks :)

Link to comment

I am against awarding icons to the hiders of one-shot lab caches. For mega-event related Lab-s, OK, they do require a lot of work, so the hiders should be awarded with the icons.

 

It can be argued that caches with ratings less than 2/2 don't require a lot of work. Should Groundspeak remove those from our hide counts too?

 

If they are in parking lots, please. :D

Link to comment

Not yet, but in a blog comment area Jeremy wrote that there are plans to change that in future

So why don't they finish coding it, before adding it to the website?

 

Try to ask your question in the blog. Apparently Jeremy and Eric answer questions there while they do not seem to be active over here.

I just brought what I came across in the blog to the attention of the readers here.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

I would guess this is a rough draft - something quick, dirty and cheap to test out ideas as a basis for future development road maps - just like one might do in a real LAB environment.

 

One alternative would be to invest large amounts of resource - time, money etc. developing something that either doesn't work or isn't what people want.

 

If it were my business, I'd go with the LAB method :)

 

Actually if it were my business, I would use the code that is already available for classical caches and that offers much more flexibility while producing no additional cost.

 

I do not care about statistics and icons and all these sorts of things, but I'm really concerned about the fact that they promote this experiment as an individual contribution to the future of geocaching by those who take part in the experiment. 1000 character descriptions, no photo upload, no waypoints, no online logs etc - this is definitely not how I would like the future of geocaching look like. If sometime in the future Groundspeak offered private caches on a fee per cache basis and only those private caches were severely restricted like this February experiment, that would not bother me. It would bother me however considerably if their attempt is to move towards a smartphone audience for all types of caches.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

I would guess this is a rough draft - something quick, dirty and cheap to test out ideas as a basis for future development road maps - just like one might do in a real LAB environment.

 

One alternative would be to invest large amounts of resource - time, money etc. developing something that either doesn't work or isn't what people want.

 

If it were my business, I'd go with the LAB method :)

 

Actually if it were my business, I would use the code that is already available for classical caches and that offers much more flexibility while producing no additional cost.

 

 

So you think you'd like to create something new and different or, in fact, throw it out to the geocaching community to see what they can come up with...

 

And rather than give them a bare-bones tool free of complexity and restrictions - you force them back into the same comparatively rigid mould that's been built up and bolted down over a number of years because it needs that level of control?

 

And you think that's a good platform to provide people with the freedom to express creativity beyond the bounds of the existing patterns of geocaching?

 

I do not care about statistics and icons and all these sorts of things, but I'm really concerned about the fact that they promote this experiment as an individual contribution to the future of geocaching by those who take part in the experiment. 1000 character descriptions, no photo upload, no waypoints, no online logs etc - this is definitely not how I would like the future of geocaching look like. If sometime in the future Groundspeak offered private caches on a fee per cache basis and only those private caches were severely restricted like this February experiment, that would not bother me. It would bother me however considerably if their attempt is to move towards a smartphone audience for all types of caches.

 

I'm fully aware of what you like and don't like - you've expressed it repeatedly and at quite phenomenal length.

 

Fortunately Groundspeak continues to be willing to help us all try new things.

Link to comment

So you think you'd like to create something new and different or, in fact, throw it out to the geocaching community to see what they can come up with...

 

And rather than give them a bare-bones tool free of complexity and restrictions - you force them back into the same comparatively rigid mould that's been built up and bolted down over a number of years because it needs that level of control?

 

And you think that's a good platform to provide people with the freedom to express creativity beyond the bounds of the existing patterns of geocaching?

 

I think our disagreement comes from the fact that you think that the new tool is more flexible while I think that the existing tool (without the strict guidelines in both cases)

allows for more freedom. I did not ask for a review process and I did not ask for any compulsory additional elements (extra waypoints etc would only be optional if someone wants to use them). For example, one could setup a large number of waypoints and send the finder around in a way not given from the beginning and the pattern then could lead the code word. For such an approach it would of course be nice to be able to up- and download all waypoints (of course this can be done also on a private download site, but as a piece of code exists that can handle waypoints, why not use it?). There are many examples of a similar flavour.

 

Be aware of the fact that I'm not one of those who define a cache via a container, an entry in some statistics table etc.

 

It appears to me that the system I have in mind would appeal to a larger audience. Those who want to target to the smartphone audience or other audiences who prefer simple and non-complex set-ups would get the same chance to implement something they like than other target audiences. The system used for the experiment favours one group over the other without any overall advantage.

 

Fortunately Groundspeak continues to be willing to help us all try new things.

 

Actually, I can think of so many new things that would be implementable with the existing cache form if the same relaxed guidelines were used that cannot be implemented with

the lab cache form within the same framework of relaxed guidelines (except one uses external sources).

 

Is limiting the description to 1000 characters and not offering online logs adding anything with respect to creativity?

Those who only come up with a very short description and those who want to come up with empty logs could do so in my preferred system.

 

There exist some really creative cache hiders in my country and by removing some of the restricting guidelines as it is done for the February experiment, they really could come up with something special beyond existing caches.

Even within the current guidelines it is possible to come up with caches like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC44FD5_der-brenner-das-ewige-leben?guid=87a2c2f2-5611-4489-828e-b54bfae180c6

I'm pretty sure that this cache is way more creative than 95% of the lab caches of the February experiment will be.

 

By being exempted from certain guideline restrictions some interesting special features could be added to cache ideas like the one

above and make the experience even more interesting. But of course this requires much more than 1000 characters and also would be more rewarding if

not restricted to a single finder.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

So you think you'd like to create something new and different or, in fact, throw it out to the geocaching community to see what they can come up with...

 

And rather than give them a bare-bones tool free of complexity and restrictions - you force them back into the same comparatively rigid mould that's been built up and bolted down over a number of years because it needs that level of control?

 

And you think that's a good platform to provide people with the freedom to express creativity beyond the bounds of the existing patterns of geocaching?

 

I think our disagreement comes from the fact that you think that the new tool is more flexible while I think that the existing tool (without the strict guidelines in both cases)

allows for more freedom. I did not ask for a review process and I did not ask for any compulsory additional elements (extra waypoints etc would only be optional if someone wants to use them). For example, one could setup a large number of waypoints and send the finder around in a way not given from the beginning and the pattern then could lead the code word. For such an approach it would of course be nice to be able to up- and download all waypoints (of course this can be done also on a private download site, but as a piece of code exists that can handle waypoints, why not use it?). There are many examples of a similar flavour.

 

The tool provided for LAB caches can be used as a front-end to just about anything - a whole other website, online videos, books in a library - pretty much whatever information source you can imagine.

 

I'd say that's quite a bit more flexible and less prescriptive than the current geocaching.com website.

 

Yes - you could bolt that into existing tools that exist on the current site - but that would again force the LAB platform down into the same sort of mould that already exists, whereas it seems to me that Groundspeak is genuinely interested in OUR CREATIVITY - free of the shackles imposed by the existing site.

 

Be aware of the fact that I'm not one of those who define a cache via a container, an entry in some statistics table etc.

 

Yep - already got that, repeatedly.

 

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

 

How do you know that?

 

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?

 

Actually, I can think of so many new things that would be implementable with the existing cache form if the same relaxed guidelines were used that cannot be implemented with

the lab cache form within the same framework of relaxed guidelines (except one uses external sources).

 

Yes - so can I. Doesn't make the LAB cache way of doing things any less valid or useful - and the LAB platform allows use of those external resources - so your argument is moot.

 

Is limiting the description to 1000 characters and not offering online logs adding anything with respect to creativity?

Those who only come up with a very short description and those who want to come up with empty logs could do so in my preferred system.

 

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've seen plenty here - myself included - take issue with various aspects of this experiment but you seem to think it should be abandoned on the basis of some very one-sided views.

 

It brings to mind the expression - don't throw the baby out with the bath water

Link to comment
I think our disagreement comes from the fact that you think that the new tool is more flexible while I think that the existing tool (without the strict guidelines in both cases) allows for more freedom.

You cannot make a geocache without a coordinate location to start.

 

You CAN with the style of this form.

 

On this, you can say, "Start at the front door of where met. From there, project a waypoint..."

 

On the standard form, you couldn't do that.

Link to comment

You cannot make a geocache without a coordinate location to start.

 

You CAN with the style of this form.

 

On this, you can say, "Start at the front door of where met. From there, project a waypoint..."

 

On the standard form, you couldn't do that.

 

But it would be very easy to allow no header coordinates for the experimental type lab cache.

They could still use another server and seperate the code bases for both projects, but reuse most of the existing code.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

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.

Edited by snow_rules
Link to comment

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.

I was kinda thinking that in the beginning - quick n easy.

- But I don't think "getting out". Maybe more like "adding to".

Link to comment

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

I've seen plenty here - myself included - take issue with various aspects of this experiment but you seem to think it should be abandoned on the basis of some very one-sided views.

 

No, I never said it should be abandoned. I merely explained why I think that there are other experimental setups that would allow to learn more about the creativity of the cachers.

 

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.

 

There have been explanations why there is currently no full stats integration, there has been no explanation at all for the 1000 character limit and the no online log feature.

One of my concerns about the experiment is about the marketing of the experiment as developing the future of geocaching. One of the worst things that could happen to geocaching is if they removed the online logs from the system.

 

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.

 

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

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.

Considering you need the URL to view the listing in the first place, I don't think having to click a URL to get the full lab cache content is an issue. At all.

Link to comment

Considering you need the URL to view the listing in the first place, I don't think having to click a URL to get the full lab cache content is an issue. At all.

 

It will be one for Groundspeak if they want to see the contents.

 

Many people will not want to use their private web space which is not anonymous for such an experiment and then simply provide only the special person who is the recipient of the cache with the required information.

 

Moreover, my real concern is that they might consider to restrict the length of all new cache descriptions some time in the future (not necessarily to 1000 characters).

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

cezanne, there's no reason to presume that Groundspeak is planning to do away with online logs. The impression I get is the find code is just for the lab cache experimental testing concept. Find Logs become essentially a permanent history in your profile. They require being attached to an essentially permanent listing. They've coded the code-entry system, it seems, to accommodate the temporal nature of the Lab Cache 'arena'. Enter the code, get a +1 for your profile data in the Lab Cache field. No remaining connections or data points that become inconsistent once the associated lab cache is removed from the system. Only record is the fact that you entered a code for a lab cache. That's the temporal nature of the Laboratory for testing geocache ideas.

 

I would presume that if any of the experiments make it to 'production', that they would of course provide a way for people to enter text logs with their completions. For one, that's the current logging system setup (which would be suicide if they changed it on that level), and two there'd be no reason not to, since the 'cache type' (or however they implement the idea) would then be persistent, and logs can be used to generate profile stats as currently.

 

If it ain't broke...

 

They learned from experience. Groundspeak felt the flames when they implemented new major untested ideas in full into the website, and their strategies failed. Thus, the 'Lab Cache' - sandboxes, segmented, separate area of the website - was born, to beta test ideas before full integration. Much better idea, though their promotion of said feature is causing some confusion and concern in the community.

 

IMO, the 'Laboratory' should never be integrated into the profile to the same degree as official geocache listings, but it's nice to have recognition of those who take part as 'beta testers' (in whatever capacity that may be during a Lab Cache experimental period) - why I like the Benchmark-stat-like integration of that participation.

Link to comment

It will be one for Groundspeak if they want to see the contents.

Many people will not want to use their private web space which is not anonymous for such an experiment and then simply provide only the special person who is the recipient of the cache with the required information.

I don't think Groundspeak will demand to see the detailed content of every Lab Cache. That's not their goal.

They're looking for feedback - that means even those who created or found private lab caches can still comment on their experience, and share private if they want, or not.

 

Moreover, my real concern is that they might consider to restrict the length of all new cache descriptions some time in the future (not necessarily to 1000 characters).

I don't personally think that'll be an issue at all. But of course I could be wrong. I just think it would be, once again, suicide as well if they changed the current listing setup on that level.

Link to comment
IMO, the 'Laboratory' should never be integrated into the profile to the same degree as official geocache listings, but it's nice to have recognition of those who take part as 'beta testers' (in whatever capacity that may be during a Lab Cache experimental period) - why I like the Benchmark-stat-like integration of that participation.

It seems to me that would have been the best way to handle this too.

 

I'm doing the testing of the physical element of my I <3 Geocaching lab cache hide today. I would like to get a chance to find one too.

Link to comment

It will be one for Groundspeak if they want to see the contents.

Many people will not want to use their private web space which is not anonymous for such an experiment and then simply provide only the special person who is the recipient of the cache with the required information.

I don't think Groundspeak will demand to see the detailed content of every Lab Cache. That's not their goal.

They're looking for feedback - that means even those who created or found private lab caches can still comment on their experience, and share private if they want, or not.

 

I also did not expect them to demand to see the contents. It was rather me who naively expected that they might wish to look at some specific lab caches to connect to feedback they receive and to get an impression about which ideas cachers came up with.

 

You might however be right that they only expect to receive very general feedback, e.g. on the usability of the system and other issues that I tend to ignore as I could essentially use any sort of system if I wanted to do so.

 

I don't personally think that'll be an issue at all. But of course I could be wrong. I just think it would be, once again, suicide as well if they changed the current listing setup on that level.

 

You might be correct again. I just wonder why they then promote the experiment as helping to shape the future of geocaching. But maybe this is once again just another pitfall for me with respect to the differences in announcement styles in the US and in continental Europe.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

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.

Considering you need the URL to view the listing in the first place, I don't think having to click a URL to get the full lab cache content is an issue. At all.

Even with a normal cache you have to click on a URL to get the cache info, but there is the ability to transfer that information to a GPS (paperless caching). With something that has no limits or not structured it would be almost impossible to send this information to a GPSr device. Also that you don't even need coords for a starting or ending position seems to also prove that GC is trying to eliminate the GPSr from their new game. For example I could create the lab cache the could says go to the location of the double yellow arches and enter the name that is listed below them. This could be done anywhere in the world and all without the need for a GPSr.

Link to comment

cezanne, there's no reason to presume that Groundspeak is planning to do away with online logs. The impression I get is the find code is just for the lab cache experimental testing concept. Find Logs become essentially a permanent history in your profile. They require being attached to an essentially permanent listing. They've coded the code-entry system, it seems, to accommodate the temporal nature of the Lab Cache 'arena'. Enter the code, get a +1 for your profile data in the Lab Cache field. No remaining connections or data points that become inconsistent once the associated lab cache is removed from the system. Only record is the fact that you entered a code for a lab cache. That's the temporal nature of the Laboratory for testing geocache ideas.

 

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. I did not expect them to integrate such a log in the my finds PQ or somewhere in my profile. (Yes, I know others would then have other things to feel unhappy with .....)

 

I think that the no log option might send the wrong signal to the community about the value of sharing experiences in logs.

 

Moreover, I think that logs would allow Groundspeak to look at a subset of the created lab caches and then learn about the finding experiences directly from those logs, but maybe that's not what they want anyway.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Seems like this is not thought-out well.

 

I can publish a lab cache (does not affect my stats). I can find a lab cache (does affect my stats).

So, okay, now I have one found lab cache. My find-counter increased but I can not add it to e.g. GSAK.

 

Is it planned to offer a GPX download for lab caches or add them to the myfinds-PQ?

What happens, if I delete my find of this lab cache?

 

I was going to pose the same question. I hope someone gives an explanation...

 

I mean. Seems obvious that the Lab Cache shouldn't be counted towards stats. It has no difficulty, no terrain ratin, etc. BUT why does it cound towards the total finds??

 

Because they thought that if it didn't count as a find, a lot of people wouldn't try it. Since this is basically just an experience I don't think it would be unreasonable for it *not* to count as a find. Awarding the Lab Cache Icon for both the finder and the hider would, to me, be good enough and would indicate that one has participated in the experiment.

 

Does the hider get an icon?

 

The stuff I've read so far indicated that the hider got nothing at all :(

 

The finder gets an icon, but not a souvenir, or a country colored in.

Link to comment
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. ;)

 

I think that the no log option might send the wrong signal to the community about the value of sharing experiences in logs.

Share with whom? Single-find is for the owner and finder. Contact. Multiple finds is also for other people who attempt to find the cache. When it becomes a multipler-finder listing, then I think the argument would be much stronger to have a log text. (And that's not me saying log text isn't important - just that I can see the feasibility of not including find log text on the I <3 Geocaching experiment, unless it's just a technical limitation of the Lab Cache arena) (hm, I like arena as a term for the 'Laboratory' :P)

 

Moreover, I think that logs would allow Groundspeak to look at a subset of the created lab caches and then learn about the finding experiences directly from those logs, but maybe that's not what they want anyway.

Yep, could be. But I think they're just gauging from social media, comments, forums, and perhaps they'll send out a feedback form to all the users who created and found this instance of the Lab Cache experiment to gain specific, directed, relevant feedback (which could be anything from 'I did nothing but give a code to a random stranger' to a long drawn-out testimony of the entire creation or finding experience).

 

Actually, yeah, I'd frankly be kind of surprised if they didn't send out a feedback request form to creators and finders after February as their primary resource. They have that contact info and channel, why wouldn't they make use of it (generally)?

:huh:

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
Even with a normal cache you have to click on a URL to get the cache info, but there is the ability to transfer that information to a GPS (paperless caching).

Yes, but that's not a feature of Lab Caches, is it? (I dunno, I haven't looked at one yet :P -- if not, then the point is moot here; a link in the Lab Cache description isn't a hindrance to non-smartphone users)

 

It's not quite the same as Geocaching Challenges, for which there was a mobile app to view challenge details on smartphones. Lab Caches? AFAIK it's only the web listing. So a URL in the description is just an extra click for complete content freedom, regardless of what device you use for geocaching :)

 

Also that you don't even need coords for a starting or ending position seems to also prove that GC is trying to eliminate the GPSr from their new game. For example I could create the lab cache the could says go to the location of the double yellow arches and enter the name that is listed below them. This could be done anywhere in the world and all without the need for a GPSr.

Right. And your comment I would presume would be valuable feedback directed to Groundspeak regarding future potential experiences. ;)

 

I just wonder why they then promote the experiment as helping to shape the future of geocaching.

marketing speak. awesome-factor. epic ideas.

I wouldn't take that to mean all-or-nothing. Just that some element in the future may be incorporated into the grand scheme of experiences and entertainment Groundspeak provides in the name of geocaching. Not that anything existing will change.

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...