Jump to content

earth to echo


BrewerMD
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

New! Fun! GS has put out a new something. Kind of planet apes feel but not. Anywho, I went to the Seattle page and it states that you will unlock a video at each place. Anyone know if this is smart phone required? I know, odd. Some people still have dumb phones.

Link to comment

New! Fun! GS has put out a new something. Kind of planet apes feel but not. Anywho, I went to the Seattle page and it states that you will unlock a video at each place. Anyone know if this is smart phone required? I know, odd. Some people still have dumb phones.

Link please to the Seattle page?

Link to comment

16 caches in about 8 minutes if you type slowly. It doesn't seem like anything different than couch caching.

 

Am off to go to these locations, well, the Seattle ones, would be hard to armchair them all anyway. Have fun trying. Two of them I have been to already so I knew those codes. Other two, one I should know, but don't, the other, will go there now.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

Sure would like to know more about this, would it be a fun thing to take kids to do? Anyone who has been out and done this (besides from a chair)

can you let me know what you thought?

Thanks in advance! Alicia

 

For the Seattle ones, you go to the Fremont Rocket, the Gas Works Park sundial, the Greenwood Space Travel Store, and the Space Needle. All stuff involving space. Not bad places to go, any of them, if you have not been to before.

Link to comment

Sure would like to know more about this, would it be a fun thing to take kids to do? Anyone who has been out and done this (besides from a chair)

can you let me know what you thought?

Thanks in advance! Alicia

 

For the Seattle ones, you go to the Fremont Rocket, the Gas Works Park sundial, the Greenwood Space Travel Store, and the Space Needle. All stuff involving space. Not bad places to go, any of them, if you have not been to before.

 

The New York one is also similarly space based, and looking at the movie trailer for "Earth to Echo" (so the ploy worked!) I would expect them all to be space themed.

Link to comment

Sure would like to know more about this, would it be a fun thing to take kids to do? Anyone who has been out and done this (besides from a chair)

can you let me know what you thought?

Thanks in advance! Alicia

If you do it from the couch, it can still be interesting/educational. It is what you make of it.

If you do it in real life, it can still be boring/whiny/stupid. It is what you make of it.

I personally would love to do all of these in person/real life.

 

Check out the quests before you go, you can log them after. It's a lot of going to parks and looking at monuments kind of thing. I could see a 9-year-old boy hating it. I know there are kids who would love it.

 

The missions/quests/whatever ask you to count things and record "what 3 letters are in the circle" ... it is stuff where a three year old can participate, and also the focus required for counting or finding the circle might help stave off some of the sweaty/whiny/stupid of standing and looking at big, old things for kids.

 

They are all "space" themed parks, in keeping with the movie theme.

 

As I said before, check out what the missions ARE before you go to the park. Have a little piece of paper with the four simple questions listed. Write your answers there, and log when you get home.

As soon as you get to the right park, I'm pretty sure you don't need coordinates to get to the objects. Just make note of what they are on your question paper.

 

I think having a smart phone to log your find at the places would be distracting to a "family" experience. But maybe I'm just getting old and persnickety.

 

FYI, you will not find a "treasure box" at these parks. You will find pieces of art and science, which are definitely treasures. I just wanted to be sure you weren't going with some kids hoping to find a regular geocache.

Link to comment

Sure would like to know more about this, would it be a fun thing to take kids to do? Anyone who has been out and done this (besides from a chair)

can you let me know what you thought?

Thanks in advance! Alicia

 

For the Seattle ones, you go to the Fremont Rocket, the Gas Works Park sundial, the Greenwood Space Travel Store, and the Space Needle. All stuff involving space. Not bad places to go, any of them, if you have not been to before.

 

I walked by the Fremont Rocket, the Space Needle, and the Space Travel Store three days ago. I'm surprised that one of the lackey's didn't mention these new lab caches when I was at HQ in the afternoon, otherwise I could have easily visited all four locations and *legitimately* found one of these new caches. Now that I'm back home, 2200 miles away I get to watch a bunch of people gloat about logging them from an armchair.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

Sure would like to know more about this, would it be a fun thing to take kids to do? Anyone who has been out and done this (besides from a chair)

can you let me know what you thought?

Thanks in advance! Alicia

 

For the Seattle ones, you go to the Fremont Rocket, the Gas Works Park sundial, the Greenwood Space Travel Store, and the Space Needle. All stuff involving space. Not bad places to go, any of them, if you have not been to before.

 

The New York one is also similarly space based, and looking at the movie trailer for "Earth to Echo" (so the ploy worked!) I would expect them all to be space themed.

 

I have also been to the location of the NY one (twice) but won't there again before the lab cache expires.

 

 

Link to comment

Aren't this basically multis with no container or just multiple stage virtuals?

 

Is anyone monitoring the logs and deleting obvious armchair logs?

It's basically a multi-virtual. The "proof" is that each stage has a question that will only mark as "found" when you get the answer correct.

 

I ... sort of.... agree with you. I feel like I haven't found a cache until I take out my red pen and sign a log. I have two EarthCaches very close to me in a park I go to probably at least once per week for the past five years. I have never logged either of them, even though I've been in the coordinate locations several times.

Both of them ask a question that requires sitting at my computer to determine the difference between a bog and a fen and which one this location is (I don't recall the other question). Personally I believe one of the two lakes is one, and one is the other.

Another is a virtual that asks "what is the object and how did it get here?"

Both are beautiful places I have gone many times and will continue to go with my dog. I may never send in my answers or log them.

 

But, the way I play geocaching (which is just like opinions and other things) I like a nice hike. I like somewhere I can take my dog and run around in the woods. I like to be shown something cool that I never knew about before. So, signing the log shouldn't be so important to a "find" really. But yeah, it just doesn't feel like I "found" a geocache without having the log.

Link to comment

I thought one of the rules for geocaching to get a smiley was to log online, I logged nothing, just guessed a number.

 

Ugh, I deleted mine too.

 

Even if I legitimately encountered one of these at an event, I'm not sure I'd want it showing up in my find count.

Link to comment

It's kind of sucky for those who actually go to the places to NOT be able to log a real log. As I said they are interesting educational monuments of art and science. There's something to be said for them.

I think it's pretty unfortunate that the "lab" (at least the NY one) didn't give some little information about the objects it is taking you to. Even just the little tidbit-history-lesson of a mini-tour would be nice. Mine had the Rocket Thrower. The statue looks like a beefcake pose of some guy throwing an eggplant which is wrapped in barbed wire. It would be pretty cool if the Lab Cache gave some information about the symbolism of the Space Age and Man's grasp on the stars and the attitudes of the day. I wasn't alive back in The Day. I don't know. I looked it up AFTER seeing the statue. I don't think most people would bother. :(

Link to comment

I thought one of the rules for geocaching to get a smiley was to log online, I logged nothing, just guessed a number.

 

Ugh, I deleted mine too.

 

Even if I legitimately encountered one of these at an event, I'm not sure I'd want it showing up in my find count.

 

I wouldn't, it didn't even show up on my cache find list, it's still kinda a geocache but kinda not, I'll wait till it fully makes up its mind one way or another.

 

If Large numbers of caches start appearing that can be logged from home without any repercussions and people start racking up hundreds of finds a day from their sofa it'll render the find count useless and I bet that without the find count you'd see mass amounts of people finding new hobbies.

Link to comment

Well, I like lab caches, whether I was there at the time, in the past, or not. I would not personally log one from a mega event I was not at, but I like having fun with the odd lab cache. To each their own. I would not do 750 traditionals on the same power trail in a row in a day, but I'd log the odd lab cache. I would not sweat if they counted like benchmarks do.

Link to comment

Well, I like lab caches, whether I was there at the time, in the past, or not. I would not personally log one from a mega event I was not at, but I like having fun with the odd lab cache. To each their own. I would not do 750 traditionals on the same power trail in a row in a day, but I'd log the odd lab cache. I would not sweat if they counted like benchmarks do.

 

It was 768 and we took a 2 hour nap in the middle as it was too hot.

 

I am very particular about my stats and I'm sure that I'm not the only one and lab caches mess with them so till they don't I won't do them and again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

I think GS is making a big mistake creating things that mess with stats, look what happened with challenges, and if they keep it up it could be their downfall.

Link to comment

Well, I like lab caches, whether I was there at the time, in the past, or not. I would not personally log one from a mega event I was not at, but I like having fun with the odd lab cache. To each their own. I would not do 750 traditionals on the same power trail in a row in a day, but I'd log the odd lab cache. I would not sweat if they counted like benchmarks do.

 

It was 768 and we took a 2 hour nap in the middle as it was too hot.

 

I am very particular about my stats and I'm sure that I'm not the only one and lab caches mess with them so till they don't I won't do them and again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

I think GS is making a big mistake creating things that mess with stats, look what happened with challenges, and if they keep it up it could be their downfall.

 

So there you go, diversity. You would not want to log a couple of lab caches, I would not want to log 768 caches on a power trail. As long as the hobby makes one of its main focuses getting folks outdoors and finding cool places, I do not see its downfall soon. At least no bomb squad could be involved in any lab cache I have done so far.

Link to comment

Well, I like lab caches, whether I was there at the time, in the past, or not. I would not personally log one from a mega event I was not at, but I like having fun with the odd lab cache. To each their own. I would not do 750 traditionals on the same power trail in a row in a day, but I'd log the odd lab cache. I would not sweat if they counted like benchmarks do.

 

It was 768 and we took a 2 hour nap in the middle as it was too hot.

 

I am very particular about my stats and I'm sure that I'm not the only one and lab caches mess with them so till they don't I won't do them and again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

I think GS is making a big mistake creating things that mess with stats, look what happened with challenges, and if they keep it up it could be their downfall.

 

So there you go, diversity. You would not want to log a couple of lab caches, I would not want to log 768 caches on a power trail. As long as the hobby makes one of its main focuses getting folks outdoors and finding cool places, I do not see its downfall soon. At least no bomb squad could be involved in any lab cache I have done so far.

 

I think what you miss is how important stats are and messing with them is not a good idea, that's why challenges went awry.

Link to comment

Well, I like lab caches, whether I was there at the time, in the past, or not. I would not personally log one from a mega event I was not at, but I like having fun with the odd lab cache. To each their own. I would not do 750 traditionals on the same power trail in a row in a day, but I'd log the odd lab cache. I would not sweat if they counted like benchmarks do.

 

It was 768 and we took a 2 hour nap in the middle as it was too hot.

 

I am very particular about my stats and I'm sure that I'm not the only one and lab caches mess with them so till they don't I won't do them and again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

I think GS is making a big mistake creating things that mess with stats, look what happened with challenges, and if they keep it up it could be their downfall.

 

So there you go, diversity. You would not want to log a couple of lab caches, I would not want to log 768 caches on a power trail. As long as the hobby makes one of its main focuses getting folks outdoors and finding cool places, I do not see its downfall soon. At least no bomb squad could be involved in any lab cache I have done so far.

 

I think what you miss is how important stats are and messing with them is not a good idea, that's why challenges went awry.

 

At the end of the challenges lifetime, they did not count in one's stats but there were still problems with them. I agree though, lab caches could/should be improved stat wise, either not counting like benchmarks or added to the my finds file so they do not make 3rd party stats complicated for those who like statistics. For those who could care less about stats, they would like or hate them for different reasons.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

Well, I like lab caches, whether I was there at the time, in the past, or not. I would not personally log one from a mega event I was not at, but I like having fun with the odd lab cache. To each their own. I would not do 750 traditionals on the same power trail in a row in a day, but I'd log the odd lab cache. I would not sweat if they counted like benchmarks do.

 

It was 768 and we took a 2 hour nap in the middle as it was too hot.

 

I am very particular about my stats and I'm sure that I'm not the only one and lab caches mess with them so till they don't I won't do them and again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

I think GS is making a big mistake creating things that mess with stats, look what happened with challenges, and if they keep it up it could be their downfall.

 

So there you go, diversity. You would not want to log a couple of lab caches, I would not want to log 768 caches on a power trail. As long as the hobby makes one of its main focuses getting folks outdoors and finding cool places, I do not see its downfall soon. At least no bomb squad could be involved in any lab cache I have done so far.

 

I think what you miss is how important stats are and messing with them is not a good idea, that's why challenges went awry.

 

At the end of the challenges lifetime, they did not count in one's stats but there were still problems with them. I agree though, lab caches could/should be improved stat wise, either not counting like benchmarks or added to the my finds file so they do not make 3rd party stats complicated for those who like statistics. For those who could care less about stats, they would like or hate them for different reasons.

 

I'd bet stats are more important than most would admit and I'd bet that if the find count was compromised to be manipulated or totally removed then you'd see mass quitting of geocaching.

 

Messing with the find count or ways to log a find and get that smiley could be a fatal mistake.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

 

I'd bet stats are more important than most would admit and I'd bet that if the find count was compromised to be manipulated or totally removed then you'd see mass quitting of geocaching.

 

Good philosophical question, would geocaching exist if folks hid and found caches in the absence of statistics? I like my finds file if nothing else for a photo and calendar journal. I do like statistics. I fully admit that if I had 45 caches in a county, I would like to find 5 more so the color in that county map goes to red.

 

I would probably cache a lot less if I had no statistics associated with them, yes. Will hope lab caches count in one's find file some day.

Link to comment

 

I'd bet stats are more important than most would admit and I'd bet that if the find count was compromised to be manipulated or totally removed then you'd see mass quitting of geocaching.

 

Good philosophical question, would geocaching exist if folks hid and found caches in the absence of statistics? I like my finds file if nothing else for a photo and calendar journal. I do like statistics. I fully admit that if I had 45 caches in a county, I would like to find 5 more so the color in that county map goes to red.

 

I would probably cache a lot less if I had no statistics associated with them, yes. Will hope lab caches count in one's find file some day.

 

I think the failure or challenges proved how important stats are and now they are making basically the same mistake with lab caches. Although it could have been a good idea it's been badly implemented IMHO.

Link to comment

Well, I like lab caches, whether I was there at the time, in the past, or not. I would not personally log one from a mega event I was not at, but I like having fun with the odd lab cache. To each their own. I would not do 750 traditionals on the same power trail in a row in a day, but I'd log the odd lab cache. I would not sweat if they counted like benchmarks do.

 

It was 768 and we took a 2 hour nap in the middle as it was too hot.

 

I am very particular about my stats and I'm sure that I'm not the only one and lab caches mess with them so till they don't I won't do them and again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

I think GS is making a big mistake creating things that mess with stats, look what happened with challenges, and if they keep it up it could be their downfall.

 

So there you go, diversity. You would not want to log a couple of lab caches, I would not want to log 768 caches on a power trail. As long as the hobby makes one of its main focuses getting folks outdoors and finding cool places, I do not see its downfall soon. At least no bomb squad could be involved in any lab cache I have done so far.

 

I think what you miss is how important stats are and messing with them is not a good idea, that's why challenges went awry.

 

At the end of the challenges lifetime, they did not count in one's stats but there were still problems with them. I agree though, lab caches could/should be improved stat wise, either not counting like benchmarks or added to the my finds file so they do not make 3rd party stats complicated for those who like statistics. For those who could care less about stats, they would like or hate them for different reasons.

 

I'd bet stats are more important than most would admit and I'd bet that if the find count was compromised to be manipulated or totally removed then you'd see mass quitting of geocaching.

 

Messing with the find count or ways to log a find and get that smiley could be a fatal mistake.

 

I like looking at my statistics but It would not bother me in the least if one of them (total finds) went away.

 

 

Link to comment

 

I'd bet stats are more important than most would admit and I'd bet that if the find count was compromised to be manipulated or totally removed then you'd see mass quitting of geocaching.

 

Good philosophical question, would geocaching exist if folks hid and found caches in the absence of statistics? I like my finds file if nothing else for a photo and calendar journal. I do like statistics. I fully admit that if I had 45 caches in a county, I would like to find 5 more so the color in that county map goes to red.

 

I would probably cache a lot less if I had no statistics associated with them, yes. Will hope lab caches count in one's find file some day.

 

For me, the geocaching stats are kind of a proxy for my travels. If I travelled to a Mega, and participated in a lab cache there, I'd want that to show up as a cache I did in the place I travelled to.

 

Anyway, with this Earth to Echo thing, I think it's obvious that the intent with "lab caches" is that it's a way for Groundspeak to earn money by hosting temporary, commercially-sponsored GPS games that are tangentially related to geocaching.

Link to comment

My issue with Lab Caches is the lack of ability to write a log online. If I were to go on one of these Earth to Echo adventures, I'd want to share the story as part of my caching history.

 

And I, too, have a dumb phone and a dedicated GPS, so anything that requires wireless access in the field is out for me.

Link to comment

Well, I like lab caches, whether I was there at the time, in the past, or not. I would not personally log one from a mega event I was not at, but I like having fun with the odd lab cache. To each their own. I would not do 750 traditionals on the same power trail in a row in a day, but I'd log the odd lab cache. I would not sweat if they counted like benchmarks do.

 

It was 768 and we took a 2 hour nap in the middle as it was too hot.

 

I am very particular about my stats and I'm sure that I'm not the only one and lab caches mess with them so till they don't I won't do them and again, I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

I think GS is making a big mistake creating things that mess with stats, look what happened with challenges, and if they keep it up it could be their downfall.

 

So there you go, diversity. You would not want to log a couple of lab caches, I would not want to log 768 caches on a power trail. As long as the hobby makes one of its main focuses getting folks outdoors and finding cool places, I do not see its downfall soon. At least no bomb squad could be involved in any lab cache I have done so far.

 

I think what you miss is how important stats are and messing with them is not a good idea, that's why challenges went awry.

 

At the end of the challenges lifetime, they did not count in one's stats but there were still problems with them. I agree though, lab caches could/should be improved stat wise, either not counting like benchmarks or added to the my finds file so they do not make 3rd party stats complicated for those who like statistics. For those who could care less about stats, they would like or hate them for different reasons.

 

I'd bet stats are more important than most would admit and I'd bet that if the find count was compromised to be manipulated or totally removed then you'd see mass quitting of geocaching.

 

Messing with the find count or ways to log a find and get that smiley could be a fatal mistake.

 

I like looking at my statistics but It would not bother me in the least if one of them (total finds) went away.

 

If that happened I'd bet it would be the end of Groundspeak.

Link to comment

I thought one of the rules for geocaching to get a smiley was to log online, I logged nothing, just guessed a number.

 

Roman, these "Lab" caches actually violate a number of Groundspeak's own guidelines for placing caches. They are temporary, they don't have log sheets and they use code words.

Link to comment

I thought one of the rules for geocaching to get a smiley was to log online, I logged nothing, just guessed a number.

 

Roman, these "Lab" caches actually violate a number of Groundspeak's own guidelines for placing caches. They are temporary, they don't have log sheets and they use code words.

 

Maybe it's an experiment to see how rampantly they'll be abused.

Link to comment

I thought one of the rules for geocaching to get a smiley was to log online, I logged nothing, just guessed a number.

 

Roman, these "Lab" caches actually violate a number of Groundspeak's own guidelines for placing caches. They are temporary, they don't have log sheets and they use code words.

 

Maybe it's an experiment to see how rampantly they'll be abused.

 

from http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=510

 

A Lab Cache is an experimental and extremely rare geocache type. These geocaches are a way for us to innovate and test new ideas to make geocaching even better.

 

Now that looks like it came from some marketing guy/gal but it does highlight that lab caches are a place to test new ideas. Some of the ideas they've tested so far are time limited caches, for Mega events or promos; and one to one caches (which they did in February).

 

Perhaps if they come up with an idea that goes down well then they'll integrate that idea into the main geocaching site, but until then if you don't like them just don't do them; they don't appear in your PQs; they don't appear on your geocaching.com map; in order to see the details for a lab cache you have to actively go and seek it out at labs.geocaching.com, so if they don't appeal don't go looking for them.

 

Better that they test out stuff like this on labs.geocaching.com where it can be easily ignored, than trying to test it out on the main site where it would seriously p*** a lot of people off.

 

I did do the New York Echo lab caches (without leaving the UK I might add), and they looked just like good old fashioned Virtuals, which is no bad thing.

Link to comment

 

I did do the New York Echo lab caches (without leaving the UK I might add), and they looked just like good old fashioned Virtuals, which is no bad thing.

 

This is where I see the problem, your find count on geocaching.com went up by one by logging from thousands of miles away from the comfort of your own home.

 

If it becomes possible to increase your find count regularly in this way then the find count will be rendered useless. If the find count is useless you will see geocachers quitting by masses. The worst thing GS can do is mess with the find count.

 

When GS created challenges in the beginning they counted toward your find count and people racked up finds by kissing a frog on their sofa and other silly ways. There was a major outcry and the challenges were removed from the find count, IMHO they are doing the same thing now, just it's not yet possible to rack up significant amounts of finds but once it is the fireworks will start.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

I did do the New York Echo lab caches (without leaving the UK I might add), and they looked just like good old fashioned Virtuals, which is no bad thing.

 

I did them without leaving New Jersey! Nice virtuals, but they are arm-chair Virtuals. Yes. I did go to the New York World's Fair several times in 1964! (Nice demo on touch-tone phones versus dial phones!) And I have returned a few times for Geocaching. The benchmark at the time capsule is still attracting visitors, and the Virtual cache there was interesting. Fortunately, there are enough caches in New Jersey nowadays that I don't have to battle the tolls and traffic to cache in the outer boroughs.

So! We have a Lab Cache at the same coords as a Virtual. I guess that's not against the rules, even though they take us to the same thing?!? Oh. That's right! Lab Caches have no guidelines.

Link to comment

I thought one of the rules for geocaching to get a smiley was to log online, I logged nothing, just guessed a number.

 

Roman, these "Lab" caches actually violate a number of Groundspeak's own guidelines for placing caches. They are temporary, they don't have log sheets and they use code words.

 

They may violate the guidelines as they are currently written, but if a new cache type were created based upon this or any other lab cache experiment, the guidelines would have to be revised to accommodate for the unique properties of that cache type.

Link to comment

 

This is where I see the problem, your find count on geocaching.com went up by one by logging from thousands of miles away from the comfort of your own home.

 

If it becomes possible to increase your find count regularly in this way then the find count will be rendered useless. If the find count is useless you will see geocachers quitting by masses. The worst thing GS can do is mess with the find count.

 

It's already possible to do that and some cachers do, but I don't think it's such a big deal that people will quit because of it with the advent of lab caches. Personally I think they should have left the lab cache stats out, but there was such a big hoo-hah from some quarters to include them; You can please some of the people all of the time.....

Link to comment

 

I did do the New York Echo lab caches (without leaving the UK I might add), and they looked just like good old fashioned Virtuals, which is no bad thing.

 

This is where I see the problem, your find count on geocaching.com went up by one by logging from thousands of miles away from the comfort of your own home.

 

If it becomes possible to increase your find count regularly in this way then the find count will be rendered useless. If the find count is useless you will see geocachers quitting by masses. The worst thing GS can do is mess with the find count.

 

 

So many inconsistencies. Groundspeak will archive and lock an older Virtual cache if it becomes a couch potato cache, yet will create a "Lab" cache which serves the same purpose? I haven't really looked closely at all of these new "Echo" caches, but because of local knowledge, I could log two of the Hollywood ones right now. Once people start passing around the code words, (the reason why code word caches were banned), the sky's the limit.

 

Groundspeak has spent almost nine years enforcing the idea that with the exception of Earthcaches, a "cache" is a physical container that contains a log sheet, that should be signed before you log it online.

 

I remember when Google Street View started to show solutions to some of the older Virtual caches. It was a common topic, "should I log it when I never visited the location". The the resounding answer was, "no", at least visit the location and try to experience the reason why the virtual cache placer wanted to bring you there.

 

Now, it's Groundspeak creating caches that violate at least four of their published guidelines and people logging the caches from thousands of miles away by simply doing research on their computers, or sharing codes with each other.

 

If this is an experiment, I'd have to say that it is a giant failure. The fact that good part of your recent forum post, as well as that on your api partner's forums have been about how these cache have screwed up people's stats tells me that Groundspeak has made true on their promise to make better mistakes in the future.

Link to comment

 

I did do the New York Echo lab caches (without leaving the UK I might add), and they looked just like good old fashioned Virtuals, which is no bad thing.

 

This is where I see the problem, your find count on geocaching.com went up by one by logging from thousands of miles away from the comfort of your own home.

 

If it becomes possible to increase your find count regularly in this way then the find count will be rendered useless. If the find count is useless you will see geocachers quitting by masses. The worst thing GS can do is mess with the find count.

 

 

So many inconsistencies. Groundspeak will archive and lock an older Virtual cache if it becomes a couch potato cache, yet will create a "Lab" cache which serves the same purpose? I haven't really looked closely at all of these new "Echo" caches, but because of local knowledge, I could log two of the Hollywood ones right now. Once people start passing around the code words, (the reason why code word caches were banned), the sky's the limit.

 

Groundspeak has spent almost nine years enforcing the idea that with the exception of Earthcaches, a "cache" is a physical container that contains a log sheet, that should be signed before you log it online.

 

I remember when Google Street View started to show solutions to some of the older Virtual caches. It was a common topic, "should I log it when I never visited the location". The the resounding answer was, "no", at least visit the location and try to experience the reason why the virtual cache placer wanted to bring you there.

 

Now, it's Groundspeak creating caches that violate at least four of their published guidelines and people logging the caches from thousands of miles away by simply doing research on their computers, or sharing codes with each other.

 

If this is an experiment, I'd have to say that it is a giant failure. The fact that good part of your recent forum post, as well as that on your api partner's forums have been about how these cache have screwed up people's stats tells me that Groundspeak has made true on their promise to make better mistakes in the future.

 

Well now we have official couch potato caches, temporary caches, and muggles with apps. In my opinion the root of this is that there are lackeys with very little experience geocaching. No disrespect intended here at all, but that is how these things come about. We have 9,000 new accounts being created on daily basis with no way to contact many of them, even though communication is a very basic, but essential function. If these were true lab caches, they would not increment the find count at all. The experiment should be how popular they are on their own. Will people find them entertaining on their own merit? I'd like to believe that these are honest newbie mistakes and not the smell of desperation.

Link to comment

 

I did do the New York Echo lab caches (without leaving the UK I might add), and they looked just like good old fashioned Virtuals, which is no bad thing.

 

This is where I see the problem, your find count on geocaching.com went up by one by logging from thousands of miles away from the comfort of your own home.

 

If it becomes possible to increase your find count regularly in this way then the find count will be rendered useless. If the find count is useless you will see geocachers quitting by masses. The worst thing GS can do is mess with the find count.

 

 

So many inconsistencies. Groundspeak will archive and lock an older Virtual cache if it becomes a couch potato cache, yet will create a "Lab" cache which serves the same purpose? I haven't really looked closely at all of these new "Echo" caches, but because of local knowledge, I could log two of the Hollywood ones right now. Once people start passing around the code words, (the reason why code word caches were banned), the sky's the limit.

 

Groundspeak has spent almost nine years enforcing the idea that with the exception of Earthcaches, a "cache" is a physical container that contains a log sheet, that should be signed before you log it online.

 

I remember when Google Street View started to show solutions to some of the older Virtual caches. It was a common topic, "should I log it when I never visited the location". The the resounding answer was, "no", at least visit the location and try to experience the reason why the virtual cache placer wanted to bring you there.

 

Now, it's Groundspeak creating caches that violate at least four of their published guidelines and people logging the caches from thousands of miles away by simply doing research on their computers, or sharing codes with each other.

 

If this is an experiment, I'd have to say that it is a giant failure. The fact that good part of your recent forum post, as well as that on your api partner's forums have been about how these cache have screwed up people's stats tells me that Groundspeak has made true on their promise to make better mistakes in the future.

 

Well now we have official couch potato caches, temporary caches, and muggles with apps. In my opinion the root of this is that there are lackeys with very little experience geocaching. No disrespect intended here at all, but that is how these things come about. We have 9,000 new accounts being created on daily basis with no way to contact many of them, even though communication is a very basic, but essential function. If these were true lab caches, they would not increment the find count at all. The experiment should be how popular they are on their own. Will people find them entertaining on their own merit? I'd like to believe that these are honest newbie mistakes and not the smell of desperation.

 

Ha, all we need is mascots and we can give neopets a run for their money.

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...