Geocaching has changed

[+irisisleuk]

My family is new to this GAME. Here are a few observations I have noticed in the last week. Yes one whole week of seeking and finding.

 

Just because a cache is not interesting to YOU does not mean it isn't interesting to someone else.

 

Just because YOU did not find a particular search fun, does not mean someone else did not enjoy the search.

 

Just because YOU didn't like or find the cache, thought it was too small, large, hard, easy, etc doesn't mean the person who spend time and effort to place that cache didn't think it was and interesting cache or placement and had fun creating and placing it.

 

The GAME has two sides, the finder and the seeker. Each has their own excitiement and enjoyment.

 

Stop trying to tell the 6 million people who have geocached how it "should be" or what it is "all about" according to YOUR own biases and YOUR own experiences.

 

Relax, it's a game. People from 3 to 100 year old can play it.

Smart people can play, stupid people can play, fit athletes can play, wheelchair bound people can play, singles can play, families can play, nice people can pay, jerks can play.

 

There are 3 million caches posted, you like some, you don't like some. So what.

 

Hide what you enjoy, chances are someone else might too. Chances are others will hate it too.

Stop telling people what is a good cache or not. hide what you like where you like (within the hiding guidelines and law obviously)

 

What makes a cool cache, hide and location to you, can be a terribly annoying, lame cache, hide, and location to someone else. And vice-versa.

 

If you've found a few caches, go hide some caches if that makes it interesting to you and gets you and some friends outside and exploring and wanting to play more. No you don't need to find 20, 50, 100 caches to "get it".

 

Come on people, at the end of the day it's GAME of exploring, observing, and thinking to find trinkets hidden in plastic boxes and a log book. Oh and a very nice BUSINESS for Groundspeak as well.

 

Don't tell someone they "don't get it". I would suggest you don't "get" their reason for trying the game and getting involved.

 

If you have found 1 cache, you are a geocacher!

Welcome and have fun!

 

Go search, go find, go hide stuff! If you enjoy it for a week, great. If you enjoy it for 10+ years that's great too.

 

Stop complaining... just go hide and find.

 

Feel free to private message me if you disagree and would like to pontificate on your own grand theory of geocaching and educate me on how it should be and what's "it's all about".

 

You used a lot of words to express your opinion here.

You didn't use that many words for your find logs.

By the way: one of the three caches you have logged as a found wasn't a true find (http://coord.info/GC1JHFG), but I can understand that you are new to the game and do not yet know what is or isn't a geocache. It is the cache you call "lame" in your log, and I might be wrong since English isn't my native language, but is the word "lame" not a word to express a complaint?

[+redsox_mark]

I did some caches on Sunday which made me think of how things have changed.

 

It is very common now to have series or trails of caches hidden. I'm talking mainly walking based trails/series, most commonly with 20-30 caches over 4-6 miles, though they can be longer or shorter. A week ago I did one of those. It was 22 caches (though with others en route it was ~30). The caches themselves laid out the route, so that was clear. Suggested parking was given. So I park, and I head to #1, then #2, etc. It was a great walk; the caches were varied in size and type, all was well maintained. I enjoyed it.

 

On Sunday, I found 6 caches. They were hidden by different owners (though several by the same one) and over time (3 of them were new; the others had been there for several years). The amount of walking and time I took was similar to the previous weekend and the 30 caches. But I had to plan my own route. Where was best to try to park? Which paths to take - there were several options. At one point I ended up getting a bit lost.. well I knew where I was, but the path on my map became so overgrown that it disappeared and I took a much longer route than planned. Much of it was in a lovely wood. I enjoyed it.

 

The thought I had was that Sunday's experience was more "old school". Less cache dense, and more planning needed as the route was not all laid out.

 

I'm not saying these types of caches no longer exist - in fact as I said 3 of these caches were new. Just an observation that increasingly cachers are going more for the trail/series style.

 

Up to now I've not made any judgement. But now that comes. I did enjoy both, but I felt the Sunday's 6 caches was more of an adventure.

 

Again in my area both types continue to exist. Though I do think the focus on numbers will make them more of a minority over time.

[+Trotter17]

I'm not an expert cacher by any means, as I've just recently gotten back into the game since having last played it in 2005. Maybe it's because I'm caching in a smaller, more rural area, but I'm not noticing too many differences in cache placement (just more of them). I am, however, noticing far more micros in places that could easily sustain a regular sized cache.

 

My guess is that either more people are getting involved who see the prevalence of micros and just decide to place micros or hiders are getting concerned about so many disappearing caches and are opting to minimize their losses by just sticking to micros.

[+thebruce0]

My guess is that either more people are getting involved who see the prevalence of micros and just decide to place micros or hiders are getting concerned about so many disappearing caches and are opting to minimize their losses by just sticking to micros.

I would say it's a combination of both.

Geocaching is much more mainstream. It's more widely known. There are millions more players. Hiding/maintaining is not what it once was either.

[+dprovan]

The thought I had was that Sunday's experience was more "old school". Less cache dense, and more planning needed as the route was not all laid out.

I agree that this seems like old school, but when I encounter caches that leave it to me to figure out where to start and how to get there, I'm always thinking it was done by people that didn't understand they were designing an adventure, not people that intentionally built more work into the adventure "for my enjoyment". If you like more adventure on the well constructed routes, then just ignore the parking waypoint and don't read the parts of the descriptions the describe the route.

 

Like you, I enjoy both kinds. I do find it fun to work out where to start and what route to take sometimes. But I'm glad I don't have to do it every time, and I'm more impressed by the caches that provide the mundane information so I can focus on the hike and the search, since those are what I'm more interested in.

 

My guess is that either more people are getting involved who see the prevalence of micros and just decide to place micros or hiders are getting concerned about so many disappearing caches and are opting to minimize their losses by just sticking to micros.

Those are certainly factors, but I think they're both minimal. From what I've seen, the main reason people hide micros is that no one cares about swag any more, so the only reason to hide a larger container is for the impact of finding a larger container. If that impact isn't part of the CO's plan for a particular cache, they won't bother to hide anything that they can't carry in their pocket.

[cezanne]

I beg to differ that this - the specific case of cezanne - is a worldwide problem, nor a problem with geocaching as a pastime in general. It is specific to that region, and perhaps pockets of other regions.

 

I do not think that what I described is very specific to my own region. I have friends in other regions and countries and they have decreased their geocaching activities or left geocaching at all, too. This happened although the personal preferences of these people do not entirely match with my own. While I do not care about tricky container constructions for example, some of my friends appreciate multi caches where all or most stages are special constructions. Such caches are in decline too and are replaced by the series style caches

that have been described in a recent posting.

 

Yes, geocaching "has changed" over time. It is not what it once was. It is now more to many, and less to others. Who is right? Who is better? Whose opinion is more important?

 

Does anyone need to be right or better? If you agree that geocaching has changed over time and that is more to some and less to others, I do not object.

I only object against those statements that deny that the changes deteriorated geocaching for some. I

 

 

I would very much recommend cezanne move to my area - there are LOADS of excellent hiking caches, amazing locations, views, trails, even groups that are not extreme hikers, but casual enthusiasts, and an absolutely wonderful community! It's unfortunate that cezanne's region, that local community, is now more populated by players who enjoy the types of caches that cezanne does not.

 

Actually, when I could move everything would be easy anyway as in most areas except my home region and the home region of a German friend of mine I have hardly found any caches and have no issues at all to find caches I enjoy - many of them are older than 2 years however.

 

Of course, there is a general rule of thumb that it is easier to find enjoyable caches for me in areas that are far from urban areas. In the early times, people in my area focussed on gree spots even in urban regions while this has changed considerably.

 

The few outdoor enthusiasts that stayed in the game now concentrate on hiding very extreme caches which go beyond my physical abilities. The only other way to reduce the traffic is to come up with very hard puzzles. The simple caches that could easily exist 10 years ago and that got 30 visits per year back then now would get 300 and that's something hardly any of the hiders of the old times wants to have. So the growth rate causes an issue in itself that goes far beyond my personal preferences.

 

Cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

I agree that this seems like old school, but when I encounter caches that leave it to me to figure out where to start and how to get there, I'm always thinking it was done by people that didn't understand they were designing an adventure, not people that intentionally built more work into the adventure "for my enjoyment". If you like more adventure on the well constructed routes, then just ignore the parking waypoint and don't read the parts of the descriptions the describe the route.

 

Like you, I enjoy both kinds. I do find it fun to work out where to start and what route to take sometimes. But I'm glad I don't have to do it every time, and I'm more impressed by the caches that provide the mundane information so I can focus on the hike and the search, since those are what I'm more interested in.

 

I agree with you 100%. The additional adventure I got planning a route was not (in my view) an intensional design by the owners. Just that with fewer caches by different owners they had the lack of a route. And I found that fun.

 

But if someone has designed a series with helpful waypoints and they have a logical order, I am going to follow them. There may be very useful information there - e.g. "take path A rather than path B because on B the bridge is out and you can't get through". And I do appreciate it when the owner gives such information.

[+thebruce0]

I do not think that what I described is very specific to my own region. I have friends in other regions and countries and they have decreased their geocaching activities or left geocaching at all, too. This happened although the personal preferences of these people do not entirely match with my own. While I do not care about tricky container constructions for example, some of my friends appreciate multi caches where all or most stages are special constructions. Such caches are in decline too and are replaced by the series style caches

Yes. And this will happen. It's the nature of the hobby. Of any hobby. More uptake, more people, more minds, evolving concepts, evolving pastime. You can fight the futile battle of keeping it what it was, or you can change with it, or you can move on. For your own good, I suggest you attempt the 2nd or 3rd options, because frankly #1 seems fruitless.

 

Does anyone need to be right or better?

Nope.

 

If you agree that geocaching has changed over time and that is more to some and less to others, I do not object. I only object against those statements that deny that the changes deteriorated geocaching for some.

Sure. You object every time. But it's an opinion that many, dare I say most, do not share.

 

Objectively, change is change. Objectively, geocaching is much larger and wider reaching than it was with greater variety. Objectively, geocaching appeals to a much larger audience than it used to. Objectively, pockets of communities with different general preferences in geocaching are becoming more defined.

Subjectively, the quality of caches have changed - to some, for the better; to some, for the worse. Subjectively, local communities have grown and swayed to certain styles of caching - to some, for the better; to some, for the worse.

Subjectively, Groundspeak's performance as the service provider for geocache listings could be better - or worse.

 

We have a "Challenge-ville" around here. A few very prolific cachers have inundated the region with challenge caches. A lot of people hate it. A lot of people love it.

In my city, for a while we had a spate of ridiculously high-D puzzle caches. A lot of people hated it. A lot of people loved it.

 

This kind of community variance is very common, and is almost entirely dependent on the local community - those who are the most enthusiastic about the hobby are the ones who 'define' what the local geocaching landscape will look like. To blame Groundspeak, or to blame Geocaching as a whole for this natural progression is quite fallacious.

 

The hobby changes. As it moves forward, many will move with it, many will be left behind, and many will be picked up and introduced. Because of that, the face of geocaching will always be changing, and always be slightly different from region to region.

 

Groundspeak deals with problems, they experiment with ideas (typically by word of mouth and suggestion - not majority opinion), they require change to generate revenue by attracting new generations to keep the service thriving.

 

Complaining about the state of geocaching is really a fruitless act.

Continually separating "old school" from new stuff is detrimental to the hobby. Don't shoot yourself in the foot by separating the stuff you like as "old"! Do it now, be like others who enjoy that style and keep creating it. Newcomers don't know the difference between "old" and "new". It's all just different ways to enjoy the same hobby.

 

If newcomers like that style, they'll keep it going. Popular caching styles are popular because... well because they're popular! That will keep changing over time as people come and people go.

 

The few outdoor enthusiasts that stayed in the game now concentrate on hiding very extreme caches which go beyond my physical abilities. The only other way to reduce the traffic is to come up with very hard puzzles. The simple caches that could easily exist 10 years ago and that got 30 visits per year back then now would get 300 and that's something hardly any of the hiders of the old times wants to have. So the growth rate causes an issue in itself that goes far beyond my personal preferences.

But it is your personal preference.

The growth rate is there because there are more people who enjoy that.

Your preference is being overshadowed by others' preference. It sucks when that happens. But it happens.

So, I'm sorry that things are changing in your area. And that the newer generation in your area doesn't appear to enjoy what you enjoy. That's not geocaching's problem though, because as I said, there are many, many places where that's not the case, where you'd probably be much happier. I don't have any other solution for you; my only hope is that you find a way to not be so overly critical of the pastime, repeatedly declaring that "the changes deteriorated geocaching", and find a way to enjoy it (whether you change, or whether you change your community) or move on/elsewhere.

[+Sycamore5]

Your repliy perfectly exemplifies why many new players don't stick around.

 

So we have 3 finds posted, so what. Rather than helpful tips, you spew insults.

 

Sadly, I would note this style of reply is not uncommon on the forum pages.

 

Luckily I have many positive messages from others, and will continue to play.

 

Oh and we don't always post our finds online, but just sign the logbook.

 

As for the "not true find" so many of you old timers have pointed out, the QR sticker was placed exactly where the hint indicated a cache would be. Luckily, a nice email exchange with the hider gave us a clearer tip. She didn't rip us for not finding her cache and noted the confusion was common.

 

Relax, it's a GAME.

[+qtbluemoon]

As for the "not true find" so many of you old timers have pointed out, the QR sticker was placed exactly where the hint indicated a cache would be. Luckily, a nice email exchange with the hider gave us a clearer tip. She didn't rip us for not finding her cache and noted the confusion was common.

 

Even though you ripped her, calling her cache "lame." Plus, the hint didn't say "behind the sign", so your rebuttal doesn't hold water.

[+Mudfrog]

Like her, the kinds of caches i "grew up with" are few and far between these days.

I feel compelled to point this out every time someone brings it up: the kinds of caches you grew up with have always been few and far between. Now there are many additional caches between the few and the far.

 

... which is the reason I've pretty much given up - it's harder and harder to find the wheat among the growing tidal wave of chaff.

 

I haven't given up just yet but i have definitely slowed down. There is no easy way to separate the chaff from the wheat these days. This definitely makes it more discouraging for me.

 

As far as having less decent caches to find back in the days, i'm not sure i buy it. I realize that cache quality is subjective and i'm just throwing out numbers here but,,,

 

Let's say there were 500 caches placed in a 100 mile radius 10 years ago. Of those 500, i would conservatively estimate 400 to be what i would call decent hides. Now we look at the present where 5,000 caches are placed in that same 100 mile radius. Sure there are plenty more to choose from but i would bet that less than 400 of them would be caches that were similar to what "i grew up with".

Edited July 22, 2014 by Mudfrog

[+Twentse Mug]

Caches have become better. as can seen by the amounts and percentages of favourite points awarded. Newer caches have more favourite points.

[+thebruce0]

I haven't given up just yet but i have definitely slowed down. There is no easy way to separate the chaff from the wheat these days. This definitely makes it more discouraging for me.

You mean, no easy easy to separate the caches you like from the caches you don't like.

 

With that, I fully agree.

And so there are discussions in the forum specifically centered around improving the user experience so that it is easier to find the types of caches you like, and by extension ignore the ones you don't (as some are wont to do)

[+geodarts]

Caches have become better. as can seen by the amounts and percentages of favourite points awarded. Newer caches have more favourite points.

 

I would not use that as a measure of how the game has improved. In my area, older caches receive less visitors, as they have already been found by active cachers who may or may not have gone back to award favorite points retroactively. On the other hand, a newer cache might receive favorites as friends find them. In any event, some of the best caches in my area have few favorite points and I was surprised when traveling over the weekend to see how many points people awarded a leaky cottage cheese container with poor coordinates and a hint that is no longer accurate.

 

Each to their own, I suppose, but I don't think favorite points show that much. To some extent, they might show that the game has changed, one way or the other.

Edited July 22, 2014 by geodarts

[+thebruce0]

Right, favorite points alone don't indication the quality of a cache. They indicate popularity of a cache in relation to how often it's found. More indicative (though still not perfect) is the ratio of favorite points to finds. Even better would be favorite points to finds since favorite points were enabled. There are plenty of great old caches that are still pretty unrepresented in the favorite point category.

 

Imagine the chaos if COs had an ability to mail all previous cache finders to request a favorite point if you they it long ago...

[+L0ne.R]

Caches have become better. as can seen by the amounts and percentages of favourite points awarded. Newer caches have more favourite points.

 

Favourite points tend to go to creative containers. Often unique caches, that break the guidelines and so there aren't very many of them.

 

Today I found a cache with 7FPs since being planted in March. It's a cuckoo clock screwed to a tree. Right next to it is the neighbourhood's junk spot. You have to walk through the rubbish to get to the cache. The clock is big enough to put a 2-cup size container inside (to increase the fun for more finders) but the CO opted to put in a micro container with a folded piece of paper.

 

I still think FPs are a great feature, but can't be used to find a decent water-tight swag-size container that's well maintained and offers a pleasant walk plus pleasant final location, because those rarely get an FP. If only there were a way to sift out that type of cache experience.

 

Perhaps geocaching needs to change some more by creating a way to accommodate multiple caching styles that don't dominate and crowd out other styles. You know humans, we'll ruin a good thing without checks and balances.

Edited July 23, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+thebruce0]

The problem is there's no description of the favorite points, what they were given for.

One shouldn't use favorite points as a guarantee that the cache will be good for you, but as a rough guide as to general quality. And I don't think favs have been promoted as anything more than that by Groundspeak. A very simplistic indicator which also gets people more involved with listings in various ways.

[+Sycamore5]

As for the "not true find" so many of you old timers have pointed out, the QR sticker was placed exactly where the hint indicated a cache would be. Luckily, a nice email exchange with the hider gave us a clearer tip. She didn't rip us for not finding her cache and noted the confusion was common.

 

Even though you ripped her, calling her cache "lame." Plus, the hint didn't say "behind the sign", so your rebuttal doesn't hold water.

Another lovely forum user proving my point above.

[+J Grouchy]

As for the "not true find" so many of you old timers have pointed out, the QR sticker was placed exactly where the hint indicated a cache would be. Luckily, a nice email exchange with the hider gave us a clearer tip. She didn't rip us for not finding her cache and noted the confusion was common.

 

Even though you ripped her, calling her cache "lame." Plus, the hint didn't say "behind the sign", so your rebuttal doesn't hold water.

Another lovely forum user proving my point above.

 

You didn't find the cache but you haven't deleted your "found it" log. It's pretty clear that whether you believe it or not, there IS a wrong way to cache...and that involves logging finds on caches you didn't find.

[Mr.Yuck]

As for the "not true find" so many of you old timers have pointed out, the QR sticker was placed exactly where the hint indicated a cache would be. Luckily, a nice email exchange with the hider gave us a clearer tip. She didn't rip us for not finding her cache and noted the confusion was common.

 

Even though you ripped her, calling her cache "lame." Plus, the hint didn't say "behind the sign", so your rebuttal doesn't hold water.

Another lovely forum user proving my point above.

 

You didn't find the cache but you haven't deleted your "found it" log. It's pretty clear that whether you believe it or not, there IS a wrong way to cache...and that involves logging finds on caches you didn't find.

 

True. You know, we really do try to be helpful to new people who are actually interested in Geocaching, and won't disappear after 8 "Tftc" logs posted from the field on their smartphone. For example, in one of your other 2 logs you give a "hint" to future finders. This is bad form, and a common "new person thing". Generally referred to as a spoiler. It was much more common when people actually went home and logged their finds from a computer, but it's still rather common.

 

If you have had contact with the cache owner, and you actually found a bar code sticker from another game, and not the cache, and they're OK with it, I don't imagine anyone else around here wouldn't be OK with it. And you did indeed call it lame. In fact, that game is kinda lame. I still do it myself though, although not a rabid player.

[+MKFmly]

Given geocaching as the frame of reference the quotes below may spark further discussion regarding the state of the hobby and highlight the relative positions from the ongoing debate in this thread regarding "geocaching has changed".

 

“To those devoid of imagination a blank place on the map is a useless waste; to others, the most valuable part.”

Perhaps we have here the real inwardness of our own question: A hobby is a defiance of the contemporary. It is an assertion of those permanent values which the momentary eddies of social evolution have contravened or overlooked. If this is true, then we may also say that every hobbyist is inherently a radical, and that his tribe is inherently a minority.

 

This, however, is serious: Becoming serious is a grievous fault in hobbyists. It is an axiom that no hobby should either seek or need rational justification. To wish to do it is reason enough. To find reasons why it is useful or beneficial converts it at once from an avocation into an industry–lowers it at once to the ignominious category of an 'exercise' undertaken for health, power, or profit.

Many "old schoolers" will reminisce when there were a minority of cachers, there were gaps on the map, when the hobby was still a hobby, and geocaching was not an "industry". That is a valid perspective and one that needs to be appreciated.

 

Today caching is accessible to the masses, cachers and caches are prolific, and cache saturation is approached on an industrial scale. So many cachers do not understand what the hobby was before it turned into an industry.

 

The old schoolers insist Groundspeak has lost their way, and many current cachers will "play it their way".

 

What, if anything, can bring those two seemingly diametric sides together?

[team tisri]

Given geocaching as the frame of reference the quotes below may spark further discussion regarding the state of the hobby and highlight the relative positions from the ongoing debate in this thread regarding "geocaching has changed".

 

“To those devoid of imagination a blank place on the map is a useless waste; to others, the most valuable part.”

Perhaps we have here the real inwardness of our own question: A hobby is a defiance of the contemporary. It is an assertion of those permanent values which the momentary eddies of social evolution have contravened or overlooked. If this is true, then we may also say that every hobbyist is inherently a radical, and that his tribe is inherently a minority.

 

This, however, is serious: Becoming serious is a grievous fault in hobbyists. It is an axiom that no hobby should either seek or need rational justification. To wish to do it is reason enough. To find reasons why it is useful or beneficial converts it at once from an avocation into an industry–lowers it at once to the ignominious category of an 'exercise' undertaken for health, power, or profit.

Many "old schoolers" will reminisce when there were a minority of cachers, there were gaps on the map, when the hobby was still a hobby, and geocaching was not an "industry". That is a valid perspective and one that needs to be appreciated.

 

Today caching is accessible to the masses, cachers and caches are prolific, and cache saturation is approached on an industrial scale. So many cachers do not understand what the hobby was before it turned into an industry.

 

The old schoolers insist Groundspeak has lost their way, and many current cachers will "play it their way".

 

What, if anything, can bring those two seemingly diametric sides together?

 

I think caching has lost its way, but can't see how to restore it without breaking what must be a profitable business model for Groundspeak. Obviously they're doing things for a reason - even though from my perspective they're destroying the game I can only assume they are doing what they do in pursuit of higher profits. And if higher profits for them means a proliferation of soggy film pots behind signs and a cachers who sign up for a premium membership, chuck out a few lame "me too" micros and then give up leaving their lame film pots in place until they get archived for non-maintenance then it's hard to see Groundspeak returning to the way things used to be unless they conclude that's the way to get larger profits.

 

Fundamentally it seems people who would rather enjoy a nice walk and pick off a few caches along the way are outnumbered by the people who would rather get as many caches in as they can, even if the caches are film pots, keysafes and pill bottles. So the former group will be ignored because the latter group represents a larger market. As a member of the former group I've concluded that I'm not Groundspeak's target market any more, and as such have decided to stop giving them my money. And hence, despite what the forum says, I've let my premium membership lapse.

[+Mudfrog]

I haven't given up just yet but i have definitely slowed down. There is no easy way to separate the chaff from the wheat these days. This definitely makes it more discouraging for me.

You mean, no easy easy to separate the caches you like from the caches you don't like.

 

With that, I fully agree.

And so there are discussions in the forum specifically centered around improving the user experience so that it is easier to find the types of caches you like, and by extension ignore the ones you don't (as some are wont to do)

 

I suppose you're right. I really don't expect cachers to all like the same thing. On the otherhand, i honestly cannot fathom why so many cachers these days prefer pill bottles with soggy logs and power trails consisting of the same ole same ole cache over a nice, thought out, bring you to an interesting spot, type cache.

[+Lieblweb]

Wow...just wow.

 

[+J Grouchy]

As for the "not true find" so many of you old timers have pointed out, the QR sticker was placed exactly where the hint indicated a cache would be. Luckily, a nice email exchange with the hider gave us a clearer tip. She didn't rip us for not finding her cache and noted the confusion was common.

 

Even though you ripped her, calling her cache "lame." Plus, the hint didn't say "behind the sign", so your rebuttal doesn't hold water.

Another lovely forum user proving my point above.

 

You didn't find the cache but you haven't deleted your "found it" log. It's pretty clear that whether you believe it or not, there IS a wrong way to cache...and that involves logging finds on caches you didn't find.

 

True. You know, we really do try to be helpful to new people who are actually interested in Geocaching, and won't disappear after 8 "Tftc" logs posted from the field on their smartphone. For example, in one of your other 2 logs you give a "hint" to future finders. This is bad form, and a common "new person thing". Generally referred to as a spoiler. It was much more common when people actually went home and logged their finds from a computer, but it's still rather common.

 

If you have had contact with the cache owner, and you actually found a bar code sticker from another game, and not the cache, and they're OK with it, I don't imagine anyone else around here wouldn't be OK with it. And you did indeed call it lame. In fact, that game is kinda lame. I still do it myself though, although not a rabid player.

 

Thing is, I actually agreed with most of what Sycamore5 said...but then I see those antics - the criticism, the false logging, the overly defensive response to being called out - and I can see why "old timers" think the game/pastime/hobby might not be the fun it once was.

 

Personally, I'm of the mind that geocaching, like life, is a state of mind. It is what you make of it...and if you go in expecting crap instead of looking for something to take away from it, you'll only ruin the experience.

 

Two caches that just came out near me that I found yesterday...I tried to illustrate all that with my logs. I had fun with them. The caches themselves were really nothing special...but I believe the goal was to be playful and perhaps inspire some creative logs.

 

http://coord.info/GC597P1

http://coord.info/GC597QJ

[+colleda]

I do not think that what I described is very specific to my own region. I have friends in other regions and countries and they have decreased their geocaching activities or left geocaching at all, too. This happened although the personal preferences of these people do not entirely match with my own. While I do not care about tricky container constructions for example, some of my friends appreciate multi caches where all or most stages are special constructions. Such caches are in decline too and are replaced by the series style caches

Yes. And this will happen. It's the nature of the hobby. Of any hobby. More uptake, more people, more minds, evolving concepts, evolving pastime. You can fight the futile battle of keeping it what it was, or you can change with it, or you can move on. For your own good, I suggest you attempt the 2nd or 3rd options, because frankly #1 seems fruitless.

 

Does anyone need to be right or better?

Nope.

 

If you agree that geocaching has changed over time and that is more to some and less to others, I do not object. I only object against those statements that deny that the changes deteriorated geocaching for some.

Sure. You object every time. But it's an opinion that many, dare I say most, do not share.

 

Objectively, change is change. Objectively, geocaching is much larger and wider reaching than it was with greater variety. Objectively, geocaching appeals to a much larger audience than it used to. Objectively, pockets of communities with different general preferences in geocaching are becoming more defined.

Subjectively, the quality of caches have changed - to some, for the better; to some, for the worse. Subjectively, local communities have grown and swayed to certain styles of caching - to some, for the better; to some, for the worse.

Subjectively, Groundspeak's performance as the service provider for geocache listings could be better - or worse.

 

We have a "Challenge-ville" around here. A few very prolific cachers have inundated the region with challenge caches. A lot of people hate it. A lot of people love it.

In my city, for a while we had a spate of ridiculously high-D puzzle caches. A lot of people hated it. A lot of people loved it.

 

This kind of community variance is very common, and is almost entirely dependent on the local community - those who are the most enthusiastic about the hobby are the ones who 'define' what the local geocaching landscape will look like. To blame Groundspeak, or to blame Geocaching as a whole for this natural progression is quite fallacious.

 

The hobby changes. As it moves forward, many will move with it, many will be left behind, and many will be picked up and introduced. Because of that, the face of geocaching will always be changing, and always be slightly different from region to region.

 

Groundspeak deals with problems, they experiment with ideas (typically by word of mouth and suggestion - not majority opinion), they require change to generate revenue by attracting new generations to keep the service thriving.

 

Complaining about the state of geocaching is really a fruitless act.

Continually separating "old school" from new stuff is detrimental to the hobby. Don't shoot yourself in the foot by separating the stuff you like as "old"! Do it now, be like others who enjoy that style and keep creating it. Newcomers don't know the difference between "old" and "new". It's all just different ways to enjoy the same hobby.

 

If newcomers like that style, they'll keep it going. Popular caching styles are popular because... well because they're popular! That will keep changing over time as people come and people go.

 

The few outdoor enthusiasts that stayed in the game now concentrate on hiding very extreme caches which go beyond my physical abilities. The only other way to reduce the traffic is to come up with very hard puzzles. The simple caches that could easily exist 10 years ago and that got 30 visits per year back then now would get 300 and that's something hardly any of the hiders of the old times wants to have. So the growth rate causes an issue in itself that goes far beyond my personal preferences.

But it is your personal preference.

The growth rate is there because there are more people who enjoy that.

Your preference is being overshadowed by others' preference. It sucks when that happens. But it happens.

So, I'm sorry that things are changing in your area. And that the newer generation in your area doesn't appear to enjoy what you enjoy. That's not geocaching's problem though, because as I said, there are many, many places where that's not the case, where you'd probably be much happier. I don't have any other solution for you; my only hope is that you find a way to not be so overly critical of the pastime, repeatedly declaring that "the changes deteriorated geocaching", and find a way to enjoy it (whether you change, or whether you change your community) or move on/elsewhere.

 

Possibly the most objective and considerate post I've seen so far. Says it all for me.

[+colleda]

As for the "not true find" so many of you old timers have pointed out, the QR sticker was placed exactly where the hint indicated a cache would be. Luckily, a nice email exchange with the hider gave us a clearer tip. She didn't rip us for not finding her cache and noted the confusion was common.

 

Even though you ripped her, calling her cache "lame." Plus, the hint didn't say "behind the sign", so your rebuttal doesn't hold water.

Another lovely forum user proving my point above.

 

You didn't find the cache but you haven't deleted your "found it" log. It's pretty clear that whether you believe it or not, there IS a wrong way to cache...and that involves logging finds on caches you didn't find.

 

True. You know, we really do try to be helpful to new people who are actually interested in Geocaching, and won't disappear after 8 "Tftc" logs posted from the field on their smartphone. For example, in one of your other 2 logs you give a "hint" to future finders. This is bad form, and a common "new person thing". Generally referred to as a spoiler. It was much more common when people actually went home and logged their finds from a computer, but it's still rather common.

 

If you have had contact with the cache owner, and you actually found a bar code sticker from another game, and not the cache, and they're OK with it, I don't imagine anyone else around here wouldn't be OK with it. And you did indeed call it lame. In fact, that game is kinda lame. I still do it myself though, although not a rabid player.

 

Thing is, I actually agreed with most of what Sycamore5 said...but then I see those antics - the criticism, the false logging, the overly defensive response to being called out - and I can see why "old timers" think the game/pastime/hobby might not be the fun it once was.

 

Personally, I'm of the mind that geocaching, like life, is a state of mind. It is what you make of it...and if you go in expecting crap instead of looking for something to take away from it, you'll only ruin the experience.

 

Two caches that just came out near me that I found yesterday...I tried to illustrate all that with my logs. I had fun with them. The caches themselves were really nothing special...but I believe the goal was to be playful and perhaps inspire some creative logs.

 

http://coord.info/GC597P1

http://coord.info/GC597QJ

 

[+thebruce0]

Obviously they're doing things for a reason - even though from my perspective they're destroying the game I can only assume they are doing what they do in pursuit of higher profits. And if higher profits for them means a proliferation of soggy film pots behind signs and a cachers who sign up for a premium membership

*sigh* Please refrain from that. Groundspeak does not value "soggy film pots behind signs" as a trade-off for gaining profits. Staff have repeatedly stated that they love the pastime, they love geocaching, and they love the community. So please stop claiming they don't care about anything but profits.

 

I suppose you're right. I really don't expect cachers to all like the same thing. On the otherhand, i honestly cannot fathom why so many cachers these days prefer pill bottles with soggy logs and power trails consisting of the same ole same ole cache over a nice, thought out, bring you to an interesting spot, type cache.

I firmly believe that those who you think "prefer pill bottles with soggy logs" have most likely actually never truly been introduced to the rest - whether because they live in an area populated by caches that might produce what you say, or because they just don't have the time/money/ability to do caches that might produce what you say. Either way, this is again a mislabeling of people who don't prefer the "old school".

"power trails consisting of the same ole same ole" though? Sure, perhaps. Because in those contexts, it's another type of geocaching experience; just like finding multiple stages for a single cache is a different experience than finding a container at a single waypoint, just like doing research and learning about geologic processes is a different experience than using a Wherigo-enabled device to run a little game that will tell you where to find a container... all different experiences... all preferred by different people.

 

I don't think anyone prefers finding soggy logs (which could be in pill bottle OR ammo cans OR any other container)

Edited July 23, 2014 by thebruce0

[+narcissa]

*sigh* Please refrain from that. Groundspeak does not value "soggy film pots behind signs" as a trade-off for gaining profits. Staff have repeatedly stated that they love the pastime, they love geocaching, and they love the community. So please stop claiming they don't care about anything but profits.

 

And yet they have repeatedly made business decisions that indicate otherwise.

 

It's very easy to *say* anything. Showing it through action is the only thing that counts.

[+thebruce0]

*sigh* Please refrain from that. Groundspeak does not value "soggy film pots behind signs" as a trade-off for gaining profits. Staff have repeatedly stated that they love the pastime, they love geocaching, and they love the community. So please stop claiming they don't care about anything but profits.

And yet they have repeatedly made business decisions that indicate otherwise.

 

No, many players have repeatedly shown that they are unable or unwilling to take care and maintain cache quality, or cache owners have repeatedly shown that they don't care about their cache's quality.

That is not Groundspeak. Please show Goundspeak's business decisions encourage "soggy film pots behind signs" in exchange for profits.

Their community communications clearly advocate quality, fun, adventure, respect, community. How that plays out is entirely up to the player. Not Groundspeak.

[Pup Patrol]

Your repliy perfectly exemplifies why many new players don't stick around.

 

So we have 3 finds posted, so what. Rather than helpful tips, you spew insults.

 

Sadly, I would note this style of reply is not uncommon on the forum pages.

 

Luckily I have many positive messages from others, and will continue to play.

 

Oh and we don't always post our finds online, but just sign the logbook.

 

As for the "not true find" so many of you old timers have pointed out, the QR sticker was placed exactly where the hint indicated a cache would be. Luckily, a nice email exchange with the hider gave us a clearer tip. She didn't rip us for not finding her cache and noted the confusion was common.

 

Relax, it's a GAME.

 

irisisleuk didn't insult you at all. Did you also send him/her a nasty email, telling him/her to shut the **** up?

 

No one has "ripped" you at all, but you take any advice or help as insult.

 

More than one person has tried to help you understand geocaching.

 

The cache owner posted a note on the cache page, explaining that you did not find the cache. You found an item from a different game.

 

 

B.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Pup Patrol

[+dprovan]

Let's say there were 500 caches placed in a 100 mile radius 10 years ago. Of those 500, i would conservatively estimate 400 to be what i would call decent hides. Now we look at the present where 5,000 caches are placed in that same 100 mile radius. Sure there are plenty more to choose from but i would bet that less than 400 of them would be caches that were similar to what "i grew up with".

I'd be interested to see official numbers about cache densities, since my impression of them is quite different than yours.

 

But what I consider is that fact that when the old timers wax nostalgic, they talk about how in the good old days, you had to hike a couple miles to find one cache. Within 100 miles of me, I'd say that there are maybe a few hundred places where you could hike a couple miles, and the ones I've visited all seem to have a couple ammo boxes still today a couple miles in. Often they're the original caches from 10 years ago, but I also see nice big newer caches, sometimes original, sometimes a tribute to an old archived cache that's fondly remembered. In other words, I look around and see those same caches still in place or upgraded by something newer but just as nice. Then I see 100 times more caches of the type the old timers complain about.

[Mr.Yuck]

Wow...just wow.

 

 

Umm, regarding what, exactly?

[+Roman!]

Wow...just wow.

 

 

Umm, regarding what, exactly?

 

I think they were crying out for their mom, mom, while standing on their head.

[+fizzymagic]

Fundamentally it seems people who would rather enjoy a nice walk and pick off a few caches along the way are outnumbered by the people who would rather get as many caches in as they can, even if the caches are film pots, keysafes and pill bottles.

 

I've been caching longer than you have, and I dispute your contention that caches are worse today than they were when we started. I remember lots of crappy containers (many caches my first year were hidden in trash bags) and bad coordinates.

 

The difference between then and now is that it takes a little bit of effort to find caches that are, as you say, "nice walks." Not much; no more than ten minutes the night before a hike to identify the good caches. Caches with high terrain ratings and regular container sizes are every bit as good as the ones hidden when I first started caching.

 

The fact that you find the tiny little additional bit of effort too much and are, as you said, "giving up" because of it is ironic: you criticize cachers who are not willing to put in the effort for a hike, but don't expect to have to put in any planning effort yourself. There's a word for that....

[+Mudfrog]

Let's say there were 500 caches placed in a 100 mile radius 10 years ago. Of those 500, i would conservatively estimate 400 to be what i would call decent hides. Now we look at the present where 5,000 caches are placed in that same 100 mile radius. Sure there are plenty more to choose from but i would bet that less than 400 of them would be caches that were similar to what "i grew up with".

I'd be interested to see official numbers about cache densities, since my impression of them is quite different than yours.

 

But what I consider is that fact that when the old timers wax nostalgic, they talk about how in the good old days, you had to hike a couple miles to find one cache. Within 100 miles of me, I'd say that there are maybe a few hundred places where you could hike a couple miles, and the ones I've visited all seem to have a couple ammo boxes still today a couple miles in. Often they're the original caches from 10 years ago, but I also see nice big newer caches, sometimes original, sometimes a tribute to an old archived cache that's fondly remembered. In other words, I look around and see those same caches still in place or upgraded by something newer but just as nice. Then I see 100 times more caches of the type the old timers complain about.

 

On the bolded part, i may be misunderstanding but if not, i agree. I too see around 100 times more caches placed these days that i don't give a hoot about.

[cezanne]

Fundamentally it seems people who would rather enjoy a nice walk and pick off a few caches along the way are outnumbered by the people who would rather get as many caches in as they can, even if the caches are film pots, keysafes and pill bottles.

 

I've been caching longer than you have, and I dispute your contention that caches are worse today than they were when we started. I remember lots of crappy containers (many caches my first year were hidden in trash bags) and bad coordinates.

 

I also remember crappy containers and bad coordinates, but I prefer a crappy container which I find at the end of a nice hike at a characteristic hideout where exact coordinates are not needed anyway to many of those elaborate modern style caches that are almost drive ins and where everything is about the hiding style and the container.

The container quality of non micro caches has definitely improved over the years in my area - nowadays the majority of small and regular caches are lock and lock containers.

The quality of the coordinates also became better on average. But that's not what I care about. I'm not a quality agency for caches that wants to evaluate the quality of caches.

I'm using geocaching for my purposes and it is not about good and bad, but about how well suited a cache is for me.

 

The difference between then and now is that it takes a little bit of effort to find caches that are, as you say, "nice walks." Not much; no more than ten minutes the night before a hike to identify the good caches. Caches with high terrain ratings and regular container sizes are every bit as good as the ones hidden when I first started caching.

 

I'm willing to invest much more work than 10 minutes. I look at every single cache description of a newly hidden cache that shows up in a large circle around my home and I study the logs of caches before I select them. The issue is that the number of caches that really suit me is very small in my area.

What you write above applies to me only when I cache in new areas where I have found no or only few caches.

 

I think that the style of caching has not changed in the same way and to the same extent in every area. For example, in most areas of the US multi caches of the type I enjoy the most have never had the same high importance they had in my area in earlier years. Moreover, in areas like yours urban caches have been popular much earlier than in my area. It took me a few years until I encountered the first fence post micro.

 

10 years ago noone at a local event would have asked for someone's finds count. Sites like project-gc did not exist and badge merit systems did not play a major role. This has changed considerably and has heavily effected geocaching in all areas I'm familiar with. 10 years ago there had been no reason to hide 9 traditionals and one bonus mystery cache instead of a single multi cache - nowadays there are many reasons for doing so, including the favourite point system. In this manner cachers can award a favourite point to each such series they enjoy while in cache of the multi caches they can award a FP only to one out of ten caches. The caching karma of the hiders is also positively influenced by the series. There are many other effects of the increased number orientation which go beyond rankings for the find count.

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

The difference between then and now is that it takes a little bit of effort to find caches that are, as you say, "nice walks." Not much; no more than ten minutes the night before a hike to identify the good caches. Caches with high terrain ratings and regular container sizes are every bit as good as the ones hidden when I first started caching.

What I find is that if I pick a place based on the niceness of the walk alone, there's always at least one good cache there, and usually many. So I think it's easier to find nice walks since I don't have to look at the caches at all to know the caching on my chosen walk will be fun.

 

On the bolded part, i may be misunderstanding but if not, i agree. I too see around 100 times more caches placed these days that i don't give a hoot about.

Yes, you understood me. People complain because they see the multitude of new caches, and they keep trying to tell us that those little caches are driving out the big caches like they used to have in the older days. But that's what I contest. I believe that there are more caches today of exactly the type the old timers keep glowing about, it just happens that there are also many, many more caches of types they don't like. Yet all they see are the ones they don't give a hoot about and tell us the sport is ruined.

[+niraD]

Yes, you understood me. People complain because they see the multitude of new caches, and they keep trying to tell us that those little caches are driving out the big caches like they used to have in the older days. But that's what I contest. I believe that there are more caches today of exactly the type the old timers keep glowing about, it just happens that there are also many, many more caches of types they don't like. Yet all they see are the ones they don't give a hoot about and tell us the sport is ruined.

That sounds familiar. I think Markwell posted some stats to back it up, showing that even with fairly demanding criteria for "desirable caches", there are still more of them around than there used to be, and their number is still growing. Of course, they're a smaller percentage of the total geocache population now, because so many other geocaches have been hidden. But they're there, if you can identify them.

 

Of course, that worked for his particular set of criteria. There is no guarantee that it will work for someone else's criteria.

[I!]

I believe that there are more caches today of exactly the type the old timers keep glowing about, it just happens that there are also many, many more caches of types they don't like.

When I started (as recently as 2009), the map was pretty sparse and it felt exciting to join a small community of people doing something different. I could expect most hides to be in places I'd never visited and many caches to be interesting in their own right (I'd never seen a cache before - everything was new and intriguing).

 

With the cache-map as it is now, I might never have started: it would have been "huh, kids littering the countryside with boxes - no thanks" rather than "ooh, something secret hidden on that hill ... who knew?". And I would have had little sense of anticipation of the location, as everywhere is cache-coated nowadays.

 

There's no point complaining: I've seen enough of the local countryside now not to be surprised any more (thanks, geocaching!) and the game's become so popular that the exclusivity is a thing of the past. I do wonder if the "old timers" are just missing the heady days of their geo-exploring youth and, like the game itself, need to move on.

[team tisri]

Obviously they're doing things for a reason - even though from my perspective they're destroying the game I can only assume they are doing what they do in pursuit of higher profits. And if higher profits for them means a proliferation of soggy film pots behind signs and a cachers who sign up for a premium membership

*sigh* Please refrain from that. Groundspeak does not value "soggy film pots behind signs" as a trade-off for gaining profits. Staff have repeatedly stated that they love the pastime, they love geocaching, and they love the community. So please stop claiming they don't care about anything but profits.

 

Whatever they might state, from the way the company and the game is going it's hard to see a desire for anything other than a high throughput.

 

As it gets harder to find the caches I'd enjoy hunting from the seemingly endless film pots behind posts, as useful feature requests get ignored and instead we get apparently untested changes that break things, souvenirs and the like, I'm really struggling to figure out what the corporate entity behind it all is actually trying to achieve. Certainly I've had the sense for a long time that people like me aren't the target market any more. Certainly I see little to nothing in the game to suggest the company is interested in retaining my business, which is why I'm no longer a paying customer.

 

I'm not privy to Groundspeak board meetings, I can only go by what I see on the ground. And what I see on the ground is a succession of changes that have made the game less enjoyable for me. If others continue to enjoy it then I wish them ongoing pleasure hunting whatever it is they hunt.

[team tisri]

Fundamentally it seems people who would rather enjoy a nice walk and pick off a few caches along the way are outnumbered by the people who would rather get as many caches in as they can, even if the caches are film pots, keysafes and pill bottles.

 

I've been caching longer than you have, and I dispute your contention that caches are worse today than they were when we started. I remember lots of crappy containers (many caches my first year were hidden in trash bags) and bad coordinates.

 

From my experience caches are worse today than when I started. I remember finding a cache inside a trash bag being an unusual thing, and had few experiences with bad coordinates. I still remember the first time I found a film pot and being intrigued at the notion that something so simple could be a geocache.

 

The difference between then and now is that it takes a little bit of effort to find caches that are, as you say, "nice walks." Not much; no more than ten minutes the night before a hike to identify the good caches. Caches with high terrain ratings and regular container sizes are every bit as good as the ones hidden when I first started caching.

 

The fact that you find the tiny little additional bit of effort too much and are, as you said, "giving up" because of it is ironic: you criticize cachers who are not willing to put in the effort for a hike, but don't expect to have to put in any planning effort yourself. There's a word for that....

 

It may be a tiny bit of effort for you. For me there are well over 1000 caches I haven't found within 10 miles of home (from what I recall of my last PQ if you increase the radius to 25 miles the count rises to many thousands). I don't mind a little planning effort, I just can't be bothered to dredge through so many geocaches to figure out which ones might be somewhere interesting and which ones are "me too" caches placed because "my girlfriend used to live near here, so I hid a keysafe behind the road sign" or some such.

 

If there were a few dozen caches and I was trying to figure out which ones might be interesting I'd be more likely to look through them. But when there are literally thousands of them within easy striking distance I grew increasingly disillusioned with hunting what turned out to be another film pot in a tree, and lost the inclination to read so many cache listings to see which ones might be in an interesting location.

[+Trotter17]

From what some of you are saying, it almost makes me think that in addition to the regular categories (traditional, multi, etc.), maybe Groundspeak needs to create some new subcategories of caches so that folks could more easily filter through them.

 

Personally, I don't feel the type of caches are much different than when I was doing some caching in Nashville back in 2005 (there were still rural hiking caches mixed in with plenty of p&gs) but the numbers seem to have significantly increased. It is tougher to select a number of solid hiking or park caches that I'm willing to drive a ways for and make a day of versus lots of p&g micros. Maybe the answer would be the ability to create a fairly simple system to subcategorize caches by using terms such as P&Gs, caches in parks, and caches that require hiking. It might not be perfect, but it might let folks cut out all caches they don't enjoy just a bit more easily.

[+larryc43230]

I think one big reason for the different perceptions regarding the state of geocaching is the advent of cell phone geocaching apps.

 

Not that long ago, pretty much the only way to go caching was to do at least a little advance planning. You visited the Web site and either searched for individual caches that looked interesting, or you generated a pocket query where you set up criteria that limited the caches you downloaded to the ones that fit your caching style. That meant you had to spend at least a little time planning ahead.

 

With the introduction of cell phone geocaching apps, a whole lot more people discovered geocaching, and most of these people never saw much need to visit the Web site or plan ahead at all. This type of cacher finds themselves at a random location and simply asks the app what geocaches are hidden nearby. If that's the way you cache, you'll very likely get the impression that the world is filled with nothing but micros under lamp posts and magnetic key holders on guardrails. You also get the impression that this is what geocaching is all about, and from the sheer quantity of these caches, you also find it easy to pump up your find count really quickly. And this becomes the game for you. Unfortunately, many of this type of cacher also never read the geocaching guidelines, simply because they never spend any time on the Web site. Heck, they might not even know there are guidelines until they run afoul of some rule.

 

Unfortunately (in my opinion), Groundspeak gains more new members and makes more profit promoting the instant-gratification caching style made possible by the cell phone apps, so I see no chance of anything changing for the better any time soon.

 

--Larry

[+thebruce0]

Maybe the answer would be the ability to create a fairly simple system to subcategorize caches by using terms such as P&Gs, caches in parks, and caches that require hiking. It might not be perfect, but it might let folks cut out all caches they don't enjoy just a bit more easily.

You mean like

...etc.

 

I think one big reason for the different perceptions regarding the state of geocaching is the advent of cell phone geocaching apps.

A factor, sure. But there are still plenty of people who swear by handhelds, and encourage newcomers to the hobby to purchase one. It all depends on the angle of entry. People won't buy a smartphone to start geocaching, so smartphone caching is only affected by those who already own them; typically high urban areas. Even then, there may influential prolific cachers who still encourage handheld use. Smartphones aren't the bane of geocaching.

 

Here's the thing (more directed towards team tsiri)... smartphones are a tool. And on average they have "good enough" GPS capability (and recent models have plenty sufficient capability). So Groundspeak adopting smartphones was indeed a business decision to enlarge the demographic, but that was not a business decision to inherently favour "soggy film pots" for the sake of profit. It was a business decision to grow geocaching, and it's taken off. --> The style, state, and quality of caches is still entirely in the hands of each and every cacher.

 

This type of cacher finds themselves at a random location and simply asks the app what geocaches are hidden nearby. If that's the way you cache, you'll very likely get the impression that the world is filled with nothing but micros under lamp posts and magnetic key holders on guardrails.

That may well be true in a general sense. But it's entirely regional - density of the most common placed cache type in the area (due to most common community preference)

Heck let's say even if an area was void of any "sub-par" caches but spotted with great ones, all it takes is one newcomer to "ruin" an area and populate it with "sub-par" caches because that's what they prefer. The next newcomer will then see all those caches and get the 'wrong impression' about geocaching.

This is not a problem with geocaching. It's the way the world works... The variety of the game allows for situations like that to occur. The only thing we can do, in each of our communities, is simply to keep encouraging what we feel are "better" caching experiences. If there are legitimate problems with the service, Groundspeak should fix them. If there are concerns based on regional preferences, Groundspeak has no obligation to "fix" them. We can always make suggestions to improve the game - but it's highly unlikely Groundspeak will restrict variety and flexibility just to improve the experience for a few.

 

...promoting the instant-gratification caching style...

Man, I think I got hit by all the spit!

(you know... like, that phrase is often spit out in absolute disgust by some people in this forum )

Edited July 23, 2014 by thebruce0

[+narcissa]

*sigh* Please refrain from that. Groundspeak does not value "soggy film pots behind signs" as a trade-off for gaining profits. Staff have repeatedly stated that they love the pastime, they love geocaching, and they love the community. So please stop claiming they don't care about anything but profits.

And yet they have repeatedly made business decisions that indicate otherwise.

 

No, many players have repeatedly shown that they are unable or unwilling to take care and maintain cache quality, or cache owners have repeatedly shown that they don't care about their cache's quality.

That is not Groundspeak. Please show Goundspeak's business decisions encourage "soggy film pots behind signs" in exchange for profits.

Their community communications clearly advocate quality, fun, adventure, respect, community. How that plays out is entirely up to the player. Not Groundspeak.

 

"Their community communications clearly advocate quality, fun, adventure, respect, community."

 

Please explain how their implementation of mobile geocaching apps promotes "quality, fun, adventure, respect, community."

 

I repeat: it's very easy to SAY anything. Their actions - the actual design of the site and the apps - speaks far louder.

 

The touchy-feely email newsletters and blogs are meaningless when they don't even bother getting new users to confirm emails.

[cezanne]

What I find is that if I pick a place based on the niceness of the walk alone, there's always at least one good cache there, and usually many. So I think it's easier to find nice walks since I don't have to look at the caches at all to know the caching on my chosen walk will be fun.

 

Do I understand you correctly that you first choose the walk and then look at the caches that exist there?

I used to use geocaching to choose the walk and that worked much better some years ago than it does now.

 

Yes, you understood me. People complain because they see the multitude of new caches, and they keep trying to tell us that those little caches are driving out the big caches like they used to have in the older days. But that's what I contest. I believe that there are more caches today of exactly the type the old timers keep glowing about, it just happens that there are also many, many more caches of types they don't like.

 

There are definitely not more new caches out there in the area of the type I enjoy the most than in the golden years.

It used to be easy to select a single cache if I wanted to go for a nice walk of say 3-4 hours (the example also works for longer walks) and take the cache description with me.

I had to do not much planning as the cache description guided me through the walk.

 

Nowadays there are many short caches in my area. If I want to go for a four hours walk/hike/bike tour, I have to do a lot of planning and preparation (with respect to planning the walk/hike/bike tour and not with respect to selecting the caches). It can well happen that along my tour once planned there will be a few short caches (some better suitable for me than others), but it is hardly the case that I can use the caches as a kind of all inclusive package for planning my trip. As a rule of thumb, I need about five times as many caches to keep me busy for the same time than a few years ago. Of course, there are some exceptions, but they are rare or are in extreme terrain that is not reachable to me. (This at least to some extent

has also been a consequence of the increased number of geocachers as many of the oldtimers wish to prefer to keep the traffic low at their caches and thus either decided to stop hiding new caches or increased the T-difficulty in comparison to their earlier caches).

 

 

Cezanne

[+larryc43230]

...promoting the instant-gratification caching style...

Man, I think I got hit by all the spit!

(you know... like, that phrase is often spit out in absolute disgust by some people in this forum )

If you got hit by spit, it wasn't from me.

 

Of course, geocaching has changed. Anybody who's played the game for a few years can see it if they're paying attention. Most geocachers now play a somewhat different game than I do. The thing is, I don't care. I have my own reasons for preferring geocaching the way it (mostly) was a few years ago (if you're bored, see my profile for the details), and I can, and do, still geocache the way I did at the beginning. It's simply more of a challenge ferreting out caches I might want to go look for. But that's OK, too, I'm retired and I have the time, and I don't mind planning in advance. Which is how I've done it from the beginning.

 

You can get something close to instant gratification using a smart phone app, not so much with an "old-fashioned" dedicated unit. That's simply a fact, I wasn't trying to make a judgment call.

 

--Larry

[team tisri]

*sigh* Please refrain from that. Groundspeak does not value "soggy film pots behind signs" as a trade-off for gaining profits. Staff have repeatedly stated that they love the pastime, they love geocaching, and they love the community. So please stop claiming they don't care about anything but profits.

And yet they have repeatedly made business decisions that indicate otherwise.

 

No, many players have repeatedly shown that they are unable or unwilling to take care and maintain cache quality, or cache owners have repeatedly shown that they don't care about their cache's quality.

That is not Groundspeak. Please show Goundspeak's business decisions encourage "soggy film pots behind signs" in exchange for profits.

Their community communications clearly advocate quality, fun, adventure, respect, community. How that plays out is entirely up to the player. Not Groundspeak.

 

"Their community communications clearly advocate quality, fun, adventure, respect, community."

 

Please explain how their implementation of mobile geocaching apps promotes "quality, fun, adventure, respect, community."

 

I repeat: it's very easy to SAY anything. Their actions - the actual design of the site and the apps - speaks far louder.

 

The touchy-feely email newsletters and blogs are meaningless when they don't even bother getting new users to confirm emails.

 

Yep, my local council talks about how the teams who collect the rubbish and recycling are encouraged to clear up after themselves and put containers back where they found them. It doesn't mean I don't regularly need to complain that they left the place a mess and my recycling box went missing, again.

 

The words talk a good game about how to be a responsible member of the caching community. The actions say something else, letting people with a track record of non-maintenance continue to publish new caches and allowing people to register without ever visiting the site and without ever providing an email address.

 

The words talk of quality, fun, adventure. When so many film pots behind signs are published it's hard to see how the reality ties up with the talk.

 

So when faced with a conflict between words and actions, I'll look at the actions.

[+Trotter17]

Maybe the answer would be the ability to create a fairly simple system to subcategorize caches by using terms such as P&Gs, caches in parks, and caches that require hiking. It might not be perfect, but it might let folks cut out all caches they don't enjoy just a bit more easily.

You mean like

...etc.

 

Yeah, good point. I like the attributes but it seems that not everyone uses them nor do they always help you identify what type of cache experience to expect. It's a good start, though.

 

The hiking ones are typically good indicators of the experience you can expect.