Geocaching has changed

[+thebruce0]

And I'll say it again... "new" does not mean "smartphone". There are plenty of handheld gps users still joining the pastime. There are plenty of caches still published that many would consider "quality" by both smartphone cachers and handhelders. This blanket prejudice against "phones" in geocaching has to stop. Communities will of course be made up of different mixes of devices, skills, preferences and qualities the world over. Any one of our particular 'views' of the global geocaching community is not a view that can or should be applied to the whole.

 

Groundspeak does provide a listing service. It by definition is a service that lists geocaches. Yes, they provide boundaries, guidelines, and can shape perception by what they promote. But at the end of the day - the quality of geocaches being placed is 100% up to the cache owner. So make change in your community.

[+larryc43230]

I don't have any problem with the use of smartphones in geocaching. I have one of those things myself, and half a dozen geocaching apps (though I personally prefer to use a dedicated GPS unit).

 

What I do object to is allowing the use of smartphone apps to geocache without the user ever fully registering on the Web site and furnishing contact information. I really think that's a major reason smartphone caching has a bad reputation with some cachers.

 

If the gods at Groundspeak would close that loophole, I couldn't care less about what gadget a person used to find caches.

 

--Larry

[+dprovan]

I know quite a number of old-timers who left and even more old-timers who decided to stop hiding caches and/or archived their existing caches because of the reason stated above.

No wonder things keep getting worse if the people that care the most about degrading quality remove their high quality caches, eliminating the high standard that they've set for new COs to look up to.

 

(So I'm cynical, but I suspect most of those old-timers left because they'd had enough of geocaching, and they just used reasons such as these as excuses to avoid admitting even to themselves that they'd lost interest. But I wouldn't know: all the old-timers I know are still going strong, hiding caches of all different sizes in all kinds of places.)

[cezanne]

I know quite a number of old-timers who left and even more old-timers who decided to stop hiding caches and/or archived their existing caches because of the reason stated above.

No wonder things keep getting worse if the people that care the most about degrading quality remove their high quality caches, eliminating the high standard that they've set for new COs to look up to.

 

First, there are still many old school caches around, but they are hardly visited by the majority of new cachers due to their different interests.

Second, it is necessarily an issue of degrading quality. There is high quality jazz music and high quality classical music, but not necessarily it works fine if both are performed simultaneously at the same spot. I do not think that back then there have been more high quality caches in absolute number than are hidden nowadays in my country. Of course the absolute number of bad caches has increased due to the high number of caches. What causes the issue for many old-timers is that the absolute number of caches where the hike and not searching for containers and increasing various numbers is the main target went down and that it causes more and more work to select the few remaining new caches that appeal to this target audience who in the early days comprised 95% of all cachers in my area.

 

(So I'm cynical, but I suspect most of those old-timers left because they'd had enough of geocaching, and they just used reasons such as these as excuses to avoid admitting even to themselves that they'd lost interest.

 

There are a few that left because they lost interest in general or because their personal situation changed (for example, kids have grown up and geocaching has been uzsed before to motivate the kids for a hike), but almost all of those who left and whom I know personally and to whom I've talked about the subject have done it out of frustration caused by the depevelopment of geocaching.

 

But I wouldn't know: all the old-timers I know are still going strong, hiding caches of all different sizes in all kinds of places.)

 

Maybe the changes in the areas where they come from have been less dramatic when compared to the situation when these people became interested into geocaching.

 

If I were bound to a wheel-chair I never ever would have get hooked on geocaching.

[Mr.Yuck]

And I'll say it again... "new" does not mean "smartphone". There are plenty of handheld gps users still joining the pastime. There are plenty of caches still published that many would consider "quality" by both smartphone cachers and handhelders. This blanket prejudice against "phones" in geocaching has to stop. Communities will of course be made up of different mixes of devices, skills, preferences and qualities the world over. Any one of our particular 'views' of the global geocaching community is not a view that can or should be applied to the whole.

 

Groundspeak does provide a listing service. It by definition is a service that lists geocaches. Yes, they provide boundaries, guidelines, and can shape perception by what they promote. But at the end of the day - the quality of geocaches being placed is 100% up to the cache owner. So make change in your community.

 

Naw, I'll go ahead and put myself out on a limb and say that as of July 2014, 99.8% of newbies are "phone newbies". I couldn't care less what they're using for a GPS, except for 1) their nearly universal tendency to post lame logs from the field on said smartphone and 2) their rather obvious lack of research and education into the game.

 

That's as opposed to someone who say Googled the word Geocaching in 2008. This has been said in other threads, and I'm beginning to believe it: A large percentage of these people think the cache fairy placed that container for them to find, and have no idea it was placed by another player just like themselves. Just for an example of lack of research and education.

[+Lieblweb]

 

Wow. Just Wow. (I owed you that one).

 

 

<putting hands over eyes & ears and ignoring the drama>

Edited July 27, 2014 by Lieblweb

[+Mudfrog]

And I'll say it again... "new" does not mean "smartphone". There are plenty of handheld gps users still joining the pastime. There are plenty of caches still published that many would consider "quality" by both smartphone cachers and handhelders. This blanket prejudice against "phones" in geocaching has to stop. Communities will of course be made up of different mixes of devices, skills, preferences and qualities the world over. Any one of our particular 'views' of the global geocaching community is not a view that can or should be applied to the whole.

 

Groundspeak does provide a listing service. It by definition is a service that lists geocaches. Yes, they provide boundaries, guidelines, and can shape perception by what they promote. But at the end of the day - the quality of geocaches being placed is 100% up to the cache owner. So make change in your community.

 

Naw, I'll go ahead and put myself out on a limb and say that as of July 2014, 99.8% of newbies are "phone newbies". I couldn't care less what they're using for a GPS, except for 1) their nearly universal tendency to post lame logs from the field on said smartphone and 2) their rather obvious lack of research and education into the game.

 

That's as opposed to someone who say Googled the word Geocaching in 2008. This has been said in other threads, and I'm beginning to believe it: A large percentage of these people think the cache fairy placed that container for them to find, and have no idea it was placed by another player just like themselves. Just for an example of lack of research and education.

 

I'd say your 99.8% is a good number. It's not the phone itself, it's that many who start with it don't go out and research what geocaching is. Imo, Gc.com is causing some of this with the free app. When it comes to apps for the phone, most of us do it,,, download one and start trying to use/play it without ever reading the instructions for it. I imagine that for many, the app is just another game for them to play, the main intent being to build up points (smilies).

[+tozainamboku]

This has been said in other threads, and I'm beginning to believe it: A large percentage of these people think the cache fairy placed that container for them to find, and have no idea it was placed by another player just like themselves.

I realize that you give this as an example of how using a smartphone and downloading some random app allows people to play this game without the "research" earlier players may have done. But if you are going to complain that lame caches are placed by newer geocachers using smartphones then perhaps its good if most of them believe that caches are placed by the cache fairy and not by other players.

 

I believe that Groundspeak has intentionally not included the ability to hide caches in their apps and still requires the users to hide caches using the website. While a lot of old timers have complained about the new cache submission form (change -> complaining, Who moved my cheese?), the changes seem to be to provide more instruction, proximity maps, and links to guidelines, because even old school cachers seemed to make certain mistakes and wrong assumptions when they submitted caches. Perhaps more could be done, like making cache submitters take an exam, at least to encourage more to actually read the guidelines. In the end, however, smartphones do not hide caches (people do. )

[+CardsFlyinHigh]

Ive said this to friends numerous times before. One of the beauties of Geocaching is that everyone can play their own game. Some like to play the numbers game and thats fine for them. Some like to play for streaks, some are FTF hounds, some go for milestones or locations, try to do all 50 states or all counties in a state etc. If you're not a numbers person, the game is still there. All you gotta do is search by difficulty/terrain, or by favorite points to filter the caches that work for you. Whatever you want the game to be, its there. I've only been doing this a few years, almost 3 so I may be off, but I don't think its fair to say the game has changed, more than the game has expanded.

[+Team AZGems]

I always felt that that was what the ignore option was for. And I do find myself using it a lot more then I used to, there's no rule that says that you have to find all of them.

[+Semper Questio]

Of course geocaching has changed. Very few things in this world never change. The trick is being able to adapt to the changes. Either embrace and work with them or drive yourself mad fighting them. When I saw the rising tide of PnG micros I hated it. But now with my limited time and my disability, sometimes the PnG is the only tie to the game I can manage. When I can do more, if I ever can again, I will largely brush the PnG's aside and go back to the closest thing to my favorite kind of caching I can manage. Until then, I am thankful for what's available to me.

[team tisri]

As I've said - Groundspeak (an imperfect organization, of course, but a very, very impressive one nonetheless) should deal with problems first, suggested improvements second, and arbitrary preferences last.

 

It would be really nice if Groundspeak would do just that.

 

Maybe they could have spent some time addressing, oh, maybe the issue of missing trackables and the proposal to handle them that has been outstanding for nearly three years. But no, changing text emails to HTML format is much more important.

[Mr.Yuck]

I always felt that that was what the ignore option was for. And I do find myself using it a lot more then I used to, there's no rule that says that you have to find all of them.

 

It was bestowed upon us in February, 2005. And for me, just in time, as that Spring a gang of then 13 yr. old middle schoolers peppered their village (about 10 miles from me) with some really bad hides.

 

Also, about a year or two in, when The CEO used to personally interact in the forums, I definitely remember him responding to a request for some sort of enhancement that almost no one was using the ignore list. I'd suspect very few people do to this day. I know I can count the people I know who do on one hand. Most highly active cachers I know do not use it at all.

[Andronicus]

Just kidding, by the way, Bruce. And if you ever refer to electricity as Hydro (which means water), I'll let them know what you mean there too. ...

Funny stuff. Being from Alberta, we are one of the few provinces that do not call electricity "hydro". I make fun of the rest of Canada about this regularly (That and their "Mountains" (aka hills))

[Mr.Yuck]

Just kidding, by the way, Bruce. And if you ever refer to electricity as Hydro (which means water), I'll let them know what you mean there too. ...

Funny stuff. Being from Alberta, we are one of the few provinces that do not call electricity "hydro". I make fun of the rest of Canada about this regularly (That and their "Mountains" (aka hills))

 

I need for him to respond so I know he's not mad.

 

I actually DID NOT know about the term Hydro before Geocaching. I've found almost 500 caches in Ontario, and I believe the term "Hydro Poles" came up several times on cache pages. Or Hydro Tower trails, or whatever.

[Andronicus]

Just kidding, by the way, Bruce. And if you ever refer to electricity as Hydro (which means water), I'll let them know what you mean there too. ...

Funny stuff. Being from Alberta, we are one of the few provinces that do not call electricity "hydro". I make fun of the rest of Canada about this regularly (That and their "Mountains" (aka hills))

 

I need for him to respond so I know he's not mad.

 

I actually DID NOT know about the term Hydro before Geocaching. I've found almost 500 caches in Ontario, and I believe the term "Hydro Poles" came up several times on cache pages. Or Hydro Tower trails, or whatever.

I always ask these guys "What exactly is a Hydro Pole?" Is that some sort of geyser? Maybe Polish bottled water?

 

Anyway, back on topic...

I have noticed that I have changed since starting 5 years ago. As for the game, not that much. A recent change I have noticed around here is that nanos are now usualy being labled as X or ? for size rather than micro. I guess a lot of the new people to the game have not figrued out that nanos are just a subset of micros.

[+emmett]

 

All you gotta do is search by difficulty/terrain, or by favorite points to filter the caches that work for you. Whatever you want the game to be, its there. I've only been doing this a few years ... but I don't think its fair to say the game has changed, more than the game has expanded.

 

 

You've been playing the game for only three years so you are unable to know if it has changed. It has expanded in some ways while other elements have died. The fact is many of us cannot play the game we once played because it no longer exists. You may continue to enjoy "your game" based on short walks to easy to find containers filled with junk. We no longer have walks to new, innovative caches that are harder to find.

 

Talked with a friend about this yesterday and there is no disputing the fact that unique, innovative, quality caches are not being published anymore, at least not in our region. We cannot think of one put out in the last two years anywhere remotely close to us.

 

As I said earlier, great caches were always a small percentage of the total but at least they were coming out on a relatively regular basis. There may be multiple causes but GC.com is primarily to blame, in part for certain foolish rules and policies but mostly for its terrible customer service/treatment of cache owners.

 

You do not take paying customers who have invested time and energy that helped you build your business (there would be no geocaching without cache owners) and shut their caches down without warning, without discussion, without good reason. I've had the experience; I know others who have had the experience; and I surmise from posts in this forum that the problem is not at all uncommon.

 

If you publish micros on lamp posts, you won't have the problem. If you dump a box of junk in the woods at indiscriminate locations, you won't have the problem. Nor would you care if your cache was shut down unexpectedly, since you really did not invest much in the process. But if you publish more interesting caches that require more attention to detail and require more maintenance, or if you go so far as to publish elaborate caching series, you will be much more likely to deal with the "Ivory Tower," and learn what those who have retired already know.

 

Finally, in response to someone else who says that GC.com is "just a listing service" and therefore not to blame for the decline in quality. Look again. GC.com is the rule maker and enforcer, the Wizard of OZ and the KGB. It is fully responsible for the game it has created with its website. It relies completely on the volunteer work of cache owners yet gives them no say and no respect. If the powers that be cared at all, they could pave the way for any number of improvements that would not cost a penny. Maybe someday they will. I guess that faint hope is the reason why some of us grumble here from time to time.

 

In the meantime, I am quite happy to ride my mountain bike or hike the woods without GPS in hand, and am especially happy not to spend fifty to one hundred hours a year performing diligent maintenance to keep my two hundred-plus cache stages (all now archived) in good shape.

 

.

[Andronicus]

And I'll say it again... "new" does not mean "smartphone". There are plenty of handheld gps users still joining the pastime. There are plenty of caches still published that many would consider "quality" by both smartphone cachers and handhelders. This blanket prejudice against "phones" in geocaching has to stop. Communities will of course be made up of different mixes of devices, skills, preferences and qualities the world over. Any one of our particular 'views' of the global geocaching community is not a view that can or should be applied to the whole.

 

Groundspeak does provide a listing service. It by definition is a service that lists geocaches. Yes, they provide boundaries, guidelines, and can shape perception by what they promote. But at the end of the day - the quality of geocaches being placed is 100% up to the cache owner. So make change in your community.

 

Naw, I'll go ahead and put myself out on a limb and say that as of July 2014, 99.8% of newbies are "phone newbies". I couldn't care less what they're using for a GPS, except for 1) their nearly universal tendency to post lame logs from the field on said smartphone and 2) their rather obvious lack of research and education into the game.

 

That's as opposed to someone who say Googled the word Geocaching in 2008. This has been said in other threads, and I'm beginning to believe it: A large percentage of these people think the cache fairy placed that container for them to find, and have no idea it was placed by another player just like themselves. Just for an example of lack of research and education.

When I started in 2009, there were none of the current slick phone apps. Only half baked option that didn't work very smoothly. I don't think Android was released yet at the time either. I found geocache by googleing it and reading the wikipedia page. I did a lot of reasurch before making my first find. I was however using my phone, with one of those half baked geocaching apps. (That old Windows Mobile phone was good when in cell phone coverage areas, if you didn't slow down; brisk walking only. Once you slowed down to try to identify GZ, static navigation would lock down the coordinates from updating. That was anoying...and made hiding caches tricky)

[+tozainamboku]

(That old Windows Mobile phone was good when in cell phone coverage areas, if you didn't slow down; brisk walking only. Once you slowed down to try to identify GZ, static navigation would lock down the coordinates from updating. That was anoying...and made hiding caches tricky)

I remember my old Magellan Meridian. It worked pretty well when you were walking a brisk pace as well. But when you slowed down it went into averaging mode. That gave it better accuracy if you were standing still, but if you were walking in one direction you were always a few steps ahead of the readout. That led to the dreaded overshoot. I'd go caching wieh a group of friends, they would all stop to search and I'd walk another 20 feet to where my GPSr zero'd out.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

All you gotta do is search by difficulty/terrain, or by favorite points to filter the caches that work for you. Whatever you want the game to be, its there. I've only been doing this a few years ... but I don't think its fair to say the game has changed, more than the game has expanded.

 

 

You've been playing the game for only three years so you are unable to know if it has changed. It has expanded in some ways while other elements have died. The fact is many of us cannot play the game we once played because it no longer exists.

 

 

Yes sir, believe emmett, it's changed. Here's an example, and I'll bet he knows about it. It was once very popular, in the U.S., to take and leave Where's George Dollars in Geocaches. To use them as sort of a de facto Travel Bug, so to speak. With the micro cache explosion, this practice is practically dead.

 

Totally besides the point, the owner of Where's George did not like "Geocache Bills", and if you mentioned Geocaching in your log for a bill, it would be relegated to that status, and not eligible for any statistics on that site. He even went so far as to register Geogeorging.com, which I see to this day redirects to Wheresgeorge.com. He was going to give us our own website!! But there was no need for that, as Geocaching "changed".

[+CardsFlyinHigh]

 

All you gotta do is search by difficulty/terrain, or by favorite points to filter the caches that work for you. Whatever you want the game to be, its there. I've only been doing this a few years ... but I don't think its fair to say the game has changed, more than the game has expanded.

 

 

You've been playing the game for only three years so you are unable to know if it has changed. It has expanded in some ways while other elements have died. The fact is many of us cannot play the game we once played because it no longer exists. You may continue to enjoy "your game" based on short walks to easy to find containers filled with junk. We no longer have walks to new, innovative caches that are harder to find.

 

Talked with a friend about this yesterday and there is no disputing the fact that unique, innovative, quality caches are not being published anymore, at least not in our region. We cannot think of one put out in the last two years anywhere remotely close to us.

 

 

I will give you that I don't know what it was like going back years. But it just seems that there is still something for everyone. The only time I do LPCs is with a group or to check off a calender day or new county. I prefer the hikes actually and the creative caches & containers. As for New great caches, it might just be a regional thing because close to where I'm at, there's still new caches published at good spots that are creative ideas or unique ideas.

 

All I was trying to say, and maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems that whatever cache you like finding, you can still go find them. Just have a lot of Guardrails and skirtlifters to filter through to find the good ones.

[+Ma & Pa]

And one of the good things about geocaching is that there is always a chance to get together with friends

 

 

.

[+fizzymagic]

I've been reflecting on this thread. About a year ago there was another thread about how peoples' geocaching priorities had changed. I made the claim in that thread that unless you change your priorities, you won't stay caching very long. I was roundly shouted down, with several people claiming that their goals (usually "a nice hike") were the same now as when they began caching.

 

Indeed, one of the posters who has been most vocal in their complaints in this thread said:

 

I'm sorry to say, but I do not see the link between changing priorities and the average rate at which one caches.

 

But it seems to me that this thread is making my point for me. I am what others in this thread would call an old-timer; I started caching in early 2002. I still am having a great time caching, but my goals and my caching style are completely different now from then. I have seen hundreds of cachers come into the game, get all excited, and burn out and leave after a couple of years.

 

Things have changed; that is undeniable. My claim is that those who are most upset by the changes are those who have chosen not to adapt their caching to the changes. In other words, those whose priorities have not changed.

 

Please don't lump all of us "old-timers" in with those who complain about how much better it was in the old days! There are many cachers who started in the relatively early days who are still having a great time.

[+dprovan]

You do not take paying customers who have invested time and energy that helped you build your business (there would be no geocaching without cache owners) and shut their caches down without warning, without discussion, without good reason. I've had the experience; I know others who have had the experience; and I surmise from posts in this forum that the problem is not at all uncommon.

This is new. Are you saying there's an active campaign to get rid of great caches? That's hard for me to believe, because great caches are still regularly published in my area -- where "great" is measured by the large, remote, and innovative standards those pining for the old days keep bringing up.

 

If you publish micros on lamp posts, you won't have the problem. If you dump a box of junk in the woods at indiscriminate locations, you won't have the problem. Nor would you care if your cache was shut down unexpectedly, since you really did not invest much in the process. But if you publish more interesting caches that require more attention to detail and require more maintenance, or if you go so far as to publish elaborate caching series, you will be much more likely to deal with the "Ivory Tower," and learn what those who have retired already know.

I'd appreciate it if you'd enlighten us. What does this Ivory Tower do, and what are their motives for not wanting interesting caches?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I've been reflecting on this thread. About a year ago there was another thread about how peoples' geocaching priorities had changed. I made the claim in that thread that unless you change your priorities, you won't stay caching very long. I was roundly shouted down, with several people claiming that their goals (usually "a nice hike") were the same now as when they began caching.

 

Indeed, one of the posters who has been most vocal in their complaints in this thread said:

 

I'm sorry to say, but I do not see the link between changing priorities and the average rate at which one caches.

 

But it seems to me that this thread is making my point for me. I am what others in this thread would call an old-timer; I started caching in early 2002. I still am having a great time caching, but my goals and my caching style are completely different now from then. I have seen hundreds of cachers come into the game, get all excited, and burn out and leave after a couple of years.

 

Things have changed; that is undeniable. My claim is that those who are most upset by the changes are those who have chosen not to adapt their caching to the changes. In other words, those whose priorities have not changed.

 

I am curious about how you have adapted to change? Have your priorities changed such that you're satisfied with finding easy, unimaginative hides placed within short distances of where you can park a vehicle? Have your priorities changes such that you're satisfied with finding fewer caches because you have to travel further and further to find caches of the type you enjoyed 10 years ago?

 

You can call it "changing ones priorities" I guess, but if "changing one's priorities" means I'm supposed to be satisfied with much of the dreck that's hidden these days I'm not going to lower my standards and find caches I don't enjoy and will choose to reduce the average rate that I find caches. I'm okay with not finding 300-400 (or 3000) caches a year.

[+Ambrosia]

I've been reflecting on this thread. About a year ago there was another thread about how peoples' geocaching priorities had changed. I made the claim in that thread that unless you change your priorities, you won't stay caching very long. I was roundly shouted down, with several people claiming that their goals (usually "a nice hike") were the same now as when they began caching.

 

Indeed, one of the posters who has been most vocal in their complaints in this thread said:

 

I'm sorry to say, but I do not see the link between changing priorities and the average rate at which one caches.

 

But it seems to me that this thread is making my point for me. I am what others in this thread would call an old-timer; I started caching in early 2002. I still am having a great time caching, but my goals and my caching style are completely different now from then. I have seen hundreds of cachers come into the game, get all excited, and burn out and leave after a couple of years.

 

Things have changed; that is undeniable. My claim is that those who are most upset by the changes are those who have chosen not to adapt their caching to the changes. In other words, those whose priorities have not changed.

 

Please don't lump all of us "old-timers" in with those who complain about how much better it was in the old days! There are many cachers who started in the relatively early days who are still having a great time.

I don't feel that my priorities have changed at all, with the exception that I realize that I can't find every cache out there (obviously). Maybe I live in magical geocaching land, but even with all the park and grabs popping up, there are still tons of wonderful caches out there. I will never be able to even touch them all, and that's ok with me. I'm still content with my caching experience, even after 12 years.

[+fizzymagic]

I am curious about how you have adapted to change? Have your priorities changed such that you're satisfied with finding easy, unimaginative hides placed within short distances of where you can park a vehicle? Have your priorities changes such that you're satisfied with finding fewer caches because you have to travel further and further to find caches of the type you enjoyed 10 years ago?

 

Neither. Quite the opposite. Except for the "finding fewer caches" part; the percentage of caches I find relative to the number put out has plummeted, though my raw rate is more or less constant.

 

I used to be excited to find every new cache that came out in my area; they tended to be hikes for each. Now I am extremely selective about which caches I choose to seek. But I have found new ways to locate those caches I will like.

 

For example, I now like to seek out "neglected" caches that have not been found in a year or more. Those tend to either be hard to reach (hikes) or hard puzzles. I get a certain charge out of being the first to see a cache after a couple of years.

 

I also do a lot of puzzle caches. The allure of finding LPCs never really got me, but an LPC after a good puzzle gives me a feeling of satisfaction. I can't explain why finding the cache after solving the puzzle works for me even if the cache hide is not great, but it does.

 

When I am traveling, I seek out caches that are unique or interesting. I enjoy cemetery cachs that take me to tiny little towns I would otherwise have skipped.

 

Last month I gave a shot at a power trail of challenge caches. It was fun for about 3.5 hours but then I'd had enough and quit. I probably won't do another of those any time soon, but at least I gave it a try.

 

My point is that one does not have to "lower one's standards" to try new things or to develop new ways of finding interesting caches. For me, the finding is part of the fun.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I am curious about how you have adapted to change? Have your priorities changed such that you're satisfied with finding easy, unimaginative hides placed within short distances of where you can park a vehicle? Have your priorities changes such that you're satisfied with finding fewer caches because you have to travel further and further to find caches of the type you enjoyed 10 years ago?

 

Neither. Quite the opposite. Except for the "finding fewer caches" part; the percentage of caches I find relative to the number put out has plummeted, though my raw rate is more or less constant.

 

I used to be excited to find every new cache that came out in my area; they tended to be hikes for each. Now I am extremely selective about which caches I choose to seek. But I have found new ways to locate those caches I will like.

 

For example, I now like to seek out "neglected" caches that have not been found in a year or more. Those tend to either be hard to reach (hikes) or hard puzzles. I get a certain charge out of being the first to see a cache after a couple of years.

 

I also do a lot of puzzle caches. The allure of finding LPCs never really got me, but an LPC after a good puzzle gives me a feeling of satisfaction. I can't explain why finding the cache after solving the puzzle works for me even if the cache hide is not great, but it does.

 

When I am traveling, I seek out caches that are unique or interesting. I enjoy cemetery cachs that take me to tiny little towns I would otherwise have skipped.

 

Last month I gave a shot at a power trail of challenge caches. It was fun for about 3.5 hours but then I'd had enough and quit. I probably won't do another of those any time soon, but at least I gave it a try.

 

My point is that one does not have to "lower one's standards" to try new things or to develop new ways of finding interesting caches. For me, the finding is part of the fun.

 

I don't know how you manage to do all that after over 10 years in the game without a fair amount of driving. About four years ago I was targeting caches that hadn't been found in over a year or so and identified maybe dozen within 40 miles. I got most of them. It seems to me, that if you live somewhere that doesn't get a steady influx of hard to reach caches or difficult puzzles you'll be driving some fairly significant distances to maintain that raw rate.

 

The approach that you take might be feasible where you live, but adapting to the changing environment might not be so simple in many other places. What works for you would not necessarily work for someone that lives in a environment much different than yours.

 

We get a fair amount of puzzles in my area but I haven't managed to get much satisfaction solving puzzle caches for an unimaginative hide.

 

For the most part, most of my geocaching in the last few years has been when I'm traveling. Over 50% of my finds over the last couple of years have been in another state or country. I can even tolerate a few unimaginative hides when they're in some place I've never visited. I've looking forward to finding a few caches in Austin, San Antonio, and Mexico City in about a week.

[+rdeg]

I understand your frustation. I have grandkids who like to geocache with me but they like finding treasure. They don't really mind what we adults would consider junk but they love finding a container full of something. Not these stupid micros and nanaos that people are hiding even in the wilderness or rural areas where a regular would be perfect. I am tired of find a bison tube hanging from bush when there could be a larger more interesting container. I also am sick and tired of cheaters. People who claim to find a cache, don't find the cache and then throw down there own container with their own log and then log it as found. They are nothing but cheaters and just want to see their numbers grow. I know of an Iowa geoacacher who has claimed thousands of finds and he is a cheater big time. I know this because he had done it to my caches. He did it to three of mine in one day! And they were there and had not even previously reported as not found. I was even geocaching in another state when I read in one of the logs I had found that the owner had been requested to check on his geocaches because there had been mutiple containters reported. I decided to read through those previous logs of his and who do you suppose had been there? Yep, you guessed it, Mr. Big numbers from Iowa had apparently contributed to the multiple containers. I reported him to the our Iowa administrator and nothing was done. You are right, this sport is not what is used to be.I have archived all of my geocaches and now I only go geocaching if my grandkids want to. I have lost interest. Too bad. It used to be fun. I have considered trying Open Caching, that is still an option possibly in the future.

[+Mudfrog]

I am curious about how you have adapted to change? Have your priorities changed such that you're satisfied with finding easy, unimaginative hides placed within short distances of where you can park a vehicle? Have your priorities changes such that you're satisfied with finding fewer caches because you have to travel further and further to find caches of the type you enjoyed 10 years ago?

 

Neither. Quite the opposite. Except for the "finding fewer caches" part; the percentage of caches I find relative to the number put out has plummeted, though my raw rate is more or less constant.

 

I used to be excited to find every new cache that came out in my area; they tended to be hikes for each. Now I am extremely selective about which caches I choose to seek. But I have found new ways to locate those caches I will like.

 

For example, I now like to seek out "neglected" caches that have not been found in a year or more. Those tend to either be hard to reach (hikes) or hard puzzles. I get a certain charge out of being the first to see a cache after a couple of years.

 

I also do a lot of puzzle caches. The allure of finding LPCs never really got me, but an LPC after a good puzzle gives me a feeling of satisfaction. I can't explain why finding the cache after solving the puzzle works for me even if the cache hide is not great, but it does.

 

When I am traveling, I seek out caches that are unique or interesting. I enjoy cemetery cachs that take me to tiny little towns I would otherwise have skipped.

 

Last month I gave a shot at a power trail of challenge caches. It was fun for about 3.5 hours but then I'd had enough and quit. I probably won't do another of those any time soon, but at least I gave it a try.

 

My point is that one does not have to "lower one's standards" to try new things or to develop new ways of finding interesting caches. For me, the finding is part of the fun.

 

I too used to go for every cache that came out in our area. The caches were generally more creative, challenging, or placed in cool areas during that time. During that time, the number of my unfound caches stayed below half a page within my 50 mile radius. But as time went by, the caches being hidden started becoming more and more the same style and type. Most of them micros hidden in uninteresting spots. Needless to say, my list of unfound caches within 50 miles now stands at over 500. I still get published notifications but i certainly don't get excited about them like i used to because i know pretty much what it is being published.

 

Like you, i do try to find caches that i think i will enjoy. Higher difficulty ratings are the first thing i look at. Then i look at a map to see if i can determine if it's in a parking lot or not. Usually i don't get past these two things but if i do, then there's a chance it might be something i'll find to my liking.

 

Also like you, it's fun for me to find caches that haven't been found in a while. I also like finding more difficult caches that have multiple dnfs pn them. Unfortunately, there aren't many of either of these around!

 

You are certainly right that we don't have to lower our standards. Only thing is, with today's newer caches, that pretty much means we stay home most of the time...

[cezanne]

My point is that one does not have to "lower one's standards" to try new things or to develop new ways of finding interesting caches. For me, the finding is part of the fun.

 

If you manage to keep your rate constant and do not need to lower your standards this means that you live in an area where still lot of caches are published that meet your preferences and/or that you are travelling a lot.

 

As I said, I look through all the caches that show up in a wide circle around my home (more than 80 km radius which in my country is quite a lot due to the topography and the road system).

 

If I just visit the cache I enjoy, I would probably end up with 30 finds per year which is not enough to keep me reasonably physically active.

[+dprovan]

If I just visit the cache I enjoy, I would probably end up with 30 finds per year which is not enough to keep me reasonably physically active.

So it's a good thing for your that people are putting out other caches instead of only the kind you enjoy.

 

Too bad all your friends stopped contributing, or you'd have more caches you'd enjoy, too.

[+ChangeGoneCome]

I have been thinking about the idea of there simply being different kinds of geocachers. This is a notion that I not only understand, but cherish as far as this community goes. There are many more types of cachers than the two that I will be bringing up, but for simplicity I will stick to just two. There is the type of cached who loves caching because of the journey to the cache and the scenery once one makes it to the desired location. I hear that this is where it all began and I am extremely thankful that the notion came along and people out in the world embraced it. There is a different kind of cached out there though, and I feel as though there are people who are being a bit too rigid in theirs ways when it comes to accepting such a hunter. Personally, I enjoy the urban cache. I love the notion that someone can be looking at a cache and not know that they are doing so unless they are truly looking for it. The idea that hundreds of people are passing by something that has been made to fit in with its surroundings but stick out to the seeking eye. Its a different type of experience, and it is an experience that I think is just a valuable. When someone first comes up with an idea for a hobby, other people will expand on that idea, and that is great! Back in the day when the bike was first created, it didn't have peddles and you needed a ladder to get onto the bike. It was meant for men. One day a woman decided to give it a try and from there came the bike peddle, and the lowering of the front wheel. Thank goodness folks were willing to branch out within their notion of what a bike was. Now there are all types of bikes. I have my own preference, but I think that its great that others who may prefer a different style can choose it without being looked down upon. If you are looking for something specific from a cache, then do the work to find the kind that you like. I made sure to do the research before I go out to make sure that it is the kind of cache that is up my alley. I encouraged others to do the same. Acceptance can be hard, but we will all be better people for it. I could now go in to people looking down on those who use the GPS on their phones rather than other methods, but you get the idea. Happy Hunting!!!!!

[+dprovan]

I have been thinking about the idea of there simply being different kinds of geocachers.

I think there are as many types of geocachers as there are geocachers. But in a conversation like this one, I start to see geocachers split into a different two groups: those that look for the fun in every cache and those that look for the problems with every cache. So we have people like fizzymagic who looks for caches he'd enjoy and doesn't worry about the others, and then we have people like cezanne who wants to have caches to find because they get him out exercising, but then tells us it isn't working for him because even though there are plenty of caches to use for that purpose, they aren't the kind of caches he wants to look for.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

Finally, in response to someone else who says that GC.com is "just a listing service" and therefore not to blame for the decline in quality. Look again. GC.com is the rule maker and enforcer, the Wizard of OZ and the KGB. It is fully responsible for the game it has created with its website. It relies completely on the volunteer work of cache owners yet gives them no say and no respect..

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that when a unique, creative cache is published, it's because the cache owner went above and beyond (which they did) and then say that when a LPC is published, it's because Groundspeak is the KGB and it has dragged the game down into the mud. Both the LPC and the creative cache have an owner. Both caches met the guidelines, so both caches were published. Groundspeak is not holding a gun to anyones head to make them hide lame micros nor are they taking away the tools to create innovative, interesting caches. The cache owners are the ones in control of either of those scenarios. Any cache owner who is "creative" will be able to create a cache within the guidelines and get it published.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Finally, in response to someone else who says that GC.com is "just a listing service" and therefore not to blame for the decline in quality. Look again. GC.com is the rule maker and enforcer, the Wizard of OZ and the KGB. It is fully responsible for the game it has created with its website. It relies completely on the volunteer work of cache owners yet gives them no say and no respect..

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that when a unique, creative cache is published, it's because the cache owner went above and beyond (which they did) and then say that when a LPC is published, it's because Groundspeak is the KGB and it has dragged the game down into the mud. Both the LPC and the creative cache have an owner. Both caches met the guidelines, so both caches were published. Groundspeak is not holding a gun to anyones head to make them hide lame micros nor are they taking away the tools to create innovative, interesting caches. The cache owners are the ones in control of either of those scenarios. Any cache owner who is "creative" will be able to create a cache within the guidelines and get it published.

The issue goes back to virtual caches. When Groundspeak wanted to limit the number of virtual cache they introduce a "wow" requirement. I suspect what some people are asking for is a "wow" requirement for physical caches. It could be the "wow-ness" of the location, or the "wow-ness of the hide/camo used. They fail to recall that Groundspeak and the reviewers found "wow" was unworkable even for virtual caches. How could reviewers feel comfortable if they were to have to decide which caches could be published based on a subjective "wow"?

[cezanne]

So we have people like fizzymagic who looks for caches he'd enjoy and doesn't worry about the others, and then we have people like cezanne who wants to have caches to find because they get him out exercising, but then tells us it isn't working for him because even though there are plenty of caches to use for that purpose, they aren't the kind of caches he wants to look for.

 

It is not true that they are plenty of caches which can be used for this purpose without having to invest quite some planning effort and I have to live with a number of further inconveniences. fizzymagic has found more caches than I have found and if the proportion of the caches he enjoys among them is so high as it appears to be, then he is an situation where it is easy not to care about the caches that do not appeal to him or are not suitable to him.

 

It also needs to be taken into account that fizzymagic has a filled 81 D/T grid so apparently is able to deal with really difficult terrain which I'm not. The changes that happened in my geocaching community have led almost cachers with similar preferences than mine to either stop hiding caches or to only hide caches that I cannot get due to too challenging terrain in order to limit down the number of visits and to improve the log quality and end up with a similar situation as in the early years for much simpler caches.

 

If one style of caching does not cut out another, then the different styles can easily coexist. This is however not the case in the situation I'm facing.

Edited July 30, 2014 by cezanne

[+emmett]

 

Finally, in response to someone else who says that GC.com is "just a listing service" and therefore not to blame for the decline in quality. Look again. GC.com is the rule maker and enforcer, the Wizard of OZ and the KGB. It is fully responsible for the game it has created with its website. It relies completely on the volunteer work of cache owners yet gives them no say and no respect..

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that when a unique, creative cache is published, it's because the cache owner went above and beyond (which they did) and then say that when a LPC is published, it's because Groundspeak is the KGB and it has dragged the game down into the mud. Both the LPC and the creative cache have an owner. Both caches met the guidelines, so both caches were published. Groundspeak is not holding a gun to anyones head to make them hide lame micros nor are they taking away the tools to create innovative, interesting caches. The cache owners are the ones in control of either of those scenarios. Any cache owner who is "creative" will be able to create a cache within the guidelines and get it published.

 

You really did not read what I wrote carefully or take any time to think about it.

 

First, I did not say Groundspeak dragged the game in the mud because of LPCs. But since you bring it up, it is true that the image of the game has been tarnished because of them and Groundspeak allowed that to happen. They could easily maintain a great site while creating some minimal standards for cache quality. I think LPCs are foolish but they have no affect on me, so that is not the issue I have been addressing. I am talking about the death of high quality caches not the growth of crappy caches.

 

Second, you wrote, "Any cache owner who is 'creative' will be able to create a cache within the guidelines and get it published." This is not really true. I published a series that met the guidelines and was active for years with no problem whatsoever, then suddenly it was shutdown without just cause or discussion. Others have had varying examples of the same issue. Of course, you will say, there must be something more, as if we are being dishonest when we tell of our experience. Don't bother. If you don't know the facts, don't wrongly assume.

 

Third, the rules are constantly changing, sometimes a cache that conforms today, can be in violation of the rules tomorrow. Why would I invest extra time in making a high quality cache knowing some lackey might shut it down tomorrow? Given my experience with Groundspeak, I have no confidence that any common sense discretion will be used, especially considering they shut down a series that was in full compliance.

 

Fourth, the rules discourage quality and inhibit creativity and are rigid. The cache owners are not in control (as you say) the rules are in control, as arbitrarily enforced by Groundspeak. The most highly rated cache in our area was shut down several years ago for no good reason. There was a fair argument to be made that a stage was in violation of a guideline but, in reality, it was in perfect compliance with the spirit of the guidelines. There was no problem to solve, no reason to shut it down. A reasonable conversation could have led to a better result. Once again, someone will surely say there must be more to it. Don’t be ignorant and wrongly assume. I do not know one person who found that cache who agrees with what Groundspeak did.

 

Finally, high quality caches require extra time and effort to create and maintain. As is evidenced by all the crappy caches out there, most people won’t go the extra mile, let alone and extra foot. If Groundspeak cared about quality, it would be a simple matter to create incentives that would encourage more effort. Instead, they have done the opposite by showing blatant disrespect to many people who have gone above and beyond. Think about how ridiculous it is ... I can invest two minutes of energy and put out a lame parking lot or guardrail cache every day and never hear from a lackey. Instead, I pay money for a membership, I pay money for needed supplies and stash, and I put out an innovative series that conforms with the guidelines and work hard to maintain it diligently, and the lackey tells me to go pound sand.

 

.

Edited July 30, 2014 by emmett

[+TerraViators]

I'm not complaining that some people play the game with the purpose of achieving a high find count. I'm complaining that the growing trend to play the game with the purpose of achieving a high count is making it more and more difficult to play the game any other way, and when such a complaint is made, the response is, "you're not achieving a high find count, you should quit the game".

 

 

I'm still confused. How does my find count interfere with how you play the game? Is it because you feel embarrassed that my find count is 10 times your find count? Quite frankly I really don't care what your find count is. It matters not the slightest to me.

 

Then why is there such an uproar when someone suggests that they do away with the visible find count or just show a ball park figure (under 500, 500-1000, over 1000)? Those who don't want their find count displayed can't play the game the way they want to....they must be included in the 'score' so people can have something to compete against.

That is interesting. There are ways to deal with not wanting to display a find count...stop e-logging, or just write note logs.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm not complaining that some people play the game with the purpose of achieving a high find count. I'm complaining that the growing trend to play the game with the purpose of achieving a high count is making it more and more difficult to play the game any other way, and when such a complaint is made, the response is, "you're not achieving a high find count, you should quit the game".

 

 

I'm still confused. How does my find count interfere with how you play the game? Is it because you feel embarrassed that my find count is 10 times your find count? Quite frankly I really don't care what your find count is. It matters not the slightest to me.

 

Then why is there such an uproar when someone suggests that they do away with the visible find count or just show a ball park figure (under 500, 500-1000, over 1000)? Those who don't want their find count displayed can't play the game the way they want to....they must be included in the 'score' so people can have something to compete against.

That is interesting. There are ways to deal with not wanting to display a find count...stop e-logging, or just write note logs.

 

This is always the fall back answer - Don't want your find count displayed then don't log your finds. As a cache owner that pat answer bothers me a lot. I would not encourage people not to log their finds. I would find ways to make people feel comfortable about logging. It's the logs that keep me interested in cache ownership (I suppose the pat answer to that would be 'then quit hiding geocaches').

 

I do not care about the specific number of caches someone has found (anything over 250 caches tells me they are reasonably experienced). I feel the find count 'score' is one of the aspects of the site that has contributed to the increasing emphasis on numbers.

 

[+TerraViators]

I'm not complaining that some people play the game with the purpose of achieving a high find count. I'm complaining that the growing trend to play the game with the purpose of achieving a high count is making it more and more difficult to play the game any other way, and when such a complaint is made, the response is, "you're not achieving a high find count, you should quit the game".

 

 

I'm still confused. How does my find count interfere with how you play the game? Is it because you feel embarrassed that my find count is 10 times your find count? Quite frankly I really don't care what your find count is. It matters not the slightest to me.

 

Then why is there such an uproar when someone suggests that they do away with the visible find count or just show a ball park figure (under 500, 500-1000, over 1000)? Those who don't want their find count displayed can't play the game the way they want to....they must be included in the 'score' so people can have something to compete against.

That is interesting. There are ways to deal with not wanting to display a find count...stop e-logging, or just write note logs.

 

This is always the fall back answer - Don't want your find count displayed then don't log your finds. As a cache owner that pat answer bothers me a lot. I would not encourage people not to log their finds. I would find ways to make people feel comfortable about logging. It's the logs that keep me interested in cache ownership (I suppose the pat answer to that would be 'then quit hiding geocaches').

 

I do not care about the specific number of caches someone has found (anything over 250 caches tells me they are reasonably experienced). I feel the find count 'score' is one of the aspects of the site that has contributed to the increasing emphasis on numbers.

I understand your point but I don't see a published find count a 'score' of any kind. What about cached hides? Is that count a score, also? What about logs? Some folks might use it as a score..."I write better logs than these guys over here." I don't understand how a public find count contributes to a numbers obsession.

 

That being said, I also would not object to an unpublished count, a published range or the choice to hide your own count.

[+colleda]

 

Finally, in response to someone else who says that GC.com is "just a listing service" and therefore not to blame for the decline in quality. Look again. GC.com is the rule maker and enforcer, the Wizard of OZ and the KGB. It is fully responsible for the game it has created with its website. It relies completely on the volunteer work of cache owners yet gives them no say and no respect..

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that when a unique, creative cache is published, it's because the cache owner went above and beyond (which they did) and then say that when a LPC is published, it's because Groundspeak is the KGB and it has dragged the game down into the mud. Both the LPC and the creative cache have an owner. Both caches met the guidelines, so both caches were published. Groundspeak is not holding a gun to anyones head to make them hide lame micros nor are they taking away the tools to create innovative, interesting caches. The cache owners are the ones in control of either of those scenarios. Any cache owner who is "creative" will be able to create a cache within the guidelines and get it published.

 

You really did not read what I wrote carefully or take any time to think about it.

 

First, I did not say Groundspeak dragged the game in the mud because of LPCs. But since you bring it up, it is true that the image of the game has been tarnished because of them and Groundspeak allowed that to happen. They could easily maintain a great site while creating some minimal standards for cache quality. I think LPCs are foolish but they have no affect on me, so that is not the issue I have been addressing. I am talking about the death of high quality caches not the growth of crappy caches.

 

Second, you wrote, "Any cache owner who is 'creative' will be able to create a cache within the guidelines and get it published." This is not really true. I published a series that met the guidelines and was active for years with no problem whatsoever, then suddenly it was shutdown without just cause or discussion. Others have had varying examples of the same issue. Of course, you will say, there must be something more, as if we are being dishonest when we tell of our experience. Don't bother. If you don't know the facts, don't wrongly assume.

 

Third, the rules are constantly changing, sometimes a cache that conforms today, can be in violation of the rules tomorrow. Why would I invest extra time in making a high quality cache knowing some lackey might shut it down tomorrow? Given my experience with Groundspeak, I have no confidence that any common sense discretion will be used, especially considering they shut down a series that was in full compliance.

 

Fourth, the rules discourage quality and inhibit creativity and are rigid. The cache owners are not in control (as you say) the rules are in control, as arbitrarily enforced by Groundspeak. The most highly rated cache in our area was shut down several years ago for no good reason. There was a fair argument to be made that a stage was in violation of a guideline but, in reality, it was in perfect compliance with the spirit of the guidelines. There was no problem to solve, no reason to shut it down. A reasonable conversation could have led to a better result. Once again, someone will surely say there must be more to it. Don’t be ignorant and wrongly assume. I do not know one person who found that cache who agrees with what Groundspeak did.

 

Finally, high quality caches require extra time and effort to create and maintain. As is evidenced by all the crappy caches out there, most people won’t go the extra mile, let alone and extra foot. If Groundspeak cared about quality, it would be a simple matter to create incentives that would encourage more effort. Instead, they have done the opposite by showing blatant disrespect to many people who have gone above and beyond. Think about how ridiculous it is ... I can invest two minutes of energy and put out a lame parking lot or guardrail cache every day and never hear from a lackey. Instead, I pay money for a membership, I pay money for needed supplies and stash, and I put out an innovative series that conforms with the guidelines and work hard to maintain it diligently, and the lackey tells me to go pound sand.

 

.

Most of your caches were archived years ago, the last sometime in 2013? Why are you still here? Do you miss GC on the other site?