New vs. Old Geocaching

[+Mudfrog]

I do quite a bit of looking "within" and definitely see a difference between new and old. One of the ways i've tried to adapt is to pretty much only go for caches i think will be interesting to me. Unfortunately, these are few and far between now days. I really don't mind putting some effort into searching out these caches but it is a bit disheartening when so very few come up. I really feel that numbers are what drive most people these days. Geocaching is no longer about location. It's now a game to see how many you can get. Not really anything wrong if this is the game you want to play (majority rules i suppose) but it's not worth a hoot for us who desire quality, creativity, challenge, and/or nice location.

So defeatist.

 

They are out there.

Geocaching, as a whole, is far from being about the numbers. There are some who play that way, who focus on that, yes. There are many newcomers who don't 'get' how things used to be done, yes. But there IS most definitely still quality, creativity, challenge, and certainly nice location. I hate it when people compare the "past" with the "new" and imply somehow those properties are rare if not non-existent. I'm presuming you weren't meaning to say that on the greater scale, but that's the way it comes off when you saying something like "it's not worth a hoot for us who desire quality, creativity, challenge, and/or nice location". Dude. LOADS of us still do, and there's still loads of it out there! If you do prefer that, then continue to promote it, encourage it, and play it that way. There's is absolutely nothing stopping you/us from doing so.

 

Actually, that's pretty much what i'm saying. Not non-existent, but it's rare to see a new cache come out in my area that's hidden in a manner that i find interesting in some way.

 

Just ran a query and see that there are 670 caches within a 50 mile radius that i haven't found. Filtered through them and guess what, only 1, 13 miles away, looks as though it might be slightly interesting to me. Other than this one, and a couple of events, the next is over 40 miles away. There may be LOADS of good caches out there but let's face it, i'd have to do LOADS of traveling to get to them. My current situation doesn't allow that...

Edited November 14, 2014 by Mudfrog

[+thebruce0]

*shrug* whatchagonnado

The problem is very, very subjective.

[+MKFmly]

I really don't mind putting some effort into searching out these caches but it is a bit disheartening when so very few come up. I really feel that numbers are what drive most people these days. Geocaching is no longer about location. It's now a game to see how many you can get. Not really anything wrong if this is the game you want to play (majority rules i suppose) but it's not worth a hoot for us who desire quality, creativity, challenge, and/or nice location.

That statement illustrates your perception and attitude and shows how you have changed and perceive the activity differently.

 

CR states it well.

If you judge your accomplishments based on others', then you'll often feel disappointed. The view from the high peak is still spectacular, even when many people enjoy it. And if you climb up the side of the mountain to get there, then you get to enjoy the journey as well. Seems like a win-win situation to me.

 

If cachers start looking within they may just find there is no difference between "New vs. Old".

If you examine the logs of new versus old, you may find there is a difference.

Sure, but not as big as you would expect especially taking off the rose coloured glasses. The only logs I control or worry about are OUR logs and they are the same or better...

 

Filtered through them and guess what, only 1, 13 miles away, looks as though it might be slightly interesting to me. Other than this one, and a couple of events, the next is over 40 miles away. There may be LOADS of good caches out there but let's face it, i'd have to do LOADS of traveling to get to them. My current situation doesn't allow that...

You know from what's often posted on the forum that describes the "good ole" days exactly... and the cache may not even have been interesting...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

If cachers start looking within they may just find there is no difference between "New vs. Old".

If you examine the logs of new versus old, you may find there is a difference.

Sure, but not as big as you would expect especially taking off the rose coloured glasses. The only logs I control or worry about are OUR logs and they are the same or better...

 

 

And that is a difference between the old and the new. It used to be that logs were written to "share your experience" and could be enjoyed by the CO and others that just like to read interesting logs. Now they're just an obligatory step done in order to get credit for a find.

 

 

 

[+thebruce0]

And that is a difference between the old and the new. It used to be that logs were written to "share your experience" and could be enjoyed by the CO and others that just like to read interesting logs. Now they're just an obligatory step done in order to get credit for a find.

No, that is what some people do. (and I don't think you'd disagree with that)

Again, promote and encourage better logging in that aspect too. There is zero reason why it has to be that way overall. It got that way for whatever reason over time, not due to any imposed limitation, but natural progression; entropy, if you will. There's no reason why logs can't be "share your experience" content - digital OR written (where possible). So don't do that yourself. If others (newcomers) find it interesting, or others are inspired by reading such, then they may start to do it themselves. If not, they won't.

I still see plenty of interesting logs with effort put into the content. I also see plenty of lazy/one-word/one-phrase/strange logs posted. It's not that the former is less, it's that the former appears relatively fewer when compared to the latter - yet there's more of both.

 

Because of this great increase of Everything worldwide, there will of course be greater ranges of styles and habits from region to region. It's faulty to presume that because one person's area is 'bad', that that's the state of the hobby Everywhere. It's just as faulty to presume that if everything's all fine and dandy in one reason, that there's no issue in any region. It's all very subjective. It's unfortunate that some people may live in an area where difficulties abound... but you can either complain, take your ball and go home, tell them kids to get Off Your Lawn, or do what you can to help improve your local area and region by promoting what you feel is 'better' for the hobby.

Edited November 14, 2014 by thebruce0

[+wmpastor]

A natural progression of growing popularity. Cache density was inevitable.

Well then let's stop the progression - or like global warming, it will get out of hand. Or is this about money-money-money?!

 

[Mr.Yuck]

 

If cachers start looking within they may just find there is no difference between "New vs. Old".

If you examine the logs of new versus old, you may find there is a difference.

Sure, but not as big as you would expect especially taking off the rose coloured glasses. The only logs I control or worry about are OUR logs and they are the same or better...

 

 

And that is a difference between the old and the new. It used to be that logs were written to "share your experience" and could be enjoyed by the CO and others that just like to read interesting logs. Now they're just an obligatory step done in order to get credit for a find.

 

Exactly! Who friggin' cares if I can't control them, and what does that even have to do with the subject at hand? I like the old ones better. And don't even try to tell me that haven't changed. Not that it's any of us "old people" logging caches with "Tftc", "Found it", "Got it" "Nice one", "Woohoo", ":-)" or "". That last one is a totally blank log, by the way.

[4wheelin_fool]

This isn't even debatable. It has changed, and people who have joined in 2009 and after haven't noticed it too much and don't want to believe it. Yes, the original game is still there to be found, but if you hide something deep in the woods less people will go out to look for it, despite the growth. More people will log it with 3 words or less, which was very rare before 2005, and it will be more likely to get muggled or left out in the open. The change is obvious.

[+Mudfrog]

I really don't mind putting some effort into searching out these caches but it is a bit disheartening when so very few come up. I really feel that numbers are what drive most people these days. Geocaching is no longer about location. It's now a game to see how many you can get. Not really anything wrong if this is the game you want to play (majority rules i suppose) but it's not worth a hoot for us who desire quality, creativity, challenge, and/or nice location.

That statement illustrates your perception and attitude and shows how you have changed and perceive the activity differently.

 

 

Do what? Yes i have developed an attitude/opinion, but it's not because i've change. I am not imagining or perceiving that our hobby is played differently these days. Geocaching has changed, and imo, some of this change is for the worse.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I've read every post and find I agree with almost all of them.

I love the new technology and how easy it is to load up and go and the vast increase in caches placed allowing me to continue to enjoy the game and go to new places.

But I miss the simplicity of the early years when geocaching was a " cloak and dagger " game that attracted true outdoor types.

I'm going to vote that I like things better but it was a close vote.

[Mr.Yuck]

This isn't even debatable. It has changed, and people who have joined in 2009 and after haven't noticed it too much and don't want to believe it. Yes, the original game is still there to be found, but if you hide something deep in the woods less people will go out to look for it, despite the growth. More people will log it with 3 words or less, which was very rare before 2005, and it will be more likely to get muggled or left out in the open. The change is obvious.

 

These "how it used to be" threads kill me man. And don't worry, my knickers aren't in a twist or anything, but I'm dying here. How's this, MKFmly: one day (and the news literally came out one day), Groundspeak decided in early 2010 that Power Trails, previously banned, would be allowed. Here is a one cache from one of the first Power Trails. You might note it only lasted 6 weeks, before the BLM demanded the trail be removed.

 

And furthermore, yes, one can still have an old time caching experience. My last find was a .96 mile round trip hike to a lock-n-lock in the woods with a 150 elevation loss (i.e. downhill on the way there, uphill on the way back). Who is debating I can't still cache like that? No one is debating that.

[+Mudfrog]

This isn't even debatable. It has changed, and people who have joined in 2009 and after haven't noticed it too much and don't want to believe it. Yes, the original game is still there to be found, but if you hide something deep in the woods less people will go out to look for it, despite the growth. More people will log it with 3 words or less, which was very rare before 2005, and it will be more likely to get muggled or left out in the open. The change is obvious.

 

These "how it used to be" threads kill me man. And don't worry, my knickers aren't in a twist or anything, but I'm dying here. How's this, MKFmly: one day (and the news literally came out one day), Groundspeak decided in early 2010 that Power Trails, previously banned, would be allowed. Here is a one cache from one of the first Power Trails. You might note it only lasted 6 weeks, before the BLM demanded the trail be removed.

 

And furthermore, yes, one can still have an old time caching experience. My last find was a .96 mile round trip hike to a lock-n-lock in the woods with a 150 elevation loss (i.e. downhill on the way there, uphill on the way back). Who is debating I can't still cache like that? No one is debating that.

 

Agreed, we can still find woodsie, creative, challenging, and other caches that have thought put into them. I maintain however, that even though there are tons more caches placed today, that the ratio of caches like these, versus caches placed simply to up smiley count, is alot lower than what it used to be.

 

Just a guesstimate but for example: Out of 100 caches placed 10 years ago, i'd conservatively say that half were placed with a bit of thought put into them. These days, you're lucky if you get 2 or 3 out of that 100.

[+dprovan]

Just a guesstimate but for example: Out of 100 caches placed 10 years ago, i'd conservatively say that half were placed with a bit of thought put into them. These days, you're lucky if you get 2 or 3 out of that 100.

As I always like to point out, although the ratios may be 50/50 vs 2/98, that 2% planted today is still 10 times as many caches as the 50% from 10 years ago represents.

[Mr.Yuck]

Just a guesstimate but for example: Out of 100 caches placed 10 years ago, i'd conservatively say that half were placed with a bit of thought put into them. These days, you're lucky if you get 2 or 3 out of that 100.

As I always like to point out, although the ratios may be 50/50 vs 2/98, that 2% planted today is still 10 times as many caches as the 50% from 10 years ago represents.

 

In my experience, no, I don't necessarily think there are more of them. Another example, what I stated as my last find a few posts ago is no longer my last find. I just got back from pretty much the only "small in the woods" within 10 miles of my home coordinates that is not found. Pretty much everything else, other than puzzles or multi's, is found or ignored.

[+Mudfrog]

Just a guesstimate but for example: Out of 100 caches placed 10 years ago, i'd conservatively say that half were placed with a bit of thought put into them. These days, you're lucky if you get 2 or 3 out of that 100.

As I always like to point out, although the ratios may be 50/50 vs 2/98, that 2% planted today is still 10 times as many caches as the 50% from 10 years ago represents.

 

I guess i need to change my numbers then. Let's say 50% back then,,, .002% now.

I'll put it another way. Back in the day, 10 good caches might be published in a month's time in our area. Today, even though there are more total caches hidden, we're lucky to see 1 or 2 good ones a month.

[+gpsblake]

There are more so-called classic geocaches in the woods then anytime in history. You can still play the game that way if you like.

 

We all know there has been an explosive growth in caches, especially urban and power trail caches.

 

But the biggest difference is the technology. In 2003, there were no geocaching maps outside of one 3rd party and even those only gave you the general area, not street level and often outdated. There was no software to show your county maps, Delorme maps, etc. There was no GSAK. A good chance you were printing out geocaching details on paper and even hand keying each and every geocache coordinate.

 

In 2003, you didn't have a paperless GPSr unit or a smart phone. Geocachers looking for old Palm units were all the rage, as it was one of the few devices that could read a gpx file in the field. Your GPS unit was black and white, the only color units were horrible with only 16 colors to choose from.

 

Back in 2003, any coordinates under 50 feet were acceptable, today people complain if they are off 15 feet.

[vagabond]

First cache I did in Feb. 2001 was dead on,that was with an old Lowrance

global nav 212. I think a lot of the complaints were caused by the early etrex series, my lowrance an my maggy gold were both excellent units very accurate. I tried a etrex legend to compare with the gold and it was always off compared to the gold

[Mr.Yuck]

There are more so-called classic geocaches in the woods then anytime in history. You can still play the game that way if you like.

 

We all know there has been an explosive growth in caches, especially urban and power trail caches.

 

But the biggest difference is the technology. In 2003, there were no geocaching maps outside of one 3rd party and even those only gave you the general area, not street level and often outdated. There was no software to show your county maps, Delorme maps, etc. There was no GSAK. A good chance you were printing out geocaching details on paper and even hand keying each and every geocache coordinate.

 

In 2003, you didn't have a paperless GPSr unit or a smart phone. Geocachers looking for old Palm units were all the rage, as it was one of the few devices that could read a gpx file in the field. Your GPS unit was black and white, the only color units were horrible with only 16 colors to choose from.

 

Back in 2003, any coordinates under 50 feet were acceptable, today people complain if they are off 15 feet.

 

I said in another thread very recently that the Palm OS was already on the decline when people were using them for paperless caching. I remember I used to tell people to look for Handsprings on Ebay, rather than Palm's, because very few people knew they used the PalmOS, and you could get a better deal.

 

OK, people probably think myself and Mudfrog are nuts. Allow me to explain. We have a system where people find caches, mark them as found, and forget about them. I do not believe the Frequency of old school caches in the woods placements has increased one bit over time. And keep in mind, I'm talking about my home region. Sure, a park with miles of hiking trails might have 20 caches in it, but 8 years ago, there were 10 parks with two caches in them. And I had to drive all over the place to find them, I might add.

[+briansnat]

Just a guesstimate but for example: Out of 100 caches placed 10 years ago, i'd conservatively say that half were placed with a bit of thought put into them. These days, you're lucky if you get 2 or 3 out of that 100.

As I always like to point out, although the ratios may be 50/50 vs 2/98, that 2% planted today is still 10 times as many caches as the 50% from 10 years ago represents.

 

That might be true but it makes them so much harder to find among all the chaff. I used to be able to load up my GPS and walk out the door pick random caches and more often than not be taken somewhere interesting. Now I look at my GPS and see hundreds of caches and really have no clue which are worth bothering with. I guess I could spend hours at home preparing for my outing by researching the the caches, but sitting at home is not why I got into this. Sometimes I concentrate on higher terrain caches hoping they will bring me somewhere worth visiting. Seeing a T4 recently got my hopes up, but This is what I found when I arrived.

 

I'm with the OP in many respects. I miss the time when every new cache was something special and people would come from far and wide to find it. Your "local geocaching community" may have included people from several states.

 

I miss reading about the adventures of others in the logbook while sitting at the cache site and I miss receiving interesting online logs on my caches. Even a T4 adventure more often than not garners nothing than a "TFTC" these days.

 

I miss being able to go to events and discuss common adventures and experiences, because too often most of the people I meet these days are only interested in talking about their numbers and the latest power trail. I have nothing in common with them, in a geocaching sense at least.

 

I miss the majority of caches being worthwhile for more than just a +1, and being able to go geocaching without all sorts of preparation.

 

I miss that at one time most of us were pretty much playing the same game. Now we have armchair logging, throwdowns, multi logging events, the concept of a smiley being a commodity instead just a log type, FTFs on new caches being given out as door prizes, caches being brought to you instead of you going to find them, and so many other things that really have little to do with actually going out and finding geocaches.

 

I don't miss the piles of printed cache pages in my car, on my desk and in my pack.

 

I don't miss the GPS units that lost their signal the moment you stepped into the woods.

 

I don't miss my Palm, with Cachemate when I decided to go "paperless"

Edited November 17, 2014 by briansnat

[+cerberus1]

Just a guesstimate but for example: Out of 100 caches placed 10 years ago, i'd conservatively say that half were placed with a bit of thought put into them. These days, you're lucky if you get 2 or 3 out of that 100.

As I always like to point out, although the ratios may be 50/50 vs 2/98, that 2% planted today is still 10 times as many caches as the 50% from 10 years ago represents.

 

That might be true but it makes them so much harder to find among all the chaff. I used to be able to load up my GPS and walk out the door pick random caches and more often than not be taken somewhere interesting. Now I look at my GPS and see hundreds of caches and really have no clue which are worth bothering with. I guess I could spend hours at home preparing for my outing by researching the the caches, but sitting at home is not why I got into this. Sometimes I concentrate on higher terrain caches hoping them will bring me somewhere worth visiting.

+1

We were filtering out the 1 to 1.5 in terrain caches that have taken over the area.

Turned out a local known for great spots (and usually a good walk) was making his the same ("they were on a trail"...) and we missed 'em.

We hadn't noticed until he asked (meeting me at another) why I didn't go.

- So we can't even weed out the carp by terrain.

Spend the time on cache pages...

If we were able to find that supposed 2% today, it could be fun again.

[+tozainamboku]

I miss that at one time most of us were pretty much playing the same game.

Maybe. But at least when I started in So. California in February 2003, there was already people playing this as a numbers games. Most new caches were urban hides, many with comments like "this area needs more caches" and many players had stopped looking for anything that took more than jumping out of the car and walking a few feet to get to.

 

Sure there was still a high percentage of of caches in the mountains or even in local parks, but I can remember the cache hidden around the corner in a newrack a few weeks after I joined, and the one in the shopping cart return at a nearby supermarket. I remember on that one wondering why there instead of at the park .25 miles away which had no caches at that time. I would say that by 2003 the changes you bemoan had already taken place (at least in certain areas).

 

The whole discussion of absolute numbers of certain kinds of caches vs. the ratio of caches reminds me of the contrarian position I take on Favorite points. People tend to give far too much importance to averages.

 

Clearly, the numbers types will hide a lot more caches - since the purpose for them is to have more caches to find. Even if they account for only a small portion of the geocaching community, there are likely to swamp the other kinds of hiders. One thing that has changed are the tools to help select caches. Pocket Queries, attributes, and favorite points make it easier than ever to find caches that have something to offer beyond the smiley. Even the maps are better. It's easy to tell if a cache is in a park or in a parking lot. And if you see a string of caches following a back-country road, you have a good idea that it's a powertrail.

[Mr.Yuck]

I miss that at one time most of us were pretty much playing the same game.

Maybe. But at least when I started in So. California in February 2003, there was already people playing this as a numbers games. Most new caches were urban hides, many with comments like "this area needs more caches" and many players had stopped looking for anything that took more than jumping out of the car and walking a few feet to get to.

 

Sure there was still a high percentage of of caches in the mountains or even in local parks, but I can remember the cache hidden around the corner in a newrack a few weeks after I joined, and the one in the shopping cart return at a nearby supermarket. I remember on that one wondering why there instead of at the park .25 miles away which had no caches at that time. I would say that by 2003 the changes you bemoan had already taken place (at least in certain areas).

 

 

That brings up a good point. I'm from the Northeast, and when people like me say "caches in the woods", that doesn't apply to many area's out west. It does probably apply to most of the U.S. and Canada, but some of you westerner's know what we mean.

 

There was some occasional crap when I started in my area, that's for sure. But that was generally due to poor containers, and lack of maintenance. Pretty much everything was in a park or along a bike trail. Believe me, there were only a couple hundred caches in my 50 mile radius (I'm ignoring Canada, which I live 6 miles from), and If I hadn't found them, I had pretty much looked at all of them on the maps (the long forgotten Buxley's Geocaching maps). The first LPC in my area, maybe 15 miles from my house, wasn't placed until February 2005. And it's cache page most definitely said the idea was borrowed after caching in a not to be named City 90 miles to the South, where that thing had already caught on.

[+thebruce0]

But I miss the simplicity of the early years when geocaching was a " cloak and dagger " game that attracted true outdoor types.

It still is and it still does.

Just maybe not as much, relatively speaking, as you like or remember.

 

Just a guesstimate but for example: Out of 100 caches placed 10 years ago, i'd conservatively say that half were placed with a bit of thought put into them. These days, you're lucky if you get 2 or 3 out of that 100.

As I always like to point out, although the ratios may be 50/50 vs 2/98, that 2% planted today is still 10 times as many caches as the 50% from 10 years ago represents.

In my experience, no, I don't necessarily think there are more of them. Another example, what I stated as my last find a few posts ago is no longer my last find. I just got back from pretty much the only "small in the woods" within 10 miles of my home coordinates that is not found. Pretty much everything else, other than puzzles or multi's, is found or ignored.

I guess i need to change my numbers then. Let's say 50% back then,,, .002% now.

I'll put it another way. Back in the day, 10 good caches might be published in a month's time in our area. Today, even though there are more total caches hidden, we're lucky to see 1 or 2 good ones a month.

 

This line of thought is entirely regional. One person's "numbers" may be completely different than another's.

 

And on the one other point - I don't think I've seen anyone state that the game has not changed in all these years; that's a strawman. Merely that the "old" game still exists, it's simply more obfuscated in the current state of the game, which has grown naturally due to many factors. Reminiscing about "the way things used to be" is one thing, heck I could even stand for opinions that the game is worse off (so don't play it if you don't enjoy it) - but please do not say that it's been "ruined" by people who very much enjoy the way it is now, especially if those same people very much enjoy the way it "used to be" which can still be experienced now. Be careful what you say used to happen in the game, because chances are it still happens today. And any one person's area may have changed much moreso than another person's, so their local 'game' may have become something they no longer prefer - but that's not necessarily the 'game', that could simply be as little as one single individual who plays it differently, and more, taking over the local area.

 

This is not a simple discussion of how 'geocaching has changed' - that's an argument like 'smartphones vs handhelds'. It's far too vague to form any sort of argument that can be accepted as universally valid, and degrades into debating opinions.

 

Yes, the face of geocaching has changed, because of technology, because of people, because of popularity, because of culture, because of laws, and of course some rules and guidelines have been altered to accomodate new ideas and new forms of fun for more people. To some, that was a mistake. To others, that is a good thing. But the great thing is, even though things have changed, one can still enjoy doing it way the one remembers and preferred in years past. Unlike many other things in life that change and leave behind the old in exchange for the new.

 

The geocaching hobby would be dramatically different if absolutely nothing changed since 2003, and a tiny fraction of the size it is now. If that's what you'd have preferred, well, I guess that's too bad then. *shrug*

Edited November 17, 2014 by thebruce0

[+NYPaddleCacher]

But I miss the simplicity of the early years when geocaching was a " cloak and dagger " game that attracted true outdoor types.

It still is and it still does.

Just maybe not as much, relatively speaking, as you like or remember.

 

Just a guesstimate but for example: Out of 100 caches placed 10 years ago, i'd conservatively say that half were placed with a bit of thought put into them. These days, you're lucky if you get 2 or 3 out of that 100.

As I always like to point out, although the ratios may be 50/50 vs 2/98, that 2% planted today is still 10 times as many caches as the 50% from 10 years ago represents.

In my experience, no, I don't necessarily think there are more of them. Another example, what I stated as my last find a few posts ago is no longer my last find. I just got back from pretty much the only "small in the woods" within 10 miles of my home coordinates that is not found. Pretty much everything else, other than puzzles or multi's, is found or ignored.

I guess i need to change my numbers then. Let's say 50% back then,,, .002% now.

I'll put it another way. Back in the day, 10 good caches might be published in a month's time in our area. Today, even though there are more total caches hidden, we're lucky to see 1 or 2 good ones a month.

 

This line of thought is entirely regional. One person's "numbers" may be completely different than another's.

 

I'm sure that's true, but I doubt that we'd be having this discussion if numbers caching was limited to just a few regions. What I think is more significant is the overall trend of quantity over quality. Sure, there may be a few places where caching for the numbers became commonplace many years ago, but it's hard to deny that the trend towards quantity over quality has increased significantly over the past few years, primary jump started by the change in the guidelines in 2009 which removed the "don't place a cache every 600 feet just because you can". The trend towards quantity over quality is growing, and if it keeps going at it's current rate, there will be fewer and fewer regions where those that prefer quality over quantity will have a very difficult time caching in the manner they prefer.

 

 

And on the one other point - I don't think I've seen anyone state that the game has not changed in all these years; that's a strawman. Merely that the "old" game still exists, it's simply more obfuscated in the current state of the game, which has grown naturally due to many factors. Reminiscing about "the way things used to be" is one thing...

 

the game is worse off (so don't play it if you don't enjoy it) -

There's another way in which the game has changed. I bet that if you took of survey of those that have left the game you'd find a much larger percentage of players leaving the game because they got fed up with how the game has changed to a state where it's just not enjoyable any more.

If the game has changed such that there are more ways to play the game that would be fine if how one way of playing the game did not have an adverse impact on how others choose to play. The proliferation of caches just for the sake of increasing ones find count *has* had an impact on those that prefer quality over quantity. Even if there are more quality caches within a specific region, the impact of thousands of fungible caches placed to cater to numbers hounds is having an impact on other cache types. Logging practices have changed. Questionable caching "finding" methods have been employed and just a general sense of entitlement by a significant number of players has changed to the point that it's negatively influencing the enjoyment of those that still want to play the "old" game.

[+dprovan]

The more we talk about this, the more I think this is simply a matter of identification: which caches fit this "Olde Tyme" category? If they could be identified, those people that want to look only for them could find them, and, furthermore, people that liked to plant such caches would feel like it was worth while, since now, from what I gather, they feel like there's no point because their high quality, large caches with log books in wonderful places would be lost in the sea of mediocrity.

 

The physics of identify caches is straightforward. GS might even create an attribute for them if they could be reliably identified, or bookmark lists could be created for each area, and discussions about which are and which aren't and which should be and which shouldn't be could be carried on in any forum you'd like. If there's enough interest, I'm sure we could have such a forum here. (Hmmm... it occurs to me there could very well already be such a forum that I've never heard about.)

 

And then there's the additional complaint about the lack of an Olde Tyme community -- people that attend Olde Tyme events, people that write in physical logs, stuff like that -- but that just requires defining the community, and having an appropriate collection of caches and a place to talk about them should be enough to hold such a community together. Unless you split off and file the caches somewhere other than geocaching.com, you'll have to put up with "TFTC" and people signing the nice log books with just name and date, but that shouldn't matter as long as there are enough nice logs in both places by members of the community who have stopped to write about their experiences.

 

So it seems to boil down to how it is decided whether any given cache deserves to be in that special class. While we're hearing lots of people talk about what they miss, I'm not sure how we decide whose preferences to use. The only approach I can think of is a kinda of Hall of Fame. Perhaps pick out a few leaders from the people reminiscing in this forum to seed the community and develop some criteria which, though subjective, could be used as guidelines for Olde Tyme caches. Then as time goes on, cachers that live up to the standard are electing into the Hall of Fame which allows them to identify qualifying caches. If an attribute is created, they could be given the power to light that attribute on their caches.

 

Do you think anything like that might solve the problem? Or is the fun part complaining about it not being like it used to be, not actually doing it like you use to do it?

[+thebruce0]

This line of thought is entirely regional. One person's "numbers" may be completely different than another's.

I'm sure that's true, but I doubt that we'd be having this discussion if numbers caching was limited to just a few regions. What I think is more significant is the overall trend of quantity over quality. Sure, there may be a few places where caching for the numbers became commonplace many years ago...

Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to the controversial "caching by the numbers". I referring to the stats people quote above about preferred caches over the rest in their local region. Two distinct, yet potentially related, concerns.

 

but it's hard to deny that the trend towards quantity over quality has increased significantly over the past few years

One person's garbage is another person's quality

 

primary jump started by the change in the guidelines in 2009 which removed the "don't place a cache every 600 feet just because you can".

I agree. But again, that was changed because there was a growth in community who felt that 'quality' to them wasn't merely a cache in a beautiful, remote location. Quality became about doing more, about being with more people, about finding more; a wider reaching experience than just that composing a single find. It's a different type of quality, depending on who you talk to.

 

The trend towards quantity over quality is growing

Again, to many, quantity is quality. So it's a matter of preference. There certainly is a more prominent apparent increase in a type of caching experience that differs from the other, even though both are still increasing overall.

 

and if it keeps going at it's current rate, there will be fewer and fewer regions where those that prefer quality over quantity will have a very difficult time caching in the manner they prefer.

Such is the nature of the growing popularity and changing community landscape.

 

the game is worse off (so don't play it if you don't enjoy it) -

There's another way in which the game has changed. I bet that if you took of survey of those that have left the game you'd find a much larger percentage of players leaving the game because they got fed up with how the game has changed to a state where it's just not enjoyable any more.

That's certainly true. There are also many who still prefer the "old" way, but have found ways to enjoy the "new" way as well.

 

If the game has changed such that there are more ways to play the game that would be fine if how one way of playing the game did not have an adverse impact on how others choose to play. The proliferation of caches just for the sake of increasing ones find count *has* had an impact on those that prefer quality over quantity. Even if there are more quality caches within a specific region, the impact of thousands of fungible caches placed to cater to numbers hounds is having an impact on other cache types. Logging practices have changed. Questionable caching "finding" methods have been employed and just a general sense of entitlement by a significant number of players has changed to the point that it's negatively influencing the enjoyment of those that still want to play the "old" game.

Much of that can be influenced by continuing to promote and encourage the "old" way. If it's indeed better, and more preferable, then there's a good chance newcomers will see the value in it, and continue it themselves.

But if the community landscape changes to the point that the "old" way (I really hate that old/new label) is no longer preferable, then, *shrug* that's the way the pastime is evolving.

 

I know numerous of people, who have been around for 10+ years, who still play that way (even while adopting some of the newer technological conveniences; re paperless caching), and still find ways to enjoy the state of geocaching as it is now.

Edited November 17, 2014 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

Again, to many, quantity is quality.

 

How?

[JASTA 11]

The website - better

 

Most everything else - worse

[4wheelin_fool]

Again, to many, quantity is quality.

 

How?

 

That's newspeak. It would be crimethink otherwise.

[+tozainamboku]

the trend towards quantity over quality has increased significantly over the past few years, primary jump started by the change in the guidelines in 2009 which removed the "don't place a cache every 600 feet just because you can".

The so-called powertrail rule was asking the reviewers to apply a "wow" requirement. Just which series of caches were "wow" enough to allow? Sure there were attempts, like those of the Swiss reviewer, to create rules limiting the number of caches any one user could plance in a a given area overs some given time. But these were hard to enforce and what worked in Switzerland might not work in Los Angeles or in upstate New York.

 

At the same time it is hard to deny to poopularity of pwoertrails. While some cachers bemoan the loss of some astract definition of quality to the view that gecocache finds are a commodity, there are cleary many people who prefer havint more caches to find.

 

There's another way in which the game has changed. I bet that if you took of survey of those that have left the game you'd find a much larger percentage of players leaving the game because they got fed up with how the game has changed to a state where it's just not enjoyable any more.

My guess is that the reason most people stop caching has always been that they find it's just not enjoyable anymore. Sure, there are always those who stopped because phyically becoming unable to cache anymore or because other commitments prevent them from caching. But way back in the day, some people quit because the found all the caches in a reasonable distance from home and didn't want a hobby they could only don when they travelled far from home; few peopld could give this reason anymore.

 

Again, to many, quantity is quality.

 

How?

At a minimum, for those who view the smiley as the point of geocaching, having more caches to find means more opportunities to cache.

 

Granted there are many people who find the enjoyment is visiting new places or the challenge of finding a well hiden or cleverly camouflaged cache. For thes people a powertrail seems absurd, let alone caches in every parking lot iwth a lamppost. But just because you enjoy one thing doesn't mean another person can't enjoy something else

Edited November 17, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+thebruce0]

Again, to many, quantity is quality.

 

How?

 

That may not have been the best phrase to use -- it's the idea of quality geocaching experience over quality geocache. In that context, quantity is quality, to many. Thus the proliferation of power trails, for example.

 

The point was in regards to the use of the term "quality" as solely used in the context of single geocaches.

 

I don't think anyone dislikes quality geocaches (as subjective as that may be). That would be absurd.

The problem is there are now people who also place value in a wider range of experiences. So now there is a greater selection of geocaches - many of which are designed as quality single caches, and many of which are designed as quality experiences over multiple caches. Heck I've even seen complaints about multicaches, because what's the point of doing multiple waypoints when you just want to find one to be successful. Yeah, sounds ridiculous. But it's a different type of experience. Some like it, some don't.

 

Geocaching has evolved to provide numerous type of experiences, which many may enjoy, and many may not. What type of "olde tyme" caching do you enjoy? Pre-giga event? Pre-challenge caches? Pre-power trails? Pre-mystery caches? Pre-multistage? Every new aspect to geocaching takes one step further from the starting point. Of course geocaching will change. Of course we are going to reminisce. Of course there will be many who dislike where it is now. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But if the system is successful, and growing, and more popular than ever, I only take issue with blaming people for supposedly "ruining" it, or causing its "downfall".

Edited November 17, 2014 by thebruce0

[+L0ne.R]

Again, to many, quantity is quality.

 

How?

 

That may not have been the best phrase to use -- it's the idea of quality geocaching experience over quality geocache. In that context, quantity is quality, to many. Thus the proliferation of power trails, for example.

 

 

I agree. That is a big change that has occurred over time - the geocache has become less and less important.

[+ArtieD]

Again, to many, quantity is quality.

 

How?

 

Personal preference? I didn't know that cachers had to only like larger containers in interesting spots. Sometimes a good, basic numbers run with some friends is just as much fun as a long hike to a bluff for an ammo can.

[+thebruce0]

I agree. That is a big change that has occurred over time - the geocache has become less and less important so some

Fixed.

[+Team Microdot]

Again, to many, quantity is quality.

 

How?

 

Personal preference? I didn't know that cachers had to only like larger containers in interesting spots. Sometimes a good, basic numbers run with some friends is just as much fun as a long hike to a bluff for an ammo can.

 

Of the various replies to my original query this one seems the most straight forward so I'll respond to this one, for now

 

a good basic numbers run with good being the operative word still implies that there's some element of quality over and above the number of caches involved - thus reinforcing neatly that quantity and quality are different things.

 

Presumably a poor basic numbers run - devoid of the quality element - would be less fun. (One example might be film pots in litter strewn lay-bys alongside busy roads housing film pots filled with sodden paper pulp - plus hopeless coordinates as a finishing touch).

 

I'd go so far as to say that a whole bunch of poor quality caches with a group of friends might be an even more disappointing experience than a whole bunch of poor quality caches done solo. At least if you do them solo you've only inflicted the suffering on yourself, and you can keep it quiet

[+Mudfrog]

I agree. That is a big change that has occurred over time - the geocache has become less and less important to many

Fixed.

Re-fixed

 

The cache itself isn't important to alot of people these days. Because they're only after smiley count, they could care less what they find. They're happy as long as there are many of them that can be had quickly.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Mudfrog

[Mr.Yuck]

I agree. That is a big change that has occurred over time - the geocache has become less and less important so some

Fixed.

 

No, it's not. Did you mean "to some"?

 

And "fixing" people's posts on internet forums is so 1998.

 

Oh crud, didn't see mudfrog's post.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Mr.Yuck

[+cheech gang]

At the same time it is hard to deny to poopularity of pwoertrails.

 

I don't know if this was a typo or not, but I think I am going to adopt this word in future descriptions of power trails!

[Mr.Yuck]

Again, to many, quantity is quality.

 

How?

 

Personal preference? I didn't know that cachers had to only like larger containers in interesting spots. Sometimes a good, basic numbers run with some friends is just as much fun as a long hike to a bluff for an ammo can.

 

Of the various replies to my original query this one seems the most straight forward so I'll respond to this one, for now

 

a good basic numbers run with good being the operative word still implies that there's some element of quality over and above the number of caches involved - thus reinforcing neatly that quantity and quality are different things.

 

Presumably a poor basic numbers run - devoid of the quality element - would be less fun. (One example might be film pots in litter strewn lay-bys alongside busy roads housing film pots filled with sodden paper pulp - plus hopeless coordinates as a finishing touch).

 

I'd go so far as to say that a whole bunch of poor quality caches with a group of friends might be an even more disappointing experience than a whole bunch of poor quality caches done solo. At least if you do them solo you've only inflicted the suffering on yourself, and you can keep it quiet

 

I have been told a numbers run (implying generally finding lots of lame micros) with friends is a great time and is fun. And being someone who has group cached quite a bit, and with many people who don't share my "old school principles", I can definitely see where they're coming from. Group caching is fun. Of course I haven't partaken in such a numbers run, nor have I been invited.

[+L0ne.R]

I agree. That is a big change that has occurred over time - the geocache has become less and less important to some

Fixed.

 

No, it's not. Did you mean "to some"?

 

 

Mudfrog has it right with "...to many", quickly becoming '...to most' based on the ever increasing practice of cut n paste logs no matter how good or bad the actual cache is. Dozens if not 100s of cache finds a day, too many to remember individually. Each cache equivalent to the next, the LPC equivalent to the ammo can, the cache in a parking lot equivalent to the cache by a babbling brook. Hiders hide dozens or 100s of caches with little care about quality and with little to no expectation that they will ever maintain them. Feeling they've done a service to the community in the form of lots of smileys, since no one actually cares about the geocache, as confirmed by the online logs.

 

I think bruce0 hit on something important about the change in geocaching. The geocache has lost its importance.

[+thebruce0]

I'd go so far as to say that a whole bunch of poor quality caches with a group of friends might be an even more disappointing experience than a whole bunch of poor quality caches done solo. At least if you do them solo you've only inflicted the suffering on yourself, and you can keep it quiet

 

It's impossible to make a call on that.

Of course it can be true. But I know first hand that you can have an awesome geocaching time with friends even on a crappy numbers run.

 

I also know you can have a crappy time with friends on a day when you're out to get a bunch of "quality" caches.

You can also have an awesome time with friends on a day when you're out to get a bunch of "quality" caches.

 

This little distinguishment is playing towards the point - people now are tending to moreso value the greater experience of geocaching, and less so of single geocaches. Even though the latter is certainly still definitely true (* my response to "some" is below ).

There is a rise in appreciation for the geocaching experience above single caches, for whatever reason that may be. Does that mean people purposefully don't care about placing "olde" style "quality" caches? Of course not, but there may be less importance on the whole in making sure every single cache is somehow of that "quality".

 

And like I said before, quality in the context of single caches is also quite subjective, as well as the fact that geocaching quality now spans more than just single geocaches.

 

I have been told a numbers run (implying generally finding lots of lame micros) with friends is a great time and is fun. And being someone who has group cached quite a bit, and with many people who don't share my "old school principles", I can definitely see where they're coming from. Group caching is fun. Of course I haven't partaken in such a numbers run, nor have I been invited.

Group caching doesn't have to be numbers runs either.

Group caching is merely caching with a group.

But that's a whole other topic. I'm not in favour of caching with a large group - I don't have fun. You want to cache with people, and the group splits apart because it's so large. Some people log caches for the group telling others they don't have to visit it now because it's "already found". So swaths of people in the huge group log finds without individually even having attempted to find them. Some want to find it anyway, and take off on their own, wondering why the group didn't stick together. Large mobs of people visit GZs all together trampling grass and forest beds, making geotrails in one visit, all of that sort of stuff. It's a mix of people who care about individual cache quality, people who just want the smiley count, and people who just want to socialize.

 

I prefer simply caching with a small group of friends. 4 or 5 ish people is a good enough group -

Whether it's a "numbers run" or powertrail or finding a list of specific independent desirable targets around the regions.

 

So again, the problem is not "numbers runs", or even "group caching". The problem is the attitude of individuals, and what individuals value as "quality" in geocaching - whether it's standalone geocaches or the outing as a whole finding multiple.

 

It used to be that geocaches were fewer and much farther between. Now there are many more - of all styles and various types. So there is a much larger variation in what one considers a "quality" geocaching experience. That's just the way it is. ...some things will never change... ♫ ah, but don't you believe them ♫ ...sorry, lost my head a moment.

 

I agree. That is a big change that has occurred over time - the geocache has become less and less important so some

Fixed.

No, it's not. Did you mean "to some"?

d'oh.

Yes.

 

And on that point about "some" vs "many" - sure, fine, it was the spirit of the statement that mattered not the word. But I would argue that "some" would be more accurate if focusing on "less important", while relatively speaking the greater experience has actually become "more" important to many. Splitting hairs? Maybe. But "less important" carries with it the implication that these people who value the experience more than ever are now perhaps just not caring about the single cache experience any more - which is blatantly untrue. Some? Perhaps. Many? I would say no. But now we'd be debating arbitrary numbers with no universal evidence either way In my experience, the value of single caches has not declined in my area - rather I might even say it's increased. But so has group caching and such where individual cache quality is not as much of a factor... just as placement of relatively insignificant and non-"olde"-quality caches has also increased. Everything has increased. Nothing has decreased. But that's my region. Which of course is not to say that's the state of the game worldwide.

 

And "fixing" people's posts on internet forums is so 1998.

Psssh! If it ain't broke...

[cezanne]

In my experience, the value of single caches has not declined in my area - rather I might even say it's increased.

 

I'm surprised. In what sense has it increased?

 

In my area the value of a single cache has definitely decreased and cases like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCM2QP_rescue-you?guid=8a62a95b-9bc2-4132-9705-c175d40ec1af

(the cache got archived as the cache owner got tired of the many logs referring to the nearby

"Fly so high" powertrail) are not singular.

Back when he has hidden a cache in a lonesome location he could not know that later someone would hide 65

caches in this area that attract many cachers from different areas and who happen to collect also all other caches

that are located along the trail and do not care about the fact that those other caches are not generic caches whose logs

are not read by the cache owners.

[+thebruce0]

In my experience, the value of single caches has not declined in my area - rather I might even say it's increased.

 

I'm surprised. In what sense has it increased?

 

Because there are numerous people putting concerted efforts into placing creative, interesting fun caches, and in places that are wonderful locations to visit. There is no shortage of "olde" quality geocaches in this region.

[cezanne]

In my experience, the value of single caches has not declined in my area - rather I might even say it's increased.

 

I'm surprised. In what sense has it increased?

 

Because there are numerous people putting concerted efforts into placing creative, interesting fun caches, and in places that are wonderful locations to visit. There is no shortage of "olde" quality geocaches in this region.

 

Well, I apparently understood your statement in a different way than you meant it.

I was not talking about the number of good caches. I was questioning the statement that more value (or at least not less value) is put on single caches today than a few years ago.

I did not have the effort of the cache hiders in mind who hide nice caches, but the appreciation that the finders show for the single caches they find.

 

If a group finds 25 caches in a nice caching day they enjoy, do they show their appreciation for each of the single caches that was nice or just write a generic log for all 25 caches, the lame ones and the nice ones so that in the end one cannot see any difference any longer and so that these logs could be for any caches worldwide?

 

I have said it before that one of the biggest changes in my opinion does not concern the change in the behaviour of cacher hiders, but in the behaviour of cache finders.

 

Cezanne

Edited November 18, 2014 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

If a group finds 25 caches in a nice caching day they enjoy, do they show their appreciation for each of the single caches that was nice or just write a generic log for all 25 caches, the lame ones and the nice ones so that in the end one cannot see any difference any longer and so that these logs could be for any caches worldwide?

 

I have certainly noticed a lot more of this type of behaviour in the last twelve months than at any time previous to that.

[+thebruce0]

In my experience, the value of single caches has not declined in my area - rather I might even say it's increased.

 

I'm surprised. In what sense has it increased?

 

Because there are numerous people putting concerted efforts into placing creative, interesting fun caches, and in places that are wonderful locations to visit. There is no shortage of "olde" quality geocaches in this region.

 

Well, I apparently understood your statement in a different way than you meant it.

I was not talking about the number of good caches. I was questioning the statement that more value (or at least not less value) is put on single caches today than a few years ago.

I did not have the effort of the cache hiders in mind who hide nice caches, but the appreciation that the finders show for the single caches they find.

 

If a group finds 25 caches in a nice caching day they enjoy, do they show their appreciation for each of the single caches that was nice or just write a generic log for all 25 caches, the lame ones and the nice ones so that in the end one cannot see any difference any longer and so that these logs could be for any caches worldwide?

 

I have said it before that one of the biggest changes in my opinion does not concern the change in the behaviour of cacher hiders, but in the behaviour of cache finders.

 

Cezanne

 

Cache hiders are cache finders.

This is people who appreciate "olde" style quality caches who are perpetuating and promoting such "quality" by hiding what they enjoy finding.

It's a circle. People do very much enjoy them. So those people also work towards creating them and hiding them.

This is why I say that sitting back and complaining, while it might raise awareness, does nothing to really change your local landscape. IF people value what you also value, then if you promote what you value, they'll also value that, and continue perpetuate it.

 

There is no reason why geocaching has to go "downhill" just because there are more people playing, or an increase in people who may have a different idea of "quality" in the geocaching experience. Yes it may be that way in some regions. But that's not "geocaching's downfall" just because things have changed. It's just a change in the landscape of various regions' communities, going back to all those other factors that have affected the pastime over the years.

 

Find what you like to find. Create what you like to find. And that applies to everyone.

I'm fortunate to be in a region that has oodles of people who enjoy quality single geocaches, and quality outings of multiple caches - whether power trails or target cache lists or directed road trips or whatever. I sympathize with people who don't have that.

 

As for logging, yes indeed there are a great number of people who write their logs consciously, in line with how they feel the cache itself was. Most of the time, if it's a simple park & grab, the log won't be all that significant. But many, even most, of the prolific cachers I know will put effort into their logs if A] their caching experience for the day was wonderful, or B] they feel the particular cache was worth putting effort into the log content. Remember, people don't have an obligation to always put detailed text into their online log. So claiming that there's an increase in simple logs is also a strawman. Of course there, because there are more caches, all around, of good and bad "olde" quality.

Yes, if you were to look at the "quality" geocaches, you may see a number of simplistic logs, and usually from newcomers. But you know what? They're also there from "olde-timers" as well. That's not a matter of "old vs new". It's back to the individual again.

 

All these exceptions, as it were, just goes to show that there's no clear-cut "old vs new", but it's perception, based on personal preference, and region. Things have changed. For sure. But for the better or for the worse? That entirely depends on who you ask, because better and worse are entirely subjective, and not based on any obvious metric (veterans vs newbies, handheld owners vs smartphone users, old vs young, english vs german, etc etc).

 

The landscape is vast and varied, and things have changed; expanded, rather.

Where it used to be a calm ocean, there are now waves and tides. But the water is always at sea level at some points - you just have to find the calm areas, or wait out the highs and lows more than you used to.

Just like a still clock is correct twice a day.

<Insert additional analogy here>

Edited November 18, 2014 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

The more we talk about this, the more I think this is simply a matter of identification: which caches fit this "Olde Tyme" category? [...]

 

The physics of identify caches is straightforward. GS might even create an attribute for them

Maybe something like this?

 

It's an olde-fashioned letter "e" because it seemed appropriate for an "Olde Tyme" attribute, and there isn't much room for anything more.

[cezanne]

Cache hiders are cache finders.

 

I know quite a number of cachers who have hidden nice caches some years ago and have given up searching for caches or only find occasionally a few when being abroad.

In recent years more and more of those caches (still in good condition) get archived by their owners as the owners are frustrated by the generic logs that come in.

 

I can neither change this by writing non generic logs nor by hiding new caches of the type I like. And the same holds true for anyone else.

More and more of these old caches get archived due to frustrated owners and it makes me sad even if I have already found these caches in my area.

 

As for logging, yes indeed there are a great number of people who write their logs consciously, in line with how they feel the cache itself was. Most of the time, if it's a simple park & grab, the log won't be all that significant. But many, even most, of the prolific cachers I know will put effort into their logs if A] their caching experience for the day was wonderful, or B] they feel the particular cache was worth putting effort into the log content.

 

So let me ask again: If those people had a wonderful day of group caching and found 25 caches, do you write nice, individual logs for all the caches among the 25 which are nice and not simple park&grab caches or do they write a generic log telling in each log how much they enjoyed the day due to the group fun?

 

Remember, people don't have an obligation to always put detailed text into their online log. So claiming that there's an increase in simple logs is also a strawman. Of course there, because there are more caches, all around, of good and bad "olde" quality.

Yes, if you were to look at the "quality" geocaches, you may see a number of simplistic logs, and usually from newcomers. But you know what? They're also there from "olde-timers" as well. That's not a matter of "old vs new". It's back to the individual again.

 

It's indeed not a matter of "old vs new", but rather of back then and now. When only few caches were available, people did not find 25 caches per day and there have been no powertrails. So it could not happen that people wrote logs like "I took off a day to visit the XX cache trail. Today I was on a cache hunt with A, B and C and we enjoyed the day very much. Thanks to all cache owners for the fun" for all found caches regardless of whether they belong to the XX cache trail.

 

Such logs have become much more the norm than an exception in my area.

 

All these exceptions, as it were, just goes to show that there's no clear-cut "old vs new", but it's perception, based on personal preference, and region. Things have changed. For sure. But for the better or for the worse? That entirely depends on who you ask, because better and worse are entirely subjective, and not based on any obvious metric (veterans vs newbies, handheld owners vs smartphone users, old vs young, english vs german, etc etc).

 

I agree with the above and have said it before there is no clear answer to better or worse. That was not the point of my question to you.

[+thebruce0]

Cache hiders are cache finders.

I know quite a number of cachers who have hidden nice caches some years ago and have given up searching for caches or only find occasionally a few when being abroad.

In recent years more and more of those caches (still in good condition) get archived by their owners as the owners are frustrated by the generic logs that come in.

 

I can neither change this by writing non generic logs nor by hiding new caches of the type I like. And the same holds true for anyone else.

More and more of these old caches get archived due to frustrated owners and it makes me sad even if I have already found these caches in my area.

 

And that's your region. I'm sorry to see that.

Unfortunately, the more "quality caches" are archived, the more your local landscape will change away from what you prefer.

 

As for logging, yes indeed there are a great number of people who write their logs consciously, in line with how they feel the cache itself was. Most of the time, if it's a simple park & grab, the log won't be all that significant. But many, even most, of the prolific cachers I know will put effort into their logs if A] their caching experience for the day was wonderful, or B] they feel the particular cache was worth putting effort into the log content.

So let me ask again: If those people had a wonderful day of group caching and found 25 caches, do you write nice, individual logs for all the caches among the 25 which are nice and not simple park&grab caches or do they write a generic log telling in each log how much they enjoyed the day due to the group fun?

So let me say again: I do. Many people in my area do. Both veterans and newcomers. I'd probably even say that by my perception, it's actually the long-time cachers that are more likely to copy/paste a day-long summary for each cache than newcomers. Of those I see posted, they are more often people with many thousands of finds who have been caching for many years - not newcomers to the hobby. That seems to imply that those who were the "old geocaching" type are helping perpetuate what people here dislike about the "new geocaching" type.

 

Remember, people don't have an obligation to always put detailed text into their online log. So claiming that there's an increase in simple logs is also a strawman. Of course there, because there are more caches, all around, of good and bad "olde" quality.

Yes, if you were to look at the "quality" geocaches, you may see a number of simplistic logs, and usually from newcomers. But you know what? They're also there from "olde-timers" as well. That's not a matter of "old vs new". It's back to the individual again.

It's indeed not a matter of "old vs new", but rather of back then and now. When only few caches were available, people did not find 25 caches per day and there have been no powertrails. So it could not happen that people wrote logs like "I took off a day to visit the XX cache trail. Today I was on a cache hunt with A, B and C and we enjoyed the day very much. Thanks to all cache owners for the fun" for all found caches regardless of whether they belong to the XX cache trail.

 

Such logs have become much more the norm than an exception in my area.

And like I said, yes it happens. But it's an exception to the rule in my area. And once again, that is not saying it's a universal truth since it's clear that other regions aren't as fortunate. I'm not arguing that. I am, once again, just against claims that somehow geocaching as a whole has gone downhill because of the way things are "now" as opposed to "then". Overall, the capability, the landscape has changed, which allows for regions to be better or worse off depending on the community there; the people. There is a wider range of habits, preferences, and desires within the geocaching hobby across various geocaching communities and regions. Not to the exclusion of others though, even though they can affect others.

And that growth means that things will change. But if you preferred the calm ocean, as opposed to the existence of the variety that's out there now, well, you'll either be the grumpy one sitting on the shore always complaining about something that can't be fixed, or you'll walk away and leave it behind, or you'll find a way to continue to enjoy what's there now.

 

Again again, I'm sorry things aren't going the way you prefer in your region. It's unfortunate. But it's not like that everywhere (and I know you're not saying that it is).

[cezanne]

Unfortunately, the more "quality caches" are archived, the more your local landscape will change away from what you prefer.

 

Yes as far as my preferred style of cache is regarded (there are more modern types of quality caches too) this is true, but I cannot change it.

 

So let me say again: I do. Many people in my area do. Both veterans and newcomers.

 

Well, after having had a look at some of your logs (originally, I just wanted to see whether there are many cache series in your area) I think we talk about different things.

For me such logs

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=5db2311b-e117-4b28-b892-24c54a806673

are the typical example of logs for a day of group caching that most cache owners in my area who started 10+ years ago hate.

 

I'd probably even say that by my perception, it's actually the long-time cachers that are more likely to copy/paste a day-long summary for each cache than newcomers. Of those I see posted, they are more often people with many thousands of finds who have been caching for many years - not newcomers to the hobby. That seems to imply that those who were the "old geocaching" type are helping perpetuate what people here dislike about the "new geocaching" type.

 

When I write "newer cachers" I do not have beginners in mind with a couple of finds. Many of these newer caches have more finds than myself.

 

 

Cezanne