New vs. Old Geocaching

[cezanne]

Well, if The Bruce has been busted for posting copy and paste logs for caches on numbers runs whilst group caching,

 

To clarify because it was me who brought up one of his logs, it has not been in the slightest my intent to bust him.

I have seen some of his logs previously and I knew that he is not one of those who always writes logs like on that number run (or whatever it should be could - I did not look

at the caches).

 

It is extremely rare over here in North America to see Tftc logs on multi caches.

 

Ok, that explains your surprise. Around here it is not uncommon among newer caches that often log Tftc for all caches they find.

I just recently had once again a TfTc log on one of my multis and I asked the finder if the cache has a problem or whether everything is

ok because I could not deduce anything from his log and then he just replied that the cache is ok.

 

And I also wish we couldn't just discount it as someone with Tftc as a standard log.

 

Neither do I.

 

Still it puzzles and worries me much more when someone whom I know as writing usually longer logs writes Tftc in a log. This typically has some special reason and if it is one of my caches I'm worried that something is wrong with the cache.

 

I'd like to see Tftc logs remain almost exclusively posted from the field on smartphones by newbies with a few hundred finds at best who have never hidden any caches of their own. And not creep into the mainstream, where you see one from someone with 700 finds who has hidden a couple of caches, such as was the case here on an apparently excellent multi-cache. But that's just me, I've been known to have anti Tftc on the brain.

 

I'm anti Tftc too. If it concerns one of my caches I often write an e-mail and ask if the logger could tell me something about the status of the cache (some of my caches do not get find often).

Once a guy from Finland (not a newbie) who did a very complex cache of mine wrote a Tftc log and told me that he is sorry but that this is his way of logging.

 

Cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

I recall a well known UK cacher who was so fed-up of TFTC logs that he launched a Get this cache archived campaign on his own caches.

 

He added a little banner graphic to all of his affected caches inviting finders to - if they wanted to get the cache archived - post a TFTC log and he would oblige. I think he set an arbitrary limit whereby if 3 more TFTC logs were posted he would archive that cache.

 

To the best of my knowledge he never had to archive a single one

[+thebruce0]

Well, if The Bruce has been busted for posting copy and paste logs for caches on numbers runs whilst group caching, he'll have to answer for that.

...I did, dude.

I stand by all my logs.

 

What I was talking about was him giving an example of him leaving an outstanding log for a multi-cache, and the next log being "Tftc", which I found pretty amazing. It is extremely rare over here in North America to see Tftc logs on multi caches.

That cache was a twofer - both about my logging habits, and the painful irony of that followup log, which I mini-ranted about on Facebook when it was posted

 

And I also wish we couldn't just discount it as someone with Tftc as a standard log. I'd like to see Tftc logs remain almost exclusively posted from the field on smartphones by newbies with a few hundred finds at best who have never hidden any caches of their own. And not creep into the mainstream, where you see one from someone with 700 finds who has hidden a couple of caches, such as was the case here on an apparently excellent multi-cache. But that's just me, I've been known to have anti Tftc on the brain.

For all we know, maybe that person posted the tftc precisely to launch discussions like this, for the explicit contrast between mine and his, heh. But I doubt it.

But it goes go towards showing, as you implied, that "new" vs "old" isn't so much distinguished by any 'type' of cacher; there's no real line separating the culprits from the innocent. Old/young, veteran/n00b, urban/rural, adventurous/lazy - I can guarantee you'd find offending logs from each class of cacher. Which is why I say that the way things are now is simply a natural result of growth and the evolution of the game over many years. So it's easy to look back and rant about how much has changed. The change isn't as prominent if you look back in smaller increments.

Thus my previous comment about pre-what-era-of-geocaching are you (general you) about which you can reminisce and/or complain about 'now'?

[+thebruce0]

Once a guy from Finland (not a newbie) who did a very complex cache of mine wrote a Tftc log and told me that he is sorry but that this is his way of logging.

And unfortunately (but understandably) nothing can be done about it if their name is in fact in the logsheet.

Edited November 21, 2014 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

The change isn't as prominent if you look back in smaller increments.

 

I think the change is very prominent when you compare the times shortly before powertrails became possible and the time after this point of time.

 

I also noticed quite an influence of new automazation tools being made available. I was deeply shocked e.g. when I read this on project-gc "In 3 days there has been almost 50000 discovers made in the new system (18000 unique)." (Source http://project-gc.com/Home/News)

And there are many other tools for automatic discovery of trackables too.

[+thebruce0]

The change isn't as prominent if you look back in smaller increments.

I think the change is very prominent when you compare the times shortly before powertrails became possible and the time after this point of time.

Sure. So you're pre-powertrail era.

Or pre-auto-tb-discovery era.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

And I also wish we couldn't just discount it as someone with Tftc as a standard log. I'd like to see Tftc logs remain almost exclusively posted from the field on smartphones by newbies with a few hundred finds at best who have never hidden any caches of their own. And not creep into the mainstream, where you see one from someone with 700 finds who has hidden a couple of caches, such as was the case here on an apparently excellent multi-cache. But that's just me, I've been known to have anti Tftc on the brain.

For all we know, maybe that person posted the tftc precisely to launch discussions like this, for the explicit contrast between mine and his, heh. But I doubt it.

But it goes go towards showing, as you implied, that "new" vs "old" isn't so much distinguished by any 'type' of cacher; there's no real line separating the culprits from the innocent. Old/young, veteran/n00b, urban/rural, adventurous/lazy - I can guarantee you'd find offending logs from each class of cacher. Which is why I say that the way things are now is simply a natural result of growth and the evolution of the game over many years. So it's easy to look back and rant about how much has changed. The change isn't as prominent if you look back in smaller increments.

Thus my previous comment about pre-what-era-of-geocaching are you (general you) about which you can reminisce and/or complain about 'now'?

 

Actually, as a 2009 joiner, this guy would be a "smartphone era cacher". And with the log being Tftc, with the T capitalized, it most surely was posted from a smartphone. I mean sure, there's like a 1 in 10,000 chance he went home to a computer and hit the shift key for the T and then ftc, but I doubt it.

 

My issue being of course the near universal urge to thumb out lame logs from the field while using smartphone apps. That came after my era.

[+thebruce0]

My issue being of course the near universal urge to thumb out lame logs from the field while using smartphone apps. That came after my era.

near-universal? IMO, more like a vocal-minority as it were. I think most people (with smartphones) still realize that the online log is better when composed well, but because there is that urge of many who may not think that way, of course what we dislike will be more prominent and visible to us.

 

I know I for one hate composing logs on my phone, for its usability even, not just on principle. I do it occasionally, rarely, but never less than a sentence or two if that's all I can think of posting for it. I take notes in-app with my find note of anything that stands out to help with my memory, then upload them as field notes to compose online via web. I've even only resorted to gsak batch logging a couple of times - ET was one (I'm not manually logging 2400 caches! )

 

I think it's more common for people who don't visit the website at all, yet cache entirely with their smartphone, who are more likely to thumb their logs and post live through their phone.

Nonetheless, that doesn't mean of course that everyone who composes logs online composes only 'olde' style logs and never posts a 'tftc'.

 

But yes, with your analysis of the "Tftc" log I completely agree - 99% confident it's a smartphone user with that auto-capped 'T'

[cezanne]

The change isn't as prominent if you look back in smaller increments.

I think the change is very prominent when you compare the times shortly before powertrails became possible and the time after this point of time.

Sure. So you're pre-powertrail era.

Or pre-auto-tb-discovery era.

 

Of course I'm. My point was a different one however. Among the many changes I noticed some indeed came slowly, but others were very prominent and arrived within a short period of time.

Already in 2004 I could see differences when compared to 2002, but those changes were less dramatic and prominent.

[+thebruce0]

Of course I'm. My point was a different one however. Among the many changes I noticed some indeed came slowly, but others were very prominent and arrived within a short period of time.

Already in 2004 I could see differences when compared to 2002, but those changes were less dramatic and prominent.

Yes.... of course. Doesn't change my point though

[cezanne]

Of course I'm. My point was a different one however. Among the many changes I noticed some indeed came slowly, but others were very prominent and arrived within a short period of time.

Already in 2004 I could see differences when compared to 2002, but those changes were less dramatic and prominent.

Yes.... of course. Doesn't change my point though

 

Which point? That the gradient of the change function is not steep at some points?

[+thebruce0]

Which point? That the gradient of the change function is not steep at some points?

*sigh* No, that if you look back, the changes in total at any one point will always be more significant than the incremental changes themselves since that point. That it's easy to "look back" and see how much has changed, reminiscing about the more distant past. And there's nothing wrong with reminiscing about the way things used to be. But it got there over time as the hobby evolved naturally (via said incremental changes, whatever size they may have been).

[+Team Microdot]

Which point? That the gradient of the change function is not steep at some points?

*sigh* No, that if you look back, the changes in total at any one point will always be more significant than the incremental changes themselves since that point. That it's easy to "look back" and see how much has changed, reminiscing about the more distant past. And there's nothing wrong with reminiscing about the way things used to be. But it got there over time as the hobby evolved naturally (via said incremental changes, whatever size they may have been).

 

Think I've lost the plot here because it seems to me that you've just stated the obvious so I still can't see what point you were trying to make

[+ArtieD]

I recall a well known UK cacher who was so fed-up of TFTC logs that he launched a Get this cache archived campaign on his own caches.

 

He added a little banner graphic to all of his affected caches inviting finders to - if they wanted to get the cache archived - post a TFTC log and he would oblige. I think he set an arbitrary limit whereby if 3 more TFTC logs were posted he would archive that cache.

 

To the best of my knowledge he never had to archive a single one

 

That sounds only a bit childish to me. As a cache owner, you have to accept the fact that some people just will not log your cache in a way that you'd prefer. It's part of the game. Basically threatening to take your toys and go home unless people log the way you want them to log is blackmail of sorts.

[+thebruce0]

Think I've lost the plot here because it seems to me that you've just stated the obvious so I still can't see what point you were trying to make

My point was made long ago, in the context of people complaining that geocaching is being ruined (implied: objectively) by the "new" state of the game, compared to an arbitrary point in the past about which they reminisce. Yes, it is indeed obvious that incremental changes of any size will always be less significant than the sum of the whole at any point. So cezanne stating that some changes were more significant than others as if it were a counter-point was why I *sighed*. So. Moving on.

 

That sounds only a bit childish to me. As a cache owner, you have to accept the fact that some people just will not log your cache in a way that you'd prefer. It's part of the game. Basically threatening to take your toys and go home unless people log the way you want them to log is blackmail of sorts

Right, but at least it also serves the purposes of bringing attention to the fact that 'cheap' logs are more common there, and encourages people to pay more attention to what they write.

Edited November 21, 2014 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

I recall a well known UK cacher who was so fed-up of TFTC logs that he launched a Get this cache archived campaign on his own caches.

 

He added a little banner graphic to all of his affected caches inviting finders to - if they wanted to get the cache archived - post a TFTC log and he would oblige. I think he set an arbitrary limit whereby if 3 more TFTC logs were posted he would archive that cache.

 

To the best of my knowledge he never had to archive a single one

 

That sounds only a bit childish to me. As a cache owner, you have to accept the fact that some people just will not log your cache in a way that you'd prefer. It's part of the game. Basically threatening to take your toys and go home unless people log the way you want them to log is blackmail of sorts.

 

No - you don't have to accept anything and you have complete freedom of choice as to whether you want to bother maintaining caches for the sake of TFTC logs or instead choose to archive them and spend the time doing something you enjoy more - including ignoring people who throw out trite, hackneyed phrases to try to make you feel bad about exercising your freedom of choice to not maintain a plastic box with a piece of paper in it for their finding and TFTC'ing pleasure

 

Why provide a ball for others to play a game that you're not going to enjoy. Surely it makes sense let them provide their own ball?

[cezanne]

Which point? That the gradient of the change function is not steep at some points?

*sigh* No, that if you look back, the changes in total at any one point will always be more significant than the incremental changes themselves since that point. That it's easy to "look back" and see how much has changed, reminiscing about the more distant past. And there's nothing wrong with reminiscing about the way things used to be. But it got there over time as the hobby evolved naturally (via said incremental changes, whatever size they may have been).

 

Apparently I understood what you wrote not in the intended way. I understood it in the sense that there have not been any dramatic changes within a short period of time and that the impression of dramatic changes is a long term effect created by many small changes that one would hardly notice (or at least notice less easily) when observing only very short periods of time.

 

I guess one can also debate whether the significant changes are indeed just a consequence of the growth and the natural evolvement (which of course play a role anyhow). Personally, I do not think so.

[Mr.Yuck]

My issue being of course the near universal urge to thumb out lame logs from the field while using smartphone apps. That came after my era.

near-universal? IMO, more like a vocal-minority as it were. I think most people (with smartphones) still realize that the online log is better when composed well, but because there is that urge of many who may not think that way, of course what we dislike will be more prominent and visible to us.

 

I know I for one hate composing logs on my phone, for its usability even, not just on principle. I do it occasionally, rarely, but never less than a sentence or two if that's all I can think of posting for it. I take notes in-app with my find note of anything that stands out to help with my memory, then upload them as field notes to compose online via web. I've even only resorted to gsak batch logging a couple of times - ET was one (I'm not manually logging 2400 caches! )

 

I think it's more common for people who don't visit the website at all, yet cache entirely with their smartphone, who are more likely to thumb their logs and post live through their phone.

Nonetheless, that doesn't mean of course that everyone who composes logs online composes only 'olde' style logs and never posts a 'tftc'.

 

But yes, with your analysis of the "Tftc" log I completely agree - 99% confident it's a smartphone user with that auto-capped 'T'

 

I'm just saying people who BEGIN Geocaching using smartphone apps have a near universal tendency to log the caches from the field with them, and also a near universal tendency when they're NEW AT IT, to thumb out 3 words or less, often with the hated (by myself and others) Tftc. If they stick with Geocaching, they GENERALLY see most established cachers don't do this, and change their habits. This guy here, has never attended a Geocaching event. He's like a lone wolf, probably never met another Geocacher. Or read a forum to find out there are ranters like myself and Team Microdot.

 

And yes, I have seen newbies who log a sentence or two, probably from smartphones in the field. But these logs are pretty rare, in my experience.

[+dprovan]

Why provide a ball for others to play a game that you're not going to enjoy. Surely it makes sense let them provide their own ball?

While I'm sure you're probably entirely right about that CO's attitude, I'm still amazed that a CO would decide that 3 TFTCs was enough to complete negate all the other logs from people that had more to say. It's like giving up chess because you played 3 people that weren't very good.

[+terrkan78]

Having started off only in 2012, and only ever using an iPhone (I'm getting my first dedicated GPS unit on Saturday!), I can't really comment on how things used to be.

I love having all the cache information at my fingertips, being able to refresh cache data on the go. Personally, the old style of caching probably wouldn't have held my interest for more than a few caches. However, if roles were reversed and things went from the new style to the old style, I'd be frustrated too, I think. Even I've noticed a lack of care and consideration while placing caches, particularly on powertrails.

But with saying that, it's the powertrails that draw me to a new area. My health - even at 26 years old - isnt the greatest. I had knee opertaions soon after taking up Geocaching which put me out for a while, and now I'm pregnant and have to take it easy. For me, geocaching is something that gets me and my five year old out the house on a dull, wet weekend, gets us moving and walking, and gets us looking closer at the environment we live in. I guess it means different things to different people.

 

In terms of logs, I try my best to write full, long logs. But if I've gone out for an hour in the rain, kept my head down and eyes on the ground battling the elements for three caches which were generic micro-in-the-woods, what am I supposed to say?

Congrats on the dedicated unit! I got pretty frustrated at first trying to figure out my new, not-so-user-friendly dedicated unit after my incredibly-user-friendly iPhone app. After I figured it all out, it was great.

 

I agree there's only so much you can say in your log on some caches (at least I think that's what you're saying). I honestly don't think too many cache hiders of generic micros expect particularly long logs. Especially if we're talking about caches that are located in urban areas (whether in the woods/parks or just on the city streets).

 

Once in a while, you come upon a cache that the hider has clearly put serious effort into - you'll know it when you see it - and those hiders (I think) are expecting more in the way of logs (and, from what I see, those caches usually get it).

 

But for the epic, page-long, OMG-story logs, usually you have to get out of urban areas into 4+ terrain. It'll probably be a few years before you get your children to 4+ terrain (unless you're stronger than me). But when they're old enough, and you want to go on an adventure they'll never forget, try a cache with a terrain rating high enough to challenge them. My kids still remember (quite negatively) the day we crawled up a hill on our hands and knees (because it was too steep to walk).

[+Team Microdot]

He's like a lone wolf, probably never met another Geocacher. Or read a forum to find out there are ranters like myself and Team Microdot.

 

Guilty as charged

[+Team Microdot]

Why provide a ball for others to play a game that you're not going to enjoy. Surely it makes sense let them provide their own ball?

While I'm sure you're probably entirely right about that CO's attitude, I'm still amazed that a CO would decide that 3 TFTCs was enough to complete negate all the other logs from people that had more to say. It's like giving up chess because you played 3 people that weren't very good.

 

I misremembered it slightly:

 

Get this cache archived!

 

We're a bit fed up with really short logs, so if you want us to archive this cache, all we need are two consecutive blank logs or 'TFTC' logs. Simples!

 

However, if you want to write a decent log then we'd absolutey love to read it as that's the thing we really enjoy as a reward for setting caches.

 

The choice it yours!

[+thebruce0]

Get this cache archived!

 

We're a bit fed up with really short logs, so if you want us to archive this cache, all we need are two consecutive blank logs or 'TFTC' logs. Simples!

 

However, if you want to write a decent log then we'd absolutey love to read it as that's the thing we really enjoy as a reward for setting caches.

 

The choice it yours!

Prime fodder for sabotage. Someone wants the spot? Convince a couple others to post such logs and boom, it's theirs.

[+Team Microdot]

Get this cache archived!

 

We're a bit fed up with really short logs, so if you want us to archive this cache, all we need are two consecutive blank logs or 'TFTC' logs. Simples!

 

However, if you want to write a decent log then we'd absolutey love to read it as that's the thing we really enjoy as a reward for setting caches.

 

The choice it yours!

Prime fodder for sabotage. Someone wants the spot? Convince a couple others to post such logs and boom, it's theirs.

 

Indeed

 

The CO's not the sort of person to worry about that though - mainly because it would give him more local caches to find. Maybe that was the plan all along as IIRC there were few people placing caches in his part of the world and he had to travel quite some distance to strike new seams.

[+tozainamboku]

I recall a well known UK cacher who was so fed-up of TFTC logs that he launched a Get this cache archived campaign on his own caches.

 

He added a little banner graphic to all of his affected caches inviting finders to - if they wanted to get the cache archived - post a TFTC log and he would oblige. I think he set an arbitrary limit whereby if 3 more TFTC logs were posted he would archive that cache.

 

To the best of my knowledge he never had to archive a single one

 

That sounds only a bit childish to me. As a cache owner, you have to accept the fact that some people just will not log your cache in a way that you'd prefer. It's part of the game. Basically threatening to take your toys and go home unless people log the way you want them to log is blackmail of sorts.

 

No - you don't have to accept anything and you have complete freedom of choice as to whether you want to bother maintaining caches for the sake of TFTC logs or instead choose to archive them and spend the time doing something you enjoy more - including ignoring people who throw out trite, hackneyed phrases to try to make you feel bad about exercising your freedom of choice to not maintain a plastic box with a piece of paper in it for their finding and TFTC'ing pleasure

 

Why provide a ball for others to play a game that you're not going to enjoy. Surely it makes sense let them provide their own ball?

Certainly cache owners are free to archive their caches for whatever reason they want. But archiving because others enjoy a different aspect of geocaching and might not view the online log the same way seems counterproductive. I'm not sure if I feel "Good riddence, we don't need cache owners who expect everyone to have the same particular view of the online log", or "I'm sad because I prefer caches that give me a reason to write more than TFTC in the log, and some selfish owner has archive this because he insisted on getting long logs".

[+Team Microdot]

I recall a well known UK cacher who was so fed-up of TFTC logs that he launched a Get this cache archived campaign on his own caches.

 

He added a little banner graphic to all of his affected caches inviting finders to - if they wanted to get the cache archived - post a TFTC log and he would oblige. I think he set an arbitrary limit whereby if 3 more TFTC logs were posted he would archive that cache.

 

To the best of my knowledge he never had to archive a single one

 

That sounds only a bit childish to me. As a cache owner, you have to accept the fact that some people just will not log your cache in a way that you'd prefer. It's part of the game. Basically threatening to take your toys and go home unless people log the way you want them to log is blackmail of sorts.

 

No - you don't have to accept anything and you have complete freedom of choice as to whether you want to bother maintaining caches for the sake of TFTC logs or instead choose to archive them and spend the time doing something you enjoy more - including ignoring people who throw out trite, hackneyed phrases to try to make you feel bad about exercising your freedom of choice to not maintain a plastic box with a piece of paper in it for their finding and TFTC'ing pleasure

 

Why provide a ball for others to play a game that you're not going to enjoy. Surely it makes sense let them provide their own ball?

Certainly cache owners are free to archive their caches for whatever reason they want. But archiving because others enjoy a different aspect of geocaching and might not view the online log the same way seems counterproductive. I'm not sure if I feel "Good riddence, we don't need cache owners who expect everyone to have the same particular view of the online log", or "I'm sad because I prefer caches that give me a reason to write more than TFTC in the log, and some selfish owner has archive this because he insisted on getting long logs".

 

But you can be sure that the CO wouldn't give a hoot what you were feeling - especially after you'd gotten your knickers twisted to the point of branding him selfish for exercising his basic human rights.

[+Ambrosia]

Now, see this cache. And at least make an effort to understand what I'm saying.

I would just like to point out how bizarre it is to see the next log after Bruce's.

 

It seems to come from someone with TFTC as standard log.

What I had in mind when I selected an arbitrary of thebruce0's logs from a group caching day, is that the log quality on group caching days suffers considerably in most cases and this also includes cachers who write nice logs for nice caches on days where they are not hunting for a large number of caches.

If one knows that a certain cacher is not using generic logs all the time, it is particularly painful to receive a generic log for a non generic cache.

 

Well, if The Bruce has been busted for posting copy and paste logs for caches on numbers runs whilst group caching, he'll have to answer for that. What I was talking about was him giving an example of him leaving an outstanding log for a multi-cache, and the next log being "Tftc", which I found pretty amazing. It is extremely rare over here in North America to see Tftc logs on multi caches. And I also wish we couldn't just discount it as someone with Tftc as a standard log. I'd like to see Tftc logs remain almost exclusively posted from the field on smartphones by newbies with a few hundred finds at best who have never hidden any caches of their own. And not creep into the mainstream, where you see one from someone with 700 finds who has hidden a couple of caches, such as was the case here on an apparently excellent multi-cache. But that's just me, I've been known to have anti Tftc on the brain.

 

Your comment about multis made me look at all the multis that I own, to see if there are any tftc logs. Sure enough, there aren't any, although there are a few very short logs.

 

My multis are fairly involved, as well, so I don't know if that has any bearing on the subject. They're not found that often, on average, they all have gotten about 4 logs a year.

[+Isonzo Karst]

My experience is that TFTC logs on multis are usually by novices who found the first stage only (also seen on one of my Wherigos - I assume they made it to the listing coords,the trailhead parking, thought it was some kind of virt).

 

To put this into the "New vs. Old Geocaching" framework, it has ever been thus. Or at least since TFTC became a standard log.

[Mr.Yuck]

My experience is that TFTC logs on multis are usually by novices who found the first stage only (also seen on one of my Wherigos - I assume they made it to the listing coords,the trailhead parking, thought it was some kind of virt).

 

To put this into the "New vs. Old Geocaching" framework, it has ever been thus. Or at least since TFTC became a standard log.

 

Yes, got a few!! In the 28 or so page "intro app users are killing the hobby" thread, I talk about one I recently received. The first leg is in a metal street corner newspaper box (and there are 50+ traditional caches of such type in my area), but mine is a multi, and the end cache is 2 miles away, half a mile from parking in "the woods". No way in heck they found it. After NOT receiving a response a week later, I deleted the log. Sue me.

 

I've also found a multi, I'll say in the summer of '13, the first leg of which was a keyholder with coordinates taped to the inside. Someone signed the coordinates.

[4wheelin_fool]

There are quite a few other competing geocaching sites which have popped up since this one began, but none have been popular to any extent. The only activity which seems to have siphoned off users is the scanning of QR codes, especially since there are at least two threads lamenting the drop in new hides. Perhaps many people play both games, but since a certain of amount of their time is now split, the resulting drop is noticeable.

 

What does this have to do with this topic of old vs new? Well, over time the direction of the game went from finding hidden containers in the woods with objects in them, as well as logbooks, to logging micros in parking lots for points. The activity of scanning QR codes now more closely resembles the morphed new version of geocaching than the original one and the evolution of the game has reached a point that something completely different has taken away a large chunk of its user's time. I recently noticed the parking lot of a nearby mega event had been packed with QR codes, seemingly in anticipation for the geocaching crowd.

 

Signing a logsheet and writing TFTC online is comparatively like a dinosaur version of the other game. I can't help but wonder if Groundspeak would have benefitted by offering the other game alongside of this one, and substituting the QR codes for LPCs somehow.

Edited November 23, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+thebruce0]

I can't help but wonder if Groundspeak would have benefitted by offering the other game alongside of this one, and substituting the QR codes for LPCs somehow.

I'm not sure how that would have benefitted geocaching. Unless you actually just mean Groundspeak.

Actually, good that you raised that game... yeah I was part of the initial crowd when it was 'spinning off' as it were from geocaching, and we were bringing in what was learned from geocaching to apply to this game which was much more mobile and instant than signing logbooks (even using cache containers to house qr codes, before lamination and treelitter was the norm). Since that point though, it's definitely become something 'new' to the 'old' as what have now in geocaching. Instead of complaining, I just lost interest and stopped playing that game long ago in favour of gc.

 

I actually think gc may have been worse off if it had adopted that qr mentality. That game was born because of the different style of play and new technology that made it possible. Allowing it to be a different game I think saved geocaching (ymmv, obviously) as the hobby that it is. Otherwise it would have invited the very mentality that many dislike in this game. That game could have been better, but they focused on competition and points. And try as many do to imply that geocaching is now about that - really, no, it's not. Statistics are just statistics. There is no promotion of or emphasis on competition that isn't made by individuals and the community itself.

 

In that game, competition is encouraged. Leave that to their game. And let geocaching be what it is - searching out hidden containers in the outdoors with gps (website logging isn't even a necessity). It's a game which is also different in ways than when it began. But it could have been something completely different than what it is, had they fully adopted and promoted the 'new' mentality.

Edited November 23, 2014 by thebruce0

[+dprovan]

There are quite a few other competing geocaching sites which have popped up since this one began, but none have been popular to any extent.

Has there been a website that tries to add value to geocaching.com instead of competing with it? These threads lamenting the lose of the old ways always seem to lead to an admission that good caches are still possible, many exist, and many more would exist, except that no one can find them among all the power trails and LPCs and other micros. Creating a competing site wouldn't work, but could a cooperating site fill in the missing pieces?

[+tozainamboku]

Signing a logsheet and writing TFTC online is comparatively like a dinosaur version of the other game. I can't help but wonder if Groundspeak would have benefitted by offering the other game alongside of this one, and substituting the QR codes for LPCs somehow.

I suppose if you play a game where you score points for finding things, the idea of signing a paper log could have long been replace using technology that could at least verify the point scored was geographically close to the cache site. With a two way connection from the box itself (even using the the finders smartphone as a network gateway) you even might be able to verify the cache was opened.

 

There is a thread in the Website suggestion section or certified found it logs.

 

My guess is that GS has not looked at ways to verify finds electronically because there would be push back to the idea of making geocaching any more of a scoring game that it is.

 

I'm not entirely clear on the reason you think there is some tradeoff between QR code caches and LPC caches. I know that a lot of the QR codes are stuck to the outside of the pole so you don't need to lift the cover. Is lifting the cover what you object to, or the fact that most geocaches are hidden so that muggles don't find them?

 

There are quite a few other competing geocaching sites which have popped up since this one began, but none have been popular to any extent.

Has there been a website that tries to add value to geocaching.com instead of competing with it? These threads lamenting the lose of the old ways always seem to lead to an admission that good caches are still possible, many exist, and many more would exist, except that no one can find them among all the power trails and LPCs and other micros. Creating a competing site wouldn't work, but could a cooperating site fill in the missing pieces?

There have been various sites that have tried to add value. There have been a number of sites that have provided statistics in one form or another. Some of which have at least been successful for a time. Their biggest issue has been requiring people to opt in and often upload their finds. Project-GC uses the GC api so it may be a bit easier to use.

 

Since I view Geocaching a a fun activity and not a competition, I tend to avoid statistics sites (even the GC stats page on my profile). The stats I'm interested I can get from my GSAK records and keep them mostly private. I've not opted in with an account so I'm not sure what stats of mine are visible on Project-GC.

 

It seems clear, however, that many people enjoy comparing their stats with others and for them sites like Project-GC seem to provide added value.

[+CanadianRockies]

The stats I'm interested I can get from my GSAK records and keep them mostly private. I've not opted in with an account so I'm not sure what stats of mine are visible on Project-GC.

No such thing as privacy with Project-GC around. You don't have to opt into Project-GC. Your profile there probably has just about every statistic available from GSAK...and more.

[cezanne]

I'm not entirely clear on the reason you think there is some tradeoff between QR code caches and LPC caches. I know that a lot of the QR codes are stuck to the outside of the pole so you don't need to lift the cover.

 

Maybe what was meant was just that the typical places where the QR codes of the m game are to found are as boring and insignifant than LPC caches.

 

I have hoped for a while that the m game would absorb some of the boring and score oriented activities within geocaching, but that did not happen.

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

Has there been a website that tries to add value to geocaching.com instead of competing with it? These threads lamenting the lose of the old ways always seem to lead to an admission that good caches are still possible, many exist, and many more would exist, except that no one can find them among all the power trails and LPCs and other micros. Creating a competing site wouldn't work, but could a cooperating site fill in the missing pieces?

There have been various sites that have tried to add value. There have been a number of sites that have provided statistics in one form or another. Some of which have at least been successful for a time. Their biggest issue has been requiring people to opt in and often upload their finds. Project-GC uses the GC api so it may be a bit easier to use.

I was thinking of a site that add value to the geocaches themselves, not merely web sites that add extra stuff like statistics. For example, people that want geocaching to be just like it was back in The Good Old Days could go to a site in order to find caches worthy of The Good Old Days. I don't think Project-GC has anything like that, although that might be a place to add it.

[+tozainamboku]

The stats I'm interested I can get from my GSAK records and keep them mostly private. I've not opted in with an account so I'm not sure what stats of mine are visible on Project-GC.

No such thing as privacy with Project-GC around. You don't have to opt into Project-GC. Your profile there probably has just about every statistic available from GSAK...and more.

Fortunately privacy was not the main reason for not opting in to statistics sites. Mostly is was lack of interest on my part, but perhaps also the idea that if it meant people would be discouraged from evaluating geocaching based on statistics it might make the complaining go away. Just make it simple - are you having fun?

 

I'm not entirely clear on the reason you think there is some tradeoff between QR code caches and LPC caches. I know that a lot of the QR codes are stuck to the outside of the pole so you don't need to lift the cover.

 

Maybe what was meant was just that the typical places where the QR codes of the m game are to found are as boring and insignifant than LPC caches.

 

I have hoped for a while that the m game would absorb some of the boring and score oriented activities within geocaching, but that did not happen.

My guess would be that sites like these may work better for a few people who want to play mindless check-in with your cell phone games. Maybe some of them would have gone to geocaching otherwise. What I suspect is that people find finding LPCs more fun than checking in when they get to the street corner or even scanning the QR code some has stuck on the crossing light.

 

I was thinking of a site that add value to the geocaches themselves, not merely web sites that add extra stuff like statistics. For example, people that want geocaching to be just like it was back in The Good Old Days could go to a site in order to find caches worthy of The Good Old Days. I don't think Project-GC has anything like that, although that might be a place to add it.

There are certainly people who blog about the more interesting cache they find. I suspect many ask for people to post their recommended caches. GCVote is still around for people who don't think the favorite vote goes far enough, that lets people rate caches.

 

Perhaps because someone has to recommend or vote on the cache these site don't get the inputs needed to get a reasonable rating. Or maybe there is just too many opinions about what makes a good cache or what is "worthy of the Good Old Days".

[+thebruce0]

Perhaps because someone has to recommend or vote on the cache these site don't get the inputs needed to get a reasonable rating. Or maybe there is just too many opinions about what makes a good cache or what is "worthy of the Good Old Days".

 

I'm confident this is the primary issue; and why Grounspeak has decided not to move forward with such an idea, just like the issue with virtuals, the 'wow factor'. Far too subjective a thing, let alone to apply across the board around the world and be self-managing without (or with very little) drama.

[+dprovan]

Or maybe there is just too many opinions about what makes a good cache or what is "worthy of the Good Old Days".

That would be my guess, but the people that complain about modern geocaching always seem quite confident that there's vastly superior way that people used to geocache that could be easily identified by its aficionados.

[cezanne]

Or maybe there is just too many opinions about what makes a good cache or what is "worthy of the Good Old Days".

That would be my guess, but the people that complain about modern geocaching always seem quite confident that there's vastly superior way that people used to geocache that could be easily identified by its aficionados.

 

I think the people who claim that old times geocaching is vastly superior are not very numerous.

Of course there are a few aspects like the decrease of decent sized cache containers filled with swag that can be measured in terms of objective criteria.

In most cases it is however about personal preferences.

 

I can very easily identify the cache I like in my own area, there are just too few of them hidden in recent years.

 

Many of those with similar interests as myself have left geocaching and returned to just being active in their original outdoor hobbies. No web site would make them return.

 

Moreover, I noticed that quite a number of more complex multi caches that are still around and have been/are very popular among old timers, are not all appreciated in the same way by newer cachers. They prefer very precise questions for multi caches with no wiggle room and do not want to spend even 5 minutes with thinking what is the most meaningful variant. They prefer to spend 30 minutes searching for an extremely well camouflaged cache with very spot on coordinates to spending 3 minutes of intuitive search for a cache at the most obvious location in an area with very jumpy reception where the goal is not to just follow the pointer and then search there with great ambition.

 

Of course there are old caches that are liked by both old and new cachers who belong to the cache's target audience, but that's not necessarily the case.

 

The focus of most modern cachers is to move from cache to cache and to deal with more than one cache per caching day. It's a different approach to geocaching which is not only linked to different preferences for geocaches.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Mudfrog]

Or maybe there is just too many opinions about what makes a good cache or what is "worthy of the Good Old Days".

That would be my guess, but the people that complain about modern geocaching always seem quite confident that there's vastly superior way that people used to geocache that could be easily identified by its aficionados.

 

If we're talking about containers by themselves, i honestly believe most people would have similar opinions on what makes a good cache. There would be a few variances but overall, creative, challenging, and/or nice location caches would win every time.

 

I contend that the quest for numbers is what drives many people these days and that container doesn't matter at all. A wet film pot, placed under a rock every .10 of a mile along side a highway works just fine because it gets them a smiley. People after smiley count are satisfied, they might even say the caches they are finding are good, because the things they're finding are helping them toward their goal.

 

It would be interesting to see what would happen if find count was taken away.

[+thebruce0]

If we're talking about containers by themselves, i honestly believe most people would have similar opinions on what makes a good cache. There would be a few variances but overall, creative, challenging, and/or nice location caches would win every time.

In the context of good geocache containers, I completely agree. In the context of geocaching preference, which style of containers constitute a "fun trip geocaching" - that may well vary greatly.

 

I contend that the quest for numbers is what drives many people these days and that container doesn't matter at all. A wet film pot, placed under a rock every .10 of a mile along side a highway works just fine because it gets them a smiley. People after smiley count are satisfied, they might even say the caches they are finding are good, because the things they're finding are helping them toward their goal.

This is coming from your perspective of quality of single cache containers and experiences as opposed to a longer experience of multiple caches with friends. If you were to ask anyone doing a badly maintained powertrail whether they'd love to see great containers at every waypoint, I guarantee everyone would be agreement. But if people set out for a powertrail, their goal isn't necessarily to find 'cool/quality' caches, great containers, all in good shape from a responsible CO who maintains its quality. Would they love to see that? Of course. But it's not a deal breaker.

And just because they're ok with a "wet film pot", does not mean they must only be after the smiley count!

It's one or the other. Plenty of people like power trails and are not in it for the numbers or the smiley. If you understand that, then your words seem to imply differently.

 

It would be interesting to see what would happen if find count was taken away.

Indeed. I'd wager that most people wouldn't care either way. It would certainly weed out those people that some people seem to abhor who are merely in it for the "smiley count". Alternatively, people who like to observe their statistics and keep track of their finds would, I believe, begin doing it elsewhere (if they're not already) of their own accord. Because there's nothing wrong with tracking your find count.

[+dprovan]

Many of those with similar interests as myself have left geocaching and returned to just being active in their original outdoor hobbies. No web site would make them return.

I think you're probably correct. Even massive changes to geocaching.com and its users to somehow make geocaching much more like the old days wouldn't bring them back.

 

Moreover, I noticed that quite a number of more complex multi caches that are still around and have been/are very popular among old timers, are not all appreciated in the same way by newer cachers.

While it's probably true that many newer cachers don't like multicaches, easy or hard, in my area, at least, there are still plenty of cachers, new and old, that enjoy a challenging multicache. I would go so far as to say there are far more today then there were back in the good old days.

 

They prefer very precise questions for multi caches with no wiggle room and do not want to spend even 5 minutes with thinking what is the most meaningful variant. They prefer to spend 30 minutes searching for an extremely well camouflaged cache with very spot on coordinates to spending 3 minutes of intuitive search for a cache at the most obvious location in an area with very jumpy reception where the goal is not to just follow the pointer and then search there with great ambition.

This is a strangely specific complaint that I really can't see supporting based on any actual observations. In my experience, cachers today (new and old) are more likely to give up after 5 minutes. While some cachers will stick out a 30 minutes search, and a few might actually enjoy it, I really don't see that being any kind of widespread preference.

 

And on the other hand, of course a newer cacher is not going to enjoy a cache requiring an "intuitive search" since they won't yet have developed such intuitions. From their point of view, this would seem like an elitist search based on secret information aimed at keeping newbies from finding the cache.

 

I have to admit, I hate multicaches that have multiple "meaningful variants" (which I would call "hopelessly ambiguous clues") and have bad coordinates (even when excused by "jumpy reception"), so even though I enthusiastically embrace all manner of multicaches, apparently I would be on the wrong side of your complaint here.

 

The focus of most modern cachers is to move from cache to cache and to deal with more than one cache per caching day. It's a different approach to geocaching which is not only linked to different preferences for geocaches.

Multiple caches per day is certainly the norm now, but I think it's more because it's very easy to find several caches in any give geocaching adventure than because of some fundamental change it the attitude towards caching.

 

I contend that the quest for numbers is what drives many people these days and that container doesn't matter at all.

Well, I say you're wrong. People count, and some people seek numbers, but for the most part the people I've run into are motivated by finding caches, not counting caches. But the focus is on caches, not cache contents or location, so the container is far less important now, although almost everyone complains about crap when that's what they find.

 

It would be interesting to see what would happen if find count was taken away.

Well, of course we'll never know, and even if counts were dropped, everyone would just flock to another place to get see the counts. But asking what it would be like if geocaching.com didn't have counts is like asking what it would be like if geocaching.com didn't let geocaches have names: yes, it's undeniable that people would like geocaching less if there weren't counts, but that doesn't mean the count is their motivation.

[cezanne]

If we're talking about containers by themselves, i honestly believe most people would have similar opinions on what makes a good cache. There would be a few variances but overall, creative, challenging, and/or nice location caches would win every time.

 

The much more relevant question is however which caches people enjoy and not which caches they would rate as good if someone forced them to assign grades to a cache.

There are many high quality caches that I do not enjoy and there are caches with a leaking container that belong to my favourites.

 

My most important criterion is the way to the cache, even before the location itself. Creativity is completely irrelevant for me and rather makes me often enjoy a cache less than with a standard set-up and while a challenge from time to time might be nice, I'm not eager to be challenged routinely while geocaching.

 

I contend that the quest for numbers is what drives many people these days and that container doesn't matter at all. A wet film pot, placed under a rock every .10 of a mile along side a highway works just fine because it gets them a smiley. People after smiley count are satisfied, they might even say the caches they are finding are good, because the things they're finding are helping them toward their goal.

 

That oversimplies things extraordinarily. I know many newer caches that care about cache quality but still have a completely different idea about the caches they enjoy than most old-timers in my area. Of course there are cachers for whom more smilies is of utmost importance, but there are so many differences in old vs new that cannot be explained via numbers.

 

It would be interesting to see what would happen if find count was taken away.

 

Nothing as there are all those third party tools around which will always exist.

[cezanne]

Moreover, I noticed that quite a number of more complex multi caches that are still around and have been/are very popular among old timers, are not all appreciated in the same way by newer cachers.

While it's probably true that many newer cachers don't like multicaches, easy or hard, in my area, at least, there are still plenty of cachers, new and old, that enjoy a challenging multicache. I would go so far as to say there are far more today then there were back in the good old days.

 

There are different aspects which can be regarded as challenging and the type of challenges which most newer caches enjoy are different from the challenges the old timers used to enjoy.

 

They prefer very precise questions for multi caches with no wiggle room and do not want to spend even 5 minutes with thinking what is the most meaningful variant. They prefer to spend 30 minutes searching for an extremely well camouflaged cache with very spot on coordinates to spending 3 minutes of intuitive search for a cache at the most obvious location in an area with very jumpy reception where the goal is not to just follow the pointer and then search there with great ambition.

This is a strangely specific complaint that I really can't see supporting based on any actual observations. In my experience, cachers today (new and old) are more likely to give up after 5 minutes. While some cachers will stick out a 30 minutes search, and a few might actually enjoy it, I really don't see that being any kind of widespread preference.

 

It was not a complaint. It was an observation made by me and other caches by looking at the quite different echo certain caches get from cachers who started to cache at very different points of time. The fact that most newer cachers are well willing to spend 30 minutes to search for a well hidden cache with exact coordinates and have an issue with caches that can be found in 3 minutes by intuition, has nothing to do with the length of the time limit you mention above.

 

 

And on the other hand, of course a newer cacher is not going to enjoy a cache requiring an "intuitive search" since they won't yet have developed such intuitions. From their point of view, this would seem like an elitist search based on secret information aimed at keeping newbies from finding the cache.

 

No, I do not agree at all and I'm not at all referring to newbies. I'm referring to cachers who started much later than myself, but often have found much more caches than myself or at least not less. For me a cache where there is only one reasonable hideout that really sticks out within 30m is easy. I find it at once as this is the first place I look at. Those people typically insist to search for a long time at the spot where their GPS zeros in.

For me caches where the accuracy of the GPS and the ambition to look very closely at a small area and find the cache at a completely not obvious location is the much more challenging task and also the one I do not enjoy at all.

 

I have to admit, I hate multicaches that have multiple "meaningful variants" (which I would call "hopelessly ambiguous clues") and have bad coordinates (even when excused by "jumpy reception"), so even though I enthusiastically embrace all manner of multicaches, apparently I would be on the wrong side of your complaint here.

 

Yes, of course you would belong to the majority group (as most cachers who started around the time you started) and there is nothing bad about that.

And again, I was not complaining, I was trying to explain differences in the approaches and preferences of cachers.

If most newer cachers write negative logs for some of the favourite caches of older cachers, this does not increase the motivation for the cache owners to keep

those caches and it also means that we cannot partition caches into good and bad.

 

Everyone tends to have a preference for what better fits to our approaches. My search approach is not based on coordinates once I come close to the cache area.

I do not even realize how good the coordinates are when the caches are hidden in the way I enjoy the most because I found them actually without using the GPS in

the very last part. This is not a question of the cache type and applies to traditionals too.

 

There are many reasons why I appreciate if the hideout can be guessed. Consider e.g. a cache hidden in nasty terrain. Then approaching a single spot is quite an effort for me

and I want to save my energy for the real effort and do not want to move around from location to location. For many hiders of the old times I could say already from quite some distance,

well this is the place where the cache will be and I was correct almost always. It might then have been hard for me to get there, but that's another topic. Nowadays it often happens that I

visit first the places that would have lend themselves as perfect hideout places and there is no cache there and after a longer search or asking for help I then find the cache at

a completely uncharacteristic place. Back then most cachers in my area tried to hide caches only for the eyes of muggles (not to say that they always convinced) - nowadays many caches are hidden to offer a search challenge for the searcher. In the first case one will typically take the most striking hideout in the area (if possible) and in the second case stay away from all obvious hideouts.

[+Mudfrog]

I contend that the quest for numbers is what drives many people these days and that container doesn't matter at all. A wet film pot, placed under a rock every .10 of a mile along side a highway works just fine because it gets them a smiley. People after smiley count are satisfied, they might even say the caches they are finding are good, because the things they're finding are helping them toward their goal.

This is coming from your perspective of quality of single cache containers and experiences as opposed to a longer experience of multiple caches with friends. If you were to ask anyone doing a badly maintained powertrail whether they'd love to see great containers at every waypoint, I guarantee everyone would be agreement. But if people set out for a powertrail, their goal isn't necessarily to find 'cool/quality' caches, great containers, all in good shape from a responsible CO who maintains its quality. Would they love to see that? Of course. But it's not a deal breaker.

And just because they're ok with a "wet film pot", does not mean they must only be after the smiley count!

It's one or the other. Plenty of people like power trails and are not in it for the numbers or the smiley. If you understand that, then your words seem to imply differently.

 

Well, I say you're wrong. People count, and some people seek numbers, but for the most part the people I've run into are motivated by finding caches, not counting caches. But the focus is on caches, not cache contents or location, so the container is far less important now, although almost everyone complains about crap when that's what they find.

 

It's just hard for me to see why anyone would be motivated to stop on the side of the road, hop out and grab a cache, hop back in the vehicle, drive 526 feet, then repeat this procedure multiple times. To say that plenty of people like PTs but are not doing it for the numbers doesn't make sense to me. Being that most power trails get placed so that people can pick up lots of smilies in a short period of time, why else would a person pick a power trail to do?

 

Most new cachers i talk to ask how many. I go to an event and just about everyone talks about how many they have found. If someone announces that they have a large number then guess what, people clap and say "way to go" or something to that affect. Then there's the conversations about making big plans to go do a power trail. Most of these people can't even remember a specific cache that they found yesterday but ask them how many they've found and they'll give you their answer immediately.

 

Now, i don't mean to come off sounding like i abhor this kind of play. What i am saying is that geocaching has changed because so many are into numbers these days. Caches are placed to accomodate this which thereby causes a reduction in caches placed like they were in the "old days".

[4wheelin_fool]

I can't help but wonder if Groundspeak would have benefitted by offering the other game alongside of this one, and substituting the QR codes for LPCs somehow.

I'm not sure how that would have benefitted geocaching. Unless you actually just mean Groundspeak.

Actually, good that you raised that game... yeah I was part of the initial crowd when it was 'spinning off' as it were from geocaching, and we were bringing in what was learned from geocaching to apply to this game which was much more mobile and instant than signing logbooks (even using cache containers to house qr codes, before lamination and treelitter was the norm). Since that point though, it's definitely become something 'new' to the 'old' as what have now in geocaching. Instead of complaining, I just lost interest and stopped playing that game long ago in favour of gc.

 

I actually think gc may have been worse off if it had adopted that qr mentality. That game was born because of the different style of play and new technology that made it possible. Allowing it to be a different game I think saved geocaching (ymmv, obviously) as the hobby that it is. Otherwise it would have invited the very mentality that many dislike in this game. That game could have been better, but they focused on competition and points. And try as many do to imply that geocaching is now about that - really, no, it's not. Statistics are just statistics. There is no promotion of or emphasis on competition that isn't made by individuals and the community itself.

 

In that game, competition is encouraged. Leave that to their game. And let geocaching be what it is - searching out hidden containers in the outdoors with gps (website logging isn't even a necessity). It's a game which is also different in ways than when it began. But it could have been something completely different than what it is, had they fully adopted and promoted the 'new' mentality.

 

That mentality is occurring here anyhow. It's rampant without any encouraging. Perhaps we could curse it everytime it happens, or accept it. If Groundspeak listed QR codes on powertrails instead of micros, then the two states could exist in harmony. Geocaching is billed as a high tech treasure hunt, and it was when I started in 2001. Today, it's not really as high tech as it was. The QR codes are a step ahead, and with location verification, there can not be any leapfrogging or "cheating". The other caches would be recognized as different, and treated different.

[4wheelin_fool]

There are quite a few other competing geocaching sites which have popped up since this one began, but none have been popular to any extent.

Has there been a website that tries to add value to geocaching.com instead of competing with it? These threads lamenting the lose of the old ways always seem to lead to an admission that good caches are still possible, many exist, and many more would exist, except that no one can find them among all the power trails and LPCs and other micros. Creating a competing site wouldn't work, but could a cooperating site fill in the missing pieces?

 

Waymarking stats should have been included on the GC profile long ago, and it seems odd that they never did it. That would have boosted its popularity tremendously. A cooperating site would work well. A site simply listing a profile of stats from all of the sites would be popular.

[+thebruce0]

It's just hard for me to see why anyone would be motivated to stop on the side of the road, hop out and grab a cache, hop back in the vehicle, drive 526 feet, then repeat this procedure multiple times.

Because it's not about "hop out... grab... hop back in... drive 526 feet... repeat" to everyone who enjoys it.

 

To say that plenty of people like PTs but are not doing it for the numbers doesn't make sense to me.

And that doesn't mean that everyone who does enjoy it is doing it for numbers. If you can't understand how someone can enjoy the experience of doing powertrails with friends, and it not being about numbers, then just let it go, right there.

 

Being that most power trails get placed so that people can pick up lots of smilies in a short period of time, why else would a person pick a power trail to do?

Yes, some power trails are placed by COs explicitly, by their intent, to provide easy numbers. That doesn't mean anyone who does them is doing it for that reason, for that motivation.

 

Most new cachers i talk to ask how many.

As described above, there are more caches these days. So it's much more common for cachers to feel a trip is more worthwhile the more are found. That is not the same thing as going caching just to get more smilies.

 

I go to an event and just about everyone talks about how many they have found. If someone announces that they have a large number then guess what, people clap and say "way to go" or something to that affect.

And what's the problem with that? If you don't prefer to look at numbers or be impressed with how many people or yourself are able to find, then don't say anything about it. Let people enjoy their accomplishment. That still does not mean people are only caching "for the numbers", which is not in itself a bad thing either.

 

Then there's the conversations about making big plans to go do a power trail. Most of these people can't even remember a specific cache that they found yesterday but ask them how many they've found and they'll give you their answer immediately.

Probably because their intent wasn't to find "interesting caches", and more than likely the powertrail wasn't composed of "interesting caches". The memory is about the intent of the trip - to enjoy grabbing a whole bunch of a caches on a trail. So that's what they'll recall - how many were found. Likely even how many were not found and DFN'd. It's part of the fun. Not necessarily about increasing the smiley count.

 

Now, i don't mean to come off sounding like i abhor this kind of play. What i am saying is that geocaching has changed because so many are into numbers these days.

No, geocaching has changed first because there are so many more geocaches these days.

Thus, there is also an increased number of people who enjoy multiple-cache trips and excursions, for the fun of trip, not just interesting caches.

Thus, there are also some people who put more value on "score" than the geocaches. This seems to be the class/preference of cacher/caching you dislike. I don't blame you. But it's not a direct correlation to power trails, nor desire to find more caches.

 

Caches are placed to accomodate this which thereby causes a reduction in caches placed like they were in the "old days".

There's certainly not a reduction in caches placed like they were in the "old days". But that point has been covered numerous times earlier in this thread. It's a perception. There are more caches now than ever before, and more caches being placed of all types. And of course this varies from region to region and community to community around the world.

Edited November 25, 2014 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

There's certainly not a reduction in caches placed like they were in the "old days". But that point has been covered numerous times earlier in this thread. It's a perception. There are more caches now than ever before, and more caches being placed of all types. And of course this varies from region to region and community to community around the world.

 

I'm much less certain than you. If you just refer to traditional, multi etc and to micro, small, regular as cache types, then I agree.

If you looker closer to the design of the caches, I do not agree at all.