New vs. Old Geocaching

[+Team Microdot]

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.

 

This is fairly typical of the sort of disappointing, generic one-for-all logs I'm seeing more of over the last twelve months

[+thebruce0]

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.geocachin...92-24c54a806673

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.

Sure.

Do you know that cache?

That log may be gracious.

Read my comments again - I did not say that people are obligated to log every cache with long wonderful explanations unique to that experience. I did say that most often logs are relative to the individual cache experience. Yes, On days with many caches, I copy a short overview of the day, and if there's more worth commenting about, I make certain that I do so! Absolutely I do. Unless you've found and know all the caches I've found that day, then you can't comment to say that if you were in our position you would have written something 'wonderful' for that particular cache.

 

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.

Irrelevant. I said long-time cachers do this, and those with many thousands of finds. Not just new cachers.

 

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.geocachin...92-24c54a806673

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.

 

This is fairly typical of the sort of disappointing, generic one-for-all logs I'm seeing more of over the last twelve months

See above.

 

And I fully agree.

 

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

Edited November 18, 2014 by thebruce0

[+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.

 

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

 

You misinterpret what I say. I meant a basic numbers run...not what "quality" (whatever that means) run. A basic numbers run.

[cezanne]

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.geocachin...92-24c54a806673

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.

Sure.

Do you know that cache?

 

No, I do not know that cache (I just picked one you found on that day that has a favourite ratio that is not too bad). In any case I know that such logs are common in my area for all caches found during a day with many finds and among those finds are typically caches that deserve a non generic log. My intent was not to criticize your logs, but rather to see what makes your area different from mine and to see whether we speak about the same thing.

 

 

Read my comments again - I did not say that people are obligated to log every cache with long wonderful explanations unique to that experience. I did say that most often logs are relative to the individual cache experience. Yes, On days with many caches, I copy a short overview of the day, and if there's more worth commenting about, I make certain that I do so! Absolutely I do.

 

Do you even have time to read the cache descriptions for the caches done on a 200+ cache day?

Would you be able to even realize on such a day what is special about a cache like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCM2QP_rescue-you ?

If you only visit the location without reading the accompanying text, you do not get the full experience and will most of what the cache is about except you are an expert yourself.

 

Your example of one of your longer logs is not from a 200+ cache day. It appears to me that the more caches find per day, the more this will become visible in the logs regardless of the visited caches. Those who happen to be so unfortunate to own a cache in an area where later many caches have been placed that are often the target of number runs, will receive many generic logs and this is a trend that increased over the last few years and it would surprise me very much if there is an area with a high cache density which is attractive for tours with many finds per day where such logs are not common.

Edited November 18, 2014 by cezanne

[+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

 

You misinterpret what I say. I meant a basic numbers run...not what "quality" (whatever that means) run. A basic numbers run.

 

So I should assume that you'd enjoy a whole bunch of awful caches, so long as you were with friends and got the numbers in?

[+thebruce0]

My intent was not to criticize your logs, but rather to see what makes your area different from mine and to see whether we speak about the same thing.

Then picking a random log for which I either chose not write something wonderful or had nothing wonderful to say is not the way to find out how many "quality" caches there are in my area. Possibly not even looking at my favorites. Because we may very well not share an identical definition of "quality" geocache.

 

Do you even have time to read the cache descriptions for the caches done on a 200+ cache day?

Yes.

 

So I should assume that you'd enjoy a whole bunch of awful caches, so long as you were with friends and got the numbers in?

This wasn't directed to me, but I would say Yes. Definitely. If we had fun. Even if the caches were "bad" by our judgement.

[cezanne]

My intent was not to criticize your logs, but rather to see what makes your area different from mine and to see whether we speak about the same thing.

Then picking a random log for which I either chose not write something wonderful or had nothing wonderful to say is not the way to find out how many "quality" caches there are in my area. Possibly not even looking at my favorites. Because we may very well not share an identical definition of "quality" geocache.

 

I was not trying to find out how many quality caches there are, but just whether the way people log caches on a day with many finds is considerably different than in my area.

[+Team Microdot]

So I should assume that you'd enjoy a whole bunch of awful caches, so long as you were with friends and got the numbers in?

This wasn't directed to me, but I would say Yes. Definitely. If we had fun. Even if the caches were "bad" by our judgement.

 

Which goes some way to explaining why people who throw out bunches of awful caches carry on doing so I guess. And then those caches linger... and go to rack and ruin... and newbies find them and think that's what passes for an acceptable cache and throw out more, or some which are just a little bit worse, down and down we go into the depths of despair

 

Truly inspirational

[+DanOCan]

Ponder this. If you think that you're being called out as an elitist jerk and that makes you feel bad, imagine how saying new players and new ways of caching are terrible and ruining the game are making the newbies feel.

I prefer being called "Geocaching snob" versus "elitist jerk". Neither one makes me feel bad as I tend to treat it as a badge of honor.

[+thebruce0]

Which goes some way to explaining why people who throw out bunches of awful caches carry on doing so I guess. And then those caches linger... and go to rack and ruin... and newbies find them and think that's what passes for an acceptable cache and throw out more, or some which are just a little bit worse, down and down we go into the depths of despair

 

Truly inspirational

Complaining grump on the shoreline? Or giving up?

 

Yes, the perpetutation of what people enjoy will continue, whether it's by me with what I like, you with what you like, or them with what they like.

If you stop perpetuating what you like, then everyone else's enjoyment will drown out yours. That's just the way things work. Whether geocaching or other things in the world.

Times change.

And as said earlier, geocaching "old" hasn't been replaced by "new". The "old" is still around! So make it last.

[+Team Microdot]

Which goes some way to explaining why people who throw out bunches of awful caches carry on doing so I guess. And then those caches linger... and go to rack and ruin... and newbies find them and think that's what passes for an acceptable cache and throw out more, or some which are just a little bit worse, down and down we go into the depths of despair

 

Truly inspirational

Complaining grump on the shoreline? Or giving up?

 

Neither.

 

Pointing at the empty lifeboats while everyone frantically clings to the sinking wreckage because there's a film pot full of paper pulp on it that doesn't have their signature on it would be closer to the truth.

[+thebruce0]

Pointing at the empty lifeboats while everyone frantically clings to the sinking wreckage because there's a film pot full of paper pulp on it that doesn't have their signature on it would be closer to the truth.

If that's all you see, then you need to clean your glasses.

I'm sorry that's the state of your geocaching hobby now. Really. Because that just sucks.

 

I don't see that, at all. So I'm good with it! As are all my geocaching friends, and the general state of geocaching in my general area, where quality caches are in abundance, as is a wonderful community composed of a wide variety of styles and preferences and ages and skills, and for the most part quite respectful of each other.

Edited November 18, 2014 by thebruce0

[+L0ne.R]

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.

 

 

I'm in your area Bruce and I agree. It's often the old-timers who (surprisingly, at least to me) post the copy/paste summary of their mega day - ending it with a generic thanks to all the people who placed caches for them to find and a final thanks to the guy who organized the group hike. And these are generally people who write great logs when they go out caching by themselves or with one or 2 other people. It is one thing that has changed in the last couple of years - more mega caching in large groups where everyone copies & pastes and they each follow the same format as if there's a GSAK form that everyone uses.

 

I enjoyed a great day of caching in the _[your town/city/county here]_ area with

_[other cachers' names here]_

. We signed the cache logs as

_[your group's name here]_

.

_[Weather that day here]_

.

_[Thank the guy that supplied the coffee here]_

.

_[Thank the guy that organized the hike here]_.

Thanks to all the cache hiders for their contribution to a great day of caching.

There are rare exceptions. One of my cache hides was hit by a big group of almost 35 cachers. Only one of the 35 said anything about my cache (it's unique, creative in a nice location, if I do say so myself) all the rest were copy and paste logs that matched the above. I was almost ready to pack up hiding caches by the time I got the last log entry via email over the course of a few days. Then I got her log that actually mentioned the interesting container and the fun they had with the cache title, I appreciated her comments so much I emailed her back to thank her.

 

I'm wondering if the fill-in-the-form type of copy-n-paste mass-logging has become the norm because of GSAK. 3rd party applications have had quite the effect on logging practices. They make geocaching easier, but it comes with a lack of substance.

[+thebruce0]

I'm wondering if the fill-in-the-form type of copy-n-paste mass-logging has become the norm because of GSAK. 3rd party applications have had quite the effect on logging practices. They make geocaching easier, but it comes with a lack of substance.

That may well be, GSAK and smartphone app simplicity causing logging headaches for owners...

 

And yep that's the caching group / style that I've come to abhor. It's just. Not. Fun. Unless you're just there to hang out with people, and don't really care about the caches, or finding caches for your own account rather than the group as a whole. If you're there to go geocaching, then you really have to prefer that style, and as with many comments about the style, it's generally not favourable unless you're in the group.

 

There are people disable their caches if they know the group will be coming to their area. Even then, if the cache is removed and disabled temporarily, there may still be people who look for it not knowing it's not there. And if one person says it's been logged, and those in the group who log caches they didn't themselves find also log it, then you get multiple copy/paste finds on caches that do not exist and could not have been found. Or for difficult or multistage caches, if one person "attains" the final coordinates, they may skip everything and just find the final cache, logging the group in so anyone who wants to can log it found, because it's on the list and has been checked off. It happens. And it's ridiculous.

 

But is that the norm? Certainly not. It's an exception. Especially in this area, from my experience and observation.... I'm very glad to be in the region we're in. So. Much. Variety.

Edited November 18, 2014 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

Pointing at the empty lifeboats while everyone frantically clings to the sinking wreckage because there's a film pot full of paper pulp on it that doesn't have their signature on it would be closer to the truth.

If that's all you see, then you need to clean your glasses.

 

Ah yes - of course, you're right - it's my glasses that are the problem. I'll pop out and trade them in for some nice rose tinted ones - that'll sort everything out quick-smart

[+thebruce0]

Ah yes - of course, you're right - it's my glasses that are the problem. I'll pop out and trade them in for some nice rose tinted ones - that'll sort everything out quick-smart

You don't need rose-coloured. You just need clear.

[+L0ne.R]

Which goes some way to explaining why people who throw out bunches of awful caches carry on doing so I guess. And then those caches linger... and go to rack and ruin... and newbies find them and think that's what passes for an acceptable cache and throw out more, or some which are just a little bit worse, down and down we go into the depths of despair

 

Truly inspirational

Complaining grump on the shoreline? Or giving up?

 

Neither.

 

Pointing at the empty lifeboats while everyone frantically clings to the sinking wreckage because there's a film pot full of paper pulp on it that doesn't have their signature on it would be closer to the truth.

 

I feel this way too a lot of the time. The number of moldy caches I've found on number-run rail-trails with happy logs about what a great day everyone had finding 100s of caches is ever increasing. And the number of rail-trails taken up by abandoned moldy caches is ever increasing.

[+thebruce0]

I feel this way too a lot of the time. The number of moldy caches I've found on number-run rail-trails with happy logs about what a great day everyone had finding 100s of caches is ever increasing. And the number of rail-trails taken up by abandoned moldy caches is ever increasing.

 

This was certainly a year of trails in our region... Whether hiking power trails, or roadside power trails, or river run power trails... to some, those are about increasing numbers and stats. To others, those are about lengthier geocaching experiences with friends. To those who like single "quality" caches, they would not be enjoyable in the slightest. I think those who set out on those types of 'runs' don't expect large containers with really nice logbooks and swag & tradeable items; the expectation for each find is very different, and 'soggy logs' aren't of concern to them. But it's irrelevant to the experience they're out to have. Which is not an experience everyone would necessarily enjoy.

[+ArtieD]

So I should assume that you'd enjoy a whole bunch of awful caches, so long as you were with friends and got the numbers in?

 

Certainly.

[+tozainamboku]

Which goes some way to explaining why people who throw out bunches of awful caches carry on doing so I guess. And then those caches linger... and go to rack and ruin... and newbies find them and think that's what passes for an acceptable cache and throw out more, or some which are just a little bit worse, down and down we go into the depths of despair

 

Truly inspirational

Sadly we can't all cache in Lake Wobegon (a reference to an American radio show about a fictional place where "All the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average")

 

There are caches that will meet your standards and ones that that will not. It may be true that a segment of the geocaching community are generic cachers. By this I mean that they seem the caches themselves as interchangable and really view geocaching as going out and finding lots of caches rather than as a series of experiences with individual caches. I sure that the they still enjoy some caches more than others but they aren't going to be particularly upset if they get string of below average caches. After all, they were out doing that geocaching thing.

 

I suspect that they get some enjoyment simply by finding caches even when others may view these caches as less challenging and in less than the most interesting places. And in many cases, the fact that they did this activity with a bunch of friends is really the reason they find it enjoyable.

 

I won't deny that there has been a change as more people view the activity as generic caching. These people are likely to place more caches and may spend less time trying to create a unique experience for each cache. However there are still plenty of people hiding caches who spend time making "special". And long ago, I found that even the mose annoying generic cache hider, simply by placing so many caches, places a few that are worthwhile. The problem is how to determine what these caches are. If you accept that you don't live in Lake Wobegon, and you don't have to find every cache (or even want to), then you start to find ways to seek out the hides you are more likely going to enjoy.

[+Dame Deco]

I recently did a webcam cache in Virginia. Folks logging them with selfies is a pet peeve of mine, and I was curious as to when the first person did it--it was 2004! So even 10 years ago, there were "anything for a smiley" cachers. So perhaps the old days means pre-2004? I suppose the old days could mean--a cache is only a cache if it includes a log.

[+Team Microdot]

So I should assume that you'd enjoy a whole bunch of awful caches, so long as you were with friends and got the numbers in?

 

Certainly.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=327784&view=findpost&p=5448904

[+Team Microdot]

If you accept that you don't live in Lake Wobegon, and you don't have to find every cache (or even want to), then you start to find ways to seek out the hides you are more likely going to enjoy.

 

This pretty much describes what I do anyhow

[+dprovan]

I'm in your area Bruce and I agree. It's often the old-timers who (surprisingly, at least to me) post the copy/paste summary of their mega day - ending it with a generic thanks to all the people who placed caches for them to find and a final thanks to the guy who organized the group hike. And these are generally people who write great logs when they go out caching by themselves or with one or 2 other people. It is one thing that has changed in the last couple of years - more mega caching in large groups where everyone copies & pastes and they each follow the same format as if there's a GSAK form that everyone uses.

 

I enjoyed a great day of caching in the _[your town/city/county here]_ area with

_[other cachers' names here]_

. We signed the cache logs as

_[your group's name here]_

.

_[Weather that day here]_

.

_[Thank the guy that supplied the coffee here]_

.

_[Thank the guy that organized the hike here]_.

Thanks to all the cache hiders for their contribution to a great day of caching.

Actually, I much prefer when large groups as well as small groups hitting lots of caches take a cut&paste approach, but mainly because they can make it short. The lengthy cut&paste you list here is the worst possible approach: impersonal and wasting a lot of log space. But I'm perfectly happy with "Caching with FindEmAllBill and CantStopCachingJane." Or "Caching in the Wrecking Ball Cache Mob. We signed WBCM." I don't exactly mind when they take more time and each and every one of them tells the same story about finding the cache, but given a choice, I'd rather save the log space for something more interesting.

 

In my area, the culture is generally for high volume cachers and large groups to write short logs. Yeah, it's less personal, but after 100,000 finds or when 20 people all found the cache together, there's not usually much personal going on. But at the same time, everyone -- even someone that's found 100,000 caches -- seems to feel like if there is something interesting to say, they'll take the time to say it. Yes, that's right: all the cachers in my area are above average.

[+Zepp914]

The good way to do copy and paste logs:

 

One of the top 10 geocachers lives in a neighboring state. He is systematically getting all of the caches in Maryland. He copies and pastes 2 or 3 sentence logs and who can blame him with 60,000+ finds. The good news is that if he deviates from the copy/paste it is because he must have really liked your cache or found a problem with it.

 

The not so good way:

 

When I was in South Carolina, this guy came through and put out copy/paste logs where he said, "Most of the caches we found were in good condition and we only had to replace a few logs". His post did more harm then good because now the CO's must be wondering if it was their caches that needed logs or were the ones that weren't in good condition. That guy should just put "TFTC" and be done with it.

[+firestronaut]

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?

Edited November 19, 2014 by firestronaut

[+NeverSummer]

So I should assume that you'd enjoy a whole bunch of awful caches, so long as you were with friends and got the numbers in?

 

Certainly.

Oftentimes that's the only reason those caches even get visited as often as they do--they're easily accessible, and make for great fodder on an outing with friends where the time spent together is as (or more) important as (than) the caches found.

 

It certainly makes even the most mundane guardrail micros fun when you jump back in the car and gaffaw about "caches these days".

 

Case in point: I went out on a cache run by myself to grab a bunch in a trail series. Mundane, street sign micros. Bo-ring. Just for the numbers in the end, really. (Yes, I admit it.) Rewind to a ride with some friends with many, many dozens of caches found along a cache-dense trail. Many just boring micros in trees at intersections. What a HOOT! We enjoyed every minute of it together, but alone it would have been really boring and much less enjoyable.

[+L0ne.R]

So I should assume that you'd enjoy a whole bunch of awful caches, so long as you were with friends and got the numbers in?

 

Certainly.

Oftentimes that's the only reason those caches even get visited as often as they do--they're easily accessible, and make for great fodder on an outing with friends where the time spent together is as (or more) important as (than) the caches found.

 

It certainly makes even the most mundane guardrail micros fun when you jump back in the car and gaffaw about "caches these days".

 

Case in point: I went out on a cache run by myself to grab a bunch in a trail series. Mundane, street sign micros. Bo-ring. Just for the numbers in the end, really. (Yes, I admit it.) Rewind to a ride with some friends with many, many dozens of caches found along a cache-dense trail. Many just boring micros in trees at intersections. What a HOOT! We enjoyed every minute of it together, but alone it would have been really boring and much less enjoyable.

 

If they had been a variety of quality caches along that same route it would have been a fun day with friends AND a fun day as a solo expedition. In an ideal geocaching world it can be fun for group AND solo geocachers.

 

Yet the group-minded cachers tend not take the solo cachers into account when they're finding caches or hiding caches.

[+thebruce0]

Yet the group-minded cachers tend not take the solo cachers into account when they're finding caches or hiding caches.

 

hm. One could reverse that and say the solo cachers tend not to take the group-minded cachers into account when they disable and remove caches if they know a group has it in sights.

Not saying I agree with that, but arguments go both ways when you're comparing one 'type' of cacher's habits and treatment of another.

 

Here's the thing - if group-minded cachers were to always respect individual caches and the owners' intents for their caches, just as COs who value the quality of their individual caches were to always respect the group mentality of caching, then all would be well, right?

 

What I always tell people is that geocaching itself is very, very simple. While there aren't "rules" per se, there are guidelines which are the result of over 14 years of experience and growth, and still going. The rules though really are the very basics of geocaching apart from the geocaching action - respect nature, respect property (land and material that is not your own), respect local law, and respect the essence of the game (the caches; aka property). Beyond that, try to understand the spirit of the hobby, respect the reviewers, and respect the community, other people.

Follow all that (which is common sense for most people), and chances are you will have an enjoyable time, to whatever degree you take up the pastime, and you'll help others to have an enjoyable time as well.

Edited November 19, 2014 by thebruce0

[+dprovan]

The good way to do copy and paste logs:

 

One of the top 10 geocachers lives in a neighboring state. He is systematically getting all of the caches in Maryland. He copies and pastes 2 or 3 sentence logs and who can blame him with 60,000+ finds. The good news is that if he deviates from the copy/paste it is because he must have really liked your cache or found a problem with it.

No, sorry. If you're going to be impersonal on a large scale, don't waste my time repeating the same three sentences over and over. If you're going to be impersonal anyway, I claim that "TFTC" is as good as anything, but if you insist on personalizing your impersonal comments, keep it to just a few words, not three sentences.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The good way to do copy and paste logs:

 

One of the top 10 geocachers lives in a neighboring state. He is systematically getting all of the caches in Maryland. He copies and pastes 2 or 3 sentence logs and who can blame him with 60,000+ finds.

 

I can. I just don't get how a desire to get 60,000+ finds excuses someone for properly thanking the cache owners that are helping them achieve that goal.

 

 

[+thebruce0]

Interesting the responses...

 

Missing the fact that the last part of that "good way" says: "The good news is that if he deviates from the copy/paste it is because he must have really liked your cache or found a problem with it."

The 'good way' is not that he copies and pastes.

The way that I read that paragraph was this -- in the context of copy/paste logging (notice that both good and bad paragraphs were about copy/pastes), the "good way" is making sure there are unique comments regarding a cache - and generally it's probably because the experience in finding that particular cache warranted it (whether it's constructive, critical, informative, or praise). The "bad way" is, well, the second paragraph.

If you abhor copy/paste logging in principle, then of course both will be considered "bad". That wasn't the point Zepp914 was making, as far as I understood it.

Edited November 20, 2014 by thebruce0

[+dprovan]

If you abhor copy/paste logging in principle, then of course both will be considered "bad". That wasn't the point Zepp914 was making, as far as I understood it.

I'm fine with cut&paste logs. I just want to make sure that "the good way" to do cut&paste is understood to be brief.

 

Cache specific information is, by definition, not part of the cut&paste, so while you might be right that that was Zepp914's point, it's kinda obvious that cache specific information is desirable.

[+Mudfrog]

And as said earlier, geocaching "old" hasn't been replaced by "new". The "old" is still around! So make it last.

 

I do my part to try and make it last. Honestly though, i'm quite sure that i'm just spinning my wheels. The number of people after smiley count is simply outnumbering those who cache for other reasons. Unfortunately, alot of cachers who care about the hobby are leaving. Older caches are being archived and most anything new is placed with barely any thought put into it. For now, we can still find some of the "old" but it's easy to see that it's going away.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Mudfrog

[+thebruce0]

Unfortunately, alot of cachers who care about the hobby are leaving.

...A lot of cachers who care about the hobby the way they enjoyed it are leaving.

 

Older caches are being archived

For a variety of reasons, a few of which may be related to finder headaches, moreso now than in the past.

 

and most anything new is placed with barely any thought put into it. For now, we can still find some of the "old" but it's easy to see that it's going away.

Sure. Because things change. "better" or "worse" is entirely subjective.

Edited November 20, 2014 by thebruce0

[+hzoi]

I can say from my perspective, the less I have enjoyed micro caches, the more I've tried not to hide them.

 

About a third of the caches I've hidden were micros or micro-sized. But of the caches we've hidden since our move to Oklahoma, all but three were not micros. (Far too many micro around here already, I felt no need to add more.) I looked at the landscape when I got here and saw lots of park and grabs, few ammo cans, and no letterbox hides. So I hid some caches that you have to hike to, some ammo cans, and some letterboxes, because I like finding 'em, and who knows, maybe I'd inspire someone else to hide 'em, too. (Hasn't happened, but that's not going to change my hides, just going to limit the caches I seek.)

[+Zepp914]

Interesting the responses...

 

Missing the fact that the last part of that "good way" says: "The good news is that if he deviates from the copy/paste it is because he must have really liked your cache or found a problem with it."

The 'good way' is not that he copies and pastes.

The way that I read that paragraph was this -- in the context of copy/paste logging (notice that both good and bad paragraphs were about copy/pastes), the "good way" is making sure there are unique comments regarding a cache - and generally it's probably because the experience in finding that particular cache warranted it (whether it's constructive, critical, informative, or praise). The "bad way" is, well, the second paragraph.

If you abhor copy/paste logging in principle, then of course both will be considered "bad". That wasn't the point Zepp914 was making, as far as I understood it.

 

You got it.

 

I should have mentioned in my previous post that I do not recommend copy/paste posting. I never log that way. For those that do it, I was simply pointing out that some copy/paste posts can do more harm than intended.

[+Team Microdot]

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.geocachin...92-24c54a806673

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.

 

This is fairly typical of the sort of disappointing, generic one-for-all logs I'm seeing more of over the last twelve months

See above.

 

And I fully agree.

 

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

 

I've only just seen this. I probably read your original post - before the subsequent edit.

 

What were you saying? What is it you'd like me to make an effort to understand?

[Mr.Yuck]

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.geocachin...92-24c54a806673

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.

 

This is fairly typical of the sort of disappointing, generic one-for-all logs I'm seeing more of over the last twelve months

See above.

 

And I fully agree.

 

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.

[cezanne]

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.

[+dprovan]

The number of people after smiley count is simply outnumbering those who cache for other reasons.

It's easy to label people that find a lot of caches as having the irrational motive of increasing a count. The people I know with large counts have large counts because they like to find caches, not because they want to count.

 

I mention this because whenever people complain about it not being like the old days, I always think they miss the real change, which is that the focus is now on geocaching itself -- the hunt -- while in the early days geocaching was just an auxiliary experience people used to enhance outdoor adventures they were going to have anyway. People that were in it for the outdoor experience are disappointed that it's been detached from that.

 

Unfortunately, alot of cachers who care about the hobby are leaving. Older caches are being archived and most anything new is placed with barely any thought put into it. For now, we can still find some of the "old" but it's easy to see that it's going away.

I don't see evidence of these things in my area.

[cezanne]

It's easy to label people that find a lot of caches as having the irrational motive of increasing a count. The people I know with large counts have large counts because they like to find caches, not because they want to count.

 

Of course such cachers exist too. I know however cachers whose main goals are to improve their rank with respect to various rankings (in their area, country, worldwide - with respect to all finds, all finds in a certain period etc). There are lots of crazy stories that could be told about this - I just mention that I have been quite surprised some time ago when an insider told me that some cachers wait with logging for finds for a while so that others who are competing with them might believe that they can slow down and then suddenly add e.g. 500 find logs.

There are even cachers out there whose biggest geocaching goal is to once in their lifetime to become the cacher with the most finds worldwide.

 

I mention this because whenever people complain about it not being like the old days, I always think they miss the real change, which is that the focus is now on geocaching itself -- the hunt -- while in the early days geocaching was just an auxiliary experience people used to enhance outdoor adventures they were going to have anyway. People that were in it for the outdoor experience are disappointed that it's been detached from that.

 

I have tried several times to say something which goes in a similar direction by mentioning that the main interests of the majority of the geocachers who joined in my area within the last years (there are exceptions of course) are very different from the interests of those who belong to the geocaching pioneers in my area. The outdoor focus does definitely play a much smaller role.

 

Unfortunately, alot of cachers who care about the hobby are leaving. Older caches are being archived and most anything new is placed with barely any thought put into it. For now, we can still find some of the "old" but it's easy to see that it's going away.

I don't see evidence of these things in my area.

 

In my area I experienced that many left and that many caches got archived out of frustration. I would not go that far however to state that most of the newly placed caches are placed without thought. There exist such caches, but there exist also quite involved new caches (many of them being much more involved than the old ones). However these new caches are much more about tricky containers, implementing creative ideas, playing a game than about the outdoor experience, the hike and interesting places (though of course such caches still get hidden, but indeed their number of decreasing and even more when it comes to multi caches).

[+L0ne.R]

The number of people after smiley count is simply outnumbering those who cache for other reasons.

It's easy to label people that find a lot of caches as having the irrational motive of increasing a count. The people I know with large counts have large counts because they like to find caches, not because they want to count.

 

I mention this because whenever people complain about it not being like the old days, I always think they miss the real change, which is that the focus is now on geocaching itself -- the hunt -- while in the early days geocaching was just an auxiliary experience people used to enhance outdoor adventures they were going to have anyway. People that were in it for the outdoor experience are disappointed that it's been detached from that.

 

 

These days it has largely been whittled down to mostly the hunt, but barely even that - since with group caching, many if not most members of the group didn't actually participate in the hunt. So what's left?... The smiley/score/count.

 

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The number of people after smiley count is simply outnumbering those who cache for other reasons.

It's easy to label people that find a lot of caches as having the irrational motive of increasing a count. The people I know with large counts have large counts because they like to find caches, not because they want to count.

 

People I know that don't have large counts like to find caches too. They're just more discriminate about what caches they find and don't care that being more selective means that they don't have a high find count.

 

 

[+tozainamboku]

These days it has largely been whittled down to mostly the hunt, but barely even that - since with group caching, many if not most members of the group didn't actually participate in the hunt. So what's left?... The smiley/score/count.

My view is that geocaching is, was, and probably always will be a light fun activity. There may be some people who envision competitive professional geocaching where there are leader boards, prizes, and trophies awarded for getting the most smiley counts; but I believe that whether people prefer a hike to find a single cache or one that takes take you someone remarkable place they wouldn't have visited otherwise or prefer to spend a day with friends on a powertail, they do so because they are having fun.

 

It's sad that people who enjoy caches that give them a unique experience feel their enjoyment is ruined by people who enjoy finding generic containers hidden in routine locations. It sure seems that a bit of effort spent in selecting which caches you look for would eliminate most of the caches you disdain. Perhaps back in the day when there were few caches to find, you could find them all. In some areas, you might have found most of those old caches were ones you enjoyed and the "lame" caches were few and far between. Clearly as cacher demographics has change, generic hides dominate in some areas. But there are now more than enough caches that you can be choosy. There are plenty of tools to help avoide LPCs in parking lots and to seek out a cache that is special or unique.

 

[+NeverSummer]

These days it has largely been whittled down to mostly the hunt, but barely even that - since with group caching, many if not most members of the group didn't actually participate in the hunt. So what's left?... The smiley/score/count.

My view is that geocaching is, was, and probably always will be a light fun activity. There may be some people who envision competitive professional geocaching where there are leader boards, prizes, and trophies awarded for getting the most smiley counts; but I believe that whether people prefer a hike to find a single cache or one that takes take you someone remarkable place they wouldn't have visited otherwise or prefer to spend a day with friends on a powertail, they do so because they are having fun.

 

It's sad that people who enjoy caches that give them a unique experience feel their enjoyment is ruined by people who enjoy finding generic containers hidden in routine locations. It sure seems that a bit of effort spent in selecting which caches you look for would eliminate most of the caches you disdain. Perhaps back in the day when there were few caches to find, you could find them all. In some areas, you might have found most of those old caches were ones you enjoyed and the "lame" caches were few and far between. Clearly as cacher demographics has change, generic hides dominate in some areas. But there are now more than enough caches that you can be choosy. There are plenty of tools to help avoide LPCs in parking lots and to seek out a cache that is special or unique.

 

I like what you have to say here. I'd really agree with it.

 

I think part of the mentality that is hard to get rid of from the days of yore is that you could, in fact, clear out your neighborhood and get mostly great caches and memories. So, as the game grows, it is harder to kick that mentality to the curb for some (most?). I have a hard time looking at my map and know that I used to, back when I started caching, have a 2+ mile radius in Portland cleared out. It was fun for other reasons, mostly because once I got to that point, the hunts were about a friendly FTF race with caching buddies (who usually were right there together with me as I hunted for that new cache). It is a very complex issue.

 

But that is to say, it is a very "centered" view on the game that can help put it in perspective. I don't have to find all the caches, no matter how much my former (old geocaching) self would have been geocaching to find all within an ever-expanding radius.

 

Yeah, as I cleared out my neighborhood and the game grew, it was hard to not encounter more and more "lame" caches. (I never called them lame at the time, but each one of less-than-savory placement, container, or cache page compounded over the days, months, and years...) Eventually I did just that--I'd FTF hunt in my neighborhood (clear out that new LPC!), and then cache how I liked when I'd travel elsewhere. But now I guess I'm less centered, and just wish things were like the days of old...

 

 

Oh, and...GET OFF MY LAWN!

[cezanne]

I think part of the mentality that is hard to get rid of from the days of yore is that you could, in fact, clear out your neighborhood and get mostly great caches and memories. So, as the game grows, it is harder to kick that mentality to the curb for some (most?). I have a hard time looking at my map and know that I used to, back when I started caching, have a 2+ mile radius in Portland cleared out.

 

I don't have to find all the caches, no matter how much my former (old geocaching) self would have been geocaching to find all within an ever-expanding radius.

 

It never has been a goal of mine to clear out a radius around my home and from quite early onwards it could never have been as there are caches that I will never be able to do and others that I do not want to do.

 

What has changed is that some years ago it was simpler to find one unfound cache within acceptable distance from my home that I could use for letting me set out for a nice hike. One cache sufficed to end up a decent amount of physical activity for a weekend day or half-day. Now much more caches are available, but the number of caches suitable for my goal is smaller and even when visiting 5 shorter caches I often end up with less physical activity than with a single of those old caches.

 

Walking along paved roads or in a city is physical activity too, but not of the type that I prefer for weekends to recover from the week. Somewhere in Canada it might be easy to use almost all every traditional which is not hidden in the middle of a city to go for a nice extended walk. In my area this is not true.

 

So what has changed for me is that it becomes harder and harder to use geocaching as a tool to select motivating hikes and walks and to kick me out and to help in reducing the planning effort. Meanwhile more planning can be involved to combine a hike with geocaching than just plan a hike. In earlier years I liked that geocaching reduced my planning efforts for selecting a walk/hike.

 

 

Cezanne

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

[+Mudfrog]

These days it has largely been whittled down to mostly the hunt, but barely even that - since with group caching, many if not most members of the group didn't actually participate in the hunt. So what's left?... The smiley/score/count.

My view is that geocaching is, was, and probably always will be a light fun activity. There may be some people who envision competitive professional geocaching where there are leader boards, prizes, and trophies awarded for getting the most smiley counts; but I believe that whether people prefer a hike to find a single cache or one that takes take you someone remarkable place they wouldn't have visited otherwise or prefer to spend a day with friends on a powertail, they do so because they are having fun.

 

It's sad that people who enjoy caches that give them a unique experience feel their enjoyment is ruined by people who enjoy finding generic containers hidden in routine locations. It sure seems that a bit of effort spent in selecting which caches you look for would eliminate most of the caches you disdain. Perhaps back in the day when there were few caches to find, you could find them all. In some areas, you might have found most of those old caches were ones you enjoyed and the "lame" caches were few and far between. Clearly as cacher demographics has change, generic hides dominate in some areas. But there are now more than enough caches that you can be choosy. There are plenty of tools to help avoide LPCs in parking lots and to seek out a cache that is special or unique.

 

 

People who hide and who find for numbers don't ruin it per se. The problem is that so many people focus on this that we don't see as many quality/creative/challenging/nice location type caches hidden these days.

 

You say that "there are more than enough caches that i can be choosy". This is not the case in my area and i would bet that it isn't the case in most areas. Finding a cache that i think will be fun is definitely tougher to do.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Mudfrog

[+NeverSummer]

 

People who hide and who find for numbers don't ruin it per se. The problem is that so many people focus on this that we don't see as many quality/creative/challenging/nice location type caches hidden these days.

 

You say that "there are more than enough caches that i can be choosy". This is not the case in my area and i would bet that it isn't the case in most areas. Finding a cache that i think will be fun is definitely tougher to do.

I thought about this...I think you're right. One thing that has changed is that, while you can still find nice hikes and enjoyable sites, the containers are micros in the woods, or swagless coffee cans at the end of a huge hike.

 

Thankfully there are some great hides by some passionate cachers in the Anchorage area for me to seek here in AK. Sadly, they're all 4+ hours drive away, and most take a full day of hikes to find a couple of them. That is to say, they're still awesome caches, but I'm hard up to have the time and resources to get out to get them.

 

I've tried to change the situation here in my new home area, but have found that 2 things are against me: 1. small number of active cachers in my town (3? Maybe 4?). 2. This is a tourist town. So, I really only get finds on my nice hikes or scenic overlooks with swag-filled caches from those that live here (3 found its accounted for...), or the very, very few cachers that take the time anymore to come here and seek those "special" caches.

 

The micros along the road get plenty of finds, however...

Edited November 21, 2014 by NeverSummer