Geocaching/Groundspeak overhaul required

[+The Mighty Shark]

I have been geocaching since 2005 when the hobby was far more enjoyable than it seems to be of late.

 

Back then it was always a pleasure to go out and find new caches as more often than not it was placed by a someone who wanted to bring others to a place of interest or beauty and if a trackable was listed as being in a cache then there was a 99% chance it would be there.

 

OK roll on to present day and you find a whole now caching experience, I think a lot due to the invention of the mobile app and the roll of the reviewer which may well now be an overworked individual trying to keep on top of the numerous amount of caches being submitted for review on a daily basis.

 

Speaking personally now, I have noticed the huge amount of nano & micro type caches placed without thought and consideration for either the local population of non cachers or the interest of geocachers to find. Only today I read a log from a cacher who had gone looking for a cache only to find it missing only hours after publication because the local community were alarmed by the sudden activity outside of private homes.

 

We have also raised concerns with reviewers as to suitable locations and cache placement NOT following geocaching guidelines when placing by a school for example, only to be told by one reviewer that he was happy for the cache to be there as it was far enough from the school entrance, even though it was placed inside the school grounds. Admittedly this particular cache was placed by a pupil of the school so maybe they do not realise but the same child also placed a cache outside his home and actually states as much on the cache page listing so that in itself should raise possible security issues so again should have been picked up on by the reviewer.

 

As for the introduction of the mobile app it has produced a whole new species of geocacher who really has no idea how to cache properly as they will log a find numerous times on an individual cache page or pick up a trackable because they like the look of it and have no intention of moving it on.

As for placing a cache, we have found glass caches with all kinds of contents which are not permitted like food, sharps, etc

 

In summery I truly believe that geocaching.com/Groundspeak needs to think long and hard about these issues as without radical change the hobby is destined to become extinct in a matter of years as the original geocacher who spent his or her money on a dedicated GPS'r will simply get fed up of finding useless bits of plastic attached to a trash bin, or the new breed of cacher who thinks it's great to find a couple of caches then go out and place their own without consideration for where it is placed and who it might upset. Lets not give geocaching a bad name.

 

Reviewers as a whole need to be retrained and simply dismiss anything that does not abide with geocaching guidelines. If I were a reviewer, half the caches that I have found of late would never have been published on my watch.

[+bflentje]

All these things have ALWAYS been a problem it's just that there's a lot more of us doing it.

[+narcissa]

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

[jholly]

<snip>

Reviewers as a whole need to be retrained and simply dismiss anything that does not abide with geocaching guidelines. If I were a reviewer, half the caches that I have found of late would never have been published on my watch.

Reviewers publish what meets the guidelines, be it a film can every 528 feet in the desert, a film can under a lamp skirt, a keycase stuck to a stop sign or a ammo can at the end of a two mile hike in the woods. The guidelines do not include esthetic placement. I'm sure reviewers do occasionally hold there nose while pressing the publish button, they have no other choice.

[+Tatanka49]

I agree with a lot of this. I too am a long term cacher starting in 2004.

 

I think my first indication of 'Things are changing' when there became a proliferation of very short logs such as SL, TFTC, Got it etc. I like to give longer logs and I enjoy reading about other's finds of my caches. These shortened caches all appeared when the App became very popular and most new cachers are posting through their phones and making to logs as brief as possible.

 

Sometime ago someone suggested that you can't place a cache unless you have found X number of caches. Although that's a nice idea, it would also prevent museums and such for placing caches which are often better than other traditional caches.

 

There is a proliferation of nano's. I cringed at the thought when I first started. I like a nice big cache in a park...rather than a nano in a parking lot. But as GC moved into the cities, caches got more and more urban. I still try to put out smalls and above but often it is difficult. Nanos are ok if it takes you to a nice spot and not just for placing a cache there because you can.

 

Travel bugs are a thing of the past. I only launch traditional ones and even those disappear. Forget about the geocoins. They have priced themselves out of the drop off/pick up game since the collectors are sucking them all up. At Geoevents, people take down numbers just so they can have icons on their websites. that's not why I got into teh game. Even the idea of souvenirs on the website to me seems lame.

 

Enough of a rant for today.

 

John (an old fa** geocacher)

[+L0ne.R]

I hope that some of the board meetings at Groundspeak include discussions about how to make geocaching.com interesting both to the numbers crowd AND the quality-over-quantity group of cachers.

 

Every month, especially since the app became a dominating factor, the pastime has become less of a recreational pastime and more of a competitive sport. Increasingly quantity over quality, numbers are the most important ingredient. Maybe it's the best financial route for the company but I foresee a tipping point.

 

Maybe a competing site that strives for quality might be the incentive Groundspeak needs to change things. I remember when Garmin created their new site with a rating system, suddenly GS added fav points to their website. Without serious competition I don't think Groundspeak will consider the quality aspect of the game, unless there's a financial incentive.

[+whh0]

We are relatively new cachers (3 years), even we get frustrated by nanos in trees in front of somebodies house, we will search if we happen to be passing but tend to go for nice circuits in the countryside which take us to somewhere new with a great view or interesting wild life. My tb got picked up by a new cacher (4 finds) who never ever logged on to the website and never had a varified email so couldn't even contact them, we decided not to send out any more. Luckily there are enough caches out there for us to play the game the way we want to.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

Reviewers don't review for lameness or awesomeness. At least they shouldn't. If the cache meets the guidelines, even minimally, it gets published.

[+ArtieD]

If I were a reviewer, half the caches that I have found of late would never have been published on my watch.

 

That's why it's best you're not.

 

All these things have ALWAYS been a problem it's just that there's a lot more of us doing it.

 

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

 

Truth. Even in the winter of early 2006 when I started, people were talking about the same very thing.

 

Reviewers publish what meets the guidelines, be it a film can every 528 feet in the desert, a film can under a lamp skirt, a keycase stuck to a stop sign or a ammo can at the end of a two mile hike in the woods. The guidelines do not include esthetic placement. I'm sure reviewers do occasionally hold there nose while pressing the publish button, they have no other choice.

 

Reviewers don't review for lameness or awesomeness. At least they shouldn't. If the cache meets the guidelines, even minimally, it gets published.

 

Truth again. As long as a cache meets the criteria, it gets to live...for better or worse. I kinda like it that way, too, because it is the most fair way to do it. If we were to only get published based on perceived awesomeness of a cache, it would be a royal pain in the tuckus...

 

Maybe a competing site that strives for quality might be the incentive Groundspeak needs to change things. I remember when Garmin created their new site with a rating system, suddenly GS added fav points to their website. Without serious competition I don't think Groundspeak will consider the quality aspect of the game, unless there's a financial incentive.

 

You mean like Terracaching? Yeah, it's a rousing success.

 

Part of the problem is, in order to promote the "quality" aspect of the game, one must first be able to quantify what "quality" actually means in a way that everyone agrees with. Problem is, we can't do that. In terms of quality, one man's majestic vista is another man's guardrail cache...

[TahoeJoe]

The introduction of smartphones with GPS has really changed the way geocaching was played by opening the floodgates to the masses. Years ago geocaching stopped being a game played mostly by outdoor enthusiasts with a love for exploring and discovering new places. Before smartphones if you wanted to geocache, you had to invest in a relatively expensive GPS device. Power Trails and playing for numbers have led to the decline of quality caches while creating an overabundance of unimaginative micro caches placed solely for bloating find counts. More and more I read about angry landowners with the over saturation of caches. How in the world can a CO maintain hundred (in some cases thousands) of caches? I have a hard enough time with the few I have. I would like to see a limit on how many caches you can place. Once you reach that limit if you want to place a new cache, you would have to retire one of your other ones. With so many members, a limit on cache placement would not hurt anyone and make it more realistic for CO’s to maintain their caches while discouraging the placement of caches strictly for numbers. Let’s support and encourage quality over quantity.

[+cerberus1]

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

+1

[+AustinMN]

The introduction of smartphones with GPS has really changed the way geocaching was played by opening the floodgates to the masses.

 

If you are Groundspeak and tyrying to make a living, that is exactly what you want.

 

Years ago geocaching stopped being a game played mostly by outdoor enthusiasts with a love for exploring and discovering new places. Before smartphones if you wanted to geocache, you had to invest in a relatively expensive GPS device. Power Trails and playing for numbers have led to the decline of quality caches while creating an overabundance of unimaginative micro caches placed solely for bloating find counts. More and more I read about angry landowners with the over saturation of caches. How in the world can a CO maintain hundred (in some cases thousands) of caches? I have a hard enough time with the few I have. I would like to see a limit on how many caches you can place. Once you reach that limit if you want to place a new cache, you would have to retire one of your other ones. With so many members, a limit on cache placement would not hurt anyone and make it more realistic for CO’s to maintain their caches while discouraging the placement of caches strictly for numbers. Let’s support and encourage quality over quantity.

 

How would you define "quality"?

 

While I don't care for power trails or lamppost hides, I have no problem with those who choose to chase them. Let each player decide how they enjoy the game.

 

Austin

[+AustinMN]

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

+1

 

+1

[TahoeJoe]

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

+1

While that might seem the case, at least one gets to speak their concerns with other members in the community. In my experience people that speak out intelligently and politely are usually the ones that are heard and taken seriously.

[+Ambrosia]

In terms of quality, one man's majestic vista is another man's guardrail cache...

It's always better to combine the two.

[knowschad]

Part of the problem is, in order to promote the "quality" aspect of the game, one must first be able to quantify what "quality" actually means in a way that everyone agrees with. Problem is, we can't do that. In terms of quality, one man's majestic vista is another man's guardrail cache...

Oh, I'm pretty sure most people share a pretty similar idea of what "quality" means. The problem is that some don't care, or, at best, don't think that's what geocaching is all about. For the most part, one man's junk is another man's junk.

 

I completely concur with the OP that geocaching has changed, and much of it, not for the better. But there are still nuggets of good if you look. We have, for instance, had a number of multis around here that were NEVER seen in the "old days"... just awesome with mind-boggling cleverness. The problem is the amount of chaff you need to winnow to see the wheat.

Edited June 1, 2015 by knowschad

[+ArtieD]

 

Part of the problem is, in order to promote the "quality" aspect of the game, one must first be able to quantify what "quality" actually means in a way that everyone agrees with. Problem is, we can't do that. In terms of quality, one man's majestic vista is another man's guardrail cache...

Oh, I'm pretty sure most people share a pretty similar idea of what "quality" means. The problem is that some don't care, or, at best, don't think that's what geocaching is all about. For the most part, one man's junk is another man's junk.

 

To a degree you're right. I am very sure people would generally agree about quality when it comes to container choice, namely the resiliency of the container against the elements. When it comes to placement, though, outside of a really nasty, dirty spot, it gets a bit more complicated...

[knowschad]

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

+1

 

+1

 

None of these are new, and yet a game goes on that bears some resemblance to the old game.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

Quality is, and always will be, subjective. My caching has changed over the years, film pots at the base of a sign are not terribly thrilling anymore. On the other hand, there is one local cacher I know that has a special needs child. He never tires of finding these kinds of caches.

 

In my opinion, one thing that would help is a more consistent application of attributes. There are way too many caches getting published with no attributes selected. Ask the reviewers to challenge the cache owner to add attributes for any new caches. No attributes, it is not published. For me, ignoring caches with the Park & Grab attribute would make my searching for 'quality' caches a whole lot easier. With the increased number of geocaches in the world, we need better tools to help us find our definition of 'quality'. However, without a more consistent application of attributes, that basically means looking at each cache by hand.

 

Thanks, Skye.

[+L0ne.R]

 

Maybe a competing site that strives for quality might be the incentive Groundspeak needs to change things. I remember when Garmin created their new site with a rating system, suddenly GS added fav points to their website. Without serious competition I don't think Groundspeak will consider the quality aspect of the game, unless there's a financial incentive.

 

You mean like Terracaching? Yeah, it's a rousing success.

 

No, none of the current sites promote quality over quantity.

Perhaps that's an impossible goal.

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

All these things have ALWAYS been a problem it's just that there's a lot more of us doing it.

 

The Geocaching app didn't exist in 2005.

Edited June 1, 2015 by NYPaddleCacher

[+L0ne.R]

With the increased number of geocaches in the world, we need better tools to help us find our definition of 'quality'. However, without a more consistent application of attributes, that basically means looking at each cache by hand.

 

Thanks, Skye.

 

I agree with you. Better tools would help.

 

The favorite points system helped for a while but the database is too bloated now. Now you have to sift through 100s of fav'd caches to find the few you might also enjoy finding. You have to sort the truly recommended caches from the caches that people fav for very personal reasons (it is the first cache in a PT trail that gave the cacher 100 smileys that day, it was a great puzzle but the container is a neglected bison tube on a walmart parking lot fence, it was a FTF for the finder). Or, it was a great cache in 2010 when it got 10 FPs from 2010-2012 but now it's a neglected broken birdhouse with a moldy logsheet in a baggie inside and no FPs since 2013.

 

Attributes are definitely another good tool and I agree reviewers should be encouraged to have finders choose attributes. But like everything, some cache owners will abuse the attribute system by adding irrelevant attributes just to add attributes or to help people qualify for challenges.

 

There are too many abandoned neglected junk caches out there. And some very irresponsible cache owners out there who think nothing of hiding caches then abandoning them, and some of them try to bully cachers who post NMs and NAs.

 

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yes. Groundspeak/Geocaching has made a major overhaul. And is still working on it.

I-Phones, smart phones, Androids. These are the wave of the future. This is where Geocaching is going. There's more money in it! App users!

App users don't have to have an e-mail account? Don't make them get one. Make everyone use the new Message Center! As inconvenient as that is for PC users. But, they don't count.

What do you mean you don't log the cache from your smart phone? "TFTC." Everybody has one!

GPSr? Why bother?

The overhaul is continuing.

Quality? There have always been parking lot caches. But now they are much more common. Hike a mile to a cache? You gotta be kidding!

Yes. It's a very different game from when I started. But Groundspeak knows where the money is, and it is a business.

It looks as though a lot of old-timers are using the site less. But the App users make up for them.

Oh, well.

[+Sol seaker]

The only constant is change.

 

I think the favorite points was a great idea in getting the game back on track so people place some value in placing a good cache.

The other thing that Groundspeak did that was great was the makers workshops, where they showed people great caches and how to make them.

 

The problem is that one person's great cache is different from anothers.

 

For instance, I've always hated drive-ups. Then I injured my back and could only do drive-ups. I was so glad they existed. I've heard others say the same.

 

 

Quality is not something Groundspeak can regulate. I'm sure they wish they could.

 

The thing is caches are put out by the players, not Groundspeak. They can't regulate quality because what a good cache is varies person to person.

 

If GS didn't publish my cache because it felt the quality wasn't high enough I'd be pretty mad, how about you?

 

 

Is there something WE can do about it?

 

If we all held events in our hometowns about how to create an inventive quality cache it might help.

 

What else can we do about it?

[knowschad]

Quality is, and always will be, subjective. My caching has changed over the years, film pots at the base of a sign are not terribly thrilling anymore. On the other hand, there is one local cacher I know that has a special needs child. He never tires of finding these kinds of caches.

That still doesn't make them "quality". It simply means that they are expedient for that situation. I think that a discussion of quality caches with that person would not bring up any film pot hides at the base of signs. Quality is not all that subjective. Sure, there is some wiggle room, but not all that much. For example, there is a good reason why there are no National Parks in Walmart parking lots. National Parks tend to be put in quality places.

[+ArtieD]

Quality is not all that subjective. Sure, there is some wiggle room, but not all that much.

 

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes...

[knowschad]

Quality is not all that subjective. Sure, there is some wiggle room, but not all that much.

 

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes...

 

I am not referring to container quality. Tell me of one person that would consider, say, a LPC in a Walmart parking lot a "quality" cache.

[+ArtieD]

Quality is not all that subjective. Sure, there is some wiggle room, but not all that much.

 

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes...

 

I am not referring to container quality. Tell me of one person that would consider, say, a LPC in a Walmart parking lot a "quality" cache.

 

You know how they say there's someone for everyone on this big ol' Earth?

 

There you go. No doubt there are some who like them.

[knowschad]

Quality is not all that subjective. Sure, there is some wiggle room, but not all that much.

 

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes...

 

I am not referring to container quality. Tell me of one person that would consider, say, a LPC in a Walmart parking lot a "quality" cache.

 

You know how they say there's someone for everyone on this big ol' Earth?

 

There you go. No doubt there are some who like them.

Oh, I have NO DOUBT there are some that LIKE them. But I still say they would not consider them "quality". Big difference.

[+ArtieD]

Quality is not all that subjective. Sure, there is some wiggle room, but not all that much.

 

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes...

 

I am not referring to container quality. Tell me of one person that would consider, say, a LPC in a Walmart parking lot a "quality" cache.

 

You know how they say there's someone for everyone on this big ol' Earth?

 

There you go. No doubt there are some who like them.

Oh, I have NO DOUBT there are some that LIKE them. But I still say they would not consider them "quality". Big difference.

 

Without a strict definition of quality, we cannot make that call.

[+AustinMN]

Attributes are definitely another good tool and I agree reviewers should be encouraged to have finders choose attributes. But like everything, some cache owners will abuse the attribute system by adding irrelevant attributes just to add attributes or to help people qualify for challenges.

 

My personal attribute pet peeve is "Scenic View" when the only scenery is the chain link fence and dumpster behind the local supermarket.

 

Yes, it has happened.

 

Austin

[+wmpastor]

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

+1

While that might seem the case, at least one gets to speak their concerns with other members in the community. In my experience people that speak out intelligently and politely are usually the ones that are heard and taken seriously.

 

We realize the problems have always existed. The more interesting question is have they gotten worse, stayed the same, or improved?

 

I wasn't here, so I can't answer that. Those who were here 10 years ago may have subjective personal preferences, not objective truth.

 

To say problems have gotten more common doesn't tell us much, because the game has grown hugely, so every aspect has increased. There are far more epic caches today than in 2005, for example.

[+narcissa]

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

+1

While that might seem the case, at least one gets to speak their concerns with other members in the community. In my experience people that speak out intelligently and politely are usually the ones that are heard and taken seriously.

 

We realize the problems have always existed. The more interesting question is have they gotten worse, stayed the same, or improved?

 

I wasn't here, so I can't answer that. Those who were here 10 years ago may have subjective personal preferences, not objective truth.

 

To say problems have gotten more common doesn't tell us much, because the game has grown hugely, so every aspect has increased. There are far more epic caches today than in 2005, for example.

 

I think there are more productive ways to discuss these issues than a ranty forum post calling for MASSIVE CHANGE, but that's just me. At least rants are entertaining.

[+wmpastor]

Quality is not all that subjective. Sure, there is some wiggle room, but not all that much.

 

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes...

 

I am not referring to container quality. Tell me of one person that would consider, say, a LPC in a Walmart parking lot a "quality" cache.

 

You know how they say there's someone for everyone on this big ol' Earth?

 

There you go. No doubt there are some who like them.

Oh, I have NO DOUBT there are some that LIKE them. But I still say they would not consider them "quality". Big difference.

 

Without a strict definition of quality, we cannot make that call.

 

Correct. A LPC is handicapped-assessible. If you can't get to a cache its theoretical "quality" is an abstract concept at best. There are even many non-handicapped cachers who physically cannot get to the epic cache in the wilderness.

[+wmpastor]

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

+1

While that might seem the case, at least one gets to speak their concerns with other members in the community. In my experience people that speak out intelligently and politely are usually the ones that are heard and taken seriously.

 

We realize the problems have always existed. The more interesting question is have they gotten worse, stayed the same, or improved?

 

I wasn't here, so I can't answer that. Those who were here 10 years ago may have subjective personal preferences, not objective truth.

 

To say problems have gotten more common doesn't tell us much, because the game has grown hugely, so every aspect has increased. There are far more epic caches today than in 2005, for example.

 

I think there are more productive ways to discuss these issues than a ranty forum post calling for MASSIVE CHANGE, but that's just me. At least rants are entertaining.

 

"Rant" & "ranty" sound a bit judgmental to me. How about we discuss the legitimate issues raised??

[+narcissa]

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

+1

While that might seem the case, at least one gets to speak their concerns with other members in the community. In my experience people that speak out intelligently and politely are usually the ones that are heard and taken seriously.

 

We realize the problems have always existed. The more interesting question is have they gotten worse, stayed the same, or improved?

 

I wasn't here, so I can't answer that. Those who were here 10 years ago may have subjective personal preferences, not objective truth.

 

To say problems have gotten more common doesn't tell us much, because the game has grown hugely, so every aspect has increased. There are far more epic caches today than in 2005, for example.

 

I think there are more productive ways to discuss these issues than a ranty forum post calling for MASSIVE CHANGE, but that's just me. At least rants are entertaining.

 

"Rant" & "ranty" sound a bit judgmental to me. How about we discuss the legitimate issues raised??

 

Calling for "MASSIVE CHANGE" also sounds a bit judgmental. How about we discuss those issues in the numerous, less inflammatory threads where people have brought them up without yelling about MASSIVE CHANGE?

[knowschad]

Quality is not all that subjective. Sure, there is some wiggle room, but not all that much.

 

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes...

 

I am not referring to container quality. Tell me of one person that would consider, say, a LPC in a Walmart parking lot a "quality" cache.

 

You know how they say there's someone for everyone on this big ol' Earth?

 

There you go. No doubt there are some who like them.

Oh, I have NO DOUBT there are some that LIKE them. But I still say they would not consider them "quality". Big difference.

 

Without a strict definition of quality, we cannot make that call.

OK, you win. But you're wrong.

 

You'd probably argue with me if I said that we all agree that the sky is blue, too.

[+wmpastor]

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

+1

While that might seem the case, at least one gets to speak their concerns with other members in the community. In my experience people that speak out intelligently and politely are usually the ones that are heard and taken seriously.

 

We realize the problems have always existed. The more interesting question is have they gotten worse, stayed the same, or improved?

 

I wasn't here, so I can't answer that. Those who were here 10 years ago may have subjective personal preferences, not objective truth.

 

To say problems have gotten more common doesn't tell us much, because the game has grown hugely, so every aspect has increased. There are far more epic caches today than in 2005, for example.

 

I think there are more productive ways to discuss these issues than a ranty forum post calling for MASSIVE CHANGE, but that's just me. At least rants are entertaining.

 

"Rant" & "ranty" sound a bit judgmental to me. How about we discuss the legitimate issues raised??

 

Calling for "MASSIVE CHANGE" also sounds a bit judgmental. How about we discuss those issues in the numerous, less inflammatory threads where people have brought them up without yelling about MASSIVE CHANGE?

 

I didn't hear the OP yelling. However, I did hear *someone* yelling!

[+ArtieD]

OK, you win. But you're wrong.

 

You'd probably argue with me if I said that we all agree that the sky is blue, too.

 

Seriously...and I mean this in all earnestness...

 

How can discuss "quality" caches when there is no set definition of what "quality" entails?

[knowschad]

Quality is not all that subjective. Sure, there is some wiggle room, but not all that much.

 

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes...

 

I am not referring to container quality. Tell me of one person that would consider, say, a LPC in a Walmart parking lot a "quality" cache.

 

You know how they say there's someone for everyone on this big ol' Earth?

 

There you go. No doubt there are some who like them.

Oh, I have NO DOUBT there are some that LIKE them. But I still say they would not consider them "quality". Big difference.

 

Without a strict definition of quality, we cannot make that call.

 

Correct. A LPC is handicapped-assessible. If you can't get to a cache its theoretical "quality" is an abstract concept at best. There are even many non-handicapped cachers who physically cannot get to the epic cache in the wilderness.

 

Once again... a handicapped LPC would be, to some "handicapped" people, expedient. (although I have seen posts here by wheelchair bound geocachers that were peeved that people seemed to think that LPCs were caches what they liked, though) but I still maintain that they would not call them "quality".

[+ArtieD]

What is quality?

[+narcissa]

None of these issues are new, and yet, the game goes on.

+1

While that might seem the case, at least one gets to speak their concerns with other members in the community. In my experience people that speak out intelligently and politely are usually the ones that are heard and taken seriously.

 

We realize the problems have always existed. The more interesting question is have they gotten worse, stayed the same, or improved?

 

I wasn't here, so I can't answer that. Those who were here 10 years ago may have subjective personal preferences, not objective truth.

 

To say problems have gotten more common doesn't tell us much, because the game has grown hugely, so every aspect has increased. There are far more epic caches today than in 2005, for example.

 

I think there are more productive ways to discuss these issues than a ranty forum post calling for MASSIVE CHANGE, but that's just me. At least rants are entertaining.

 

"Rant" & "ranty" sound a bit judgmental to me. How about we discuss the legitimate issues raised??

 

Calling for "MASSIVE CHANGE" also sounds a bit judgmental. How about we discuss those issues in the numerous, less inflammatory threads where people have brought them up without yelling about MASSIVE CHANGE?

 

I didn't hear the OP yelling. However, I did hear *someone* yelling!

 

Geocaching/Groundspeak overhaul required

 

Time for a MASSIVE change on how our hobby is run.

[+Mudfrog]

I hope that some of the board meetings at Groundspeak include discussions about how to make geocaching.com interesting both to the numbers crowd AND the quality-over-quantity group of cachers.

 

Every month, especially since the app became a dominating factor, the pastime has become less of a recreational pastime and more of a competitive sport. Increasingly quantity over quality, numbers are the most important ingredient. Maybe it's the best financial route for the company but I foresee a tipping point.

 

Maybe a competing site that strives for quality might be the incentive Groundspeak needs to change things. I remember when Garmin created their new site with a rating system, suddenly GS added fav points to their website. Without serious competition I don't think Groundspeak will consider the quality aspect of the game, unless there's a financial incentive.

 

On the bolded, this is how i see it going down as well. Phone apps are the rage these days so there's money to be made at this time. The promotion of quantity over quality is the attitude these days. The value of geocaching has diminished considerably in the last few years for those of us who enjoy creativity, interesting locations, and challenge. I just can't help but feel that some of the decisions Groundspeak is making today are going to hurt them tomorrow.

[+narcissa]

I kind of feel like we're over the hump as far as the app is concerned. I took a bit of a breather for a while when it was really bad, and I feel like things are genuinely calming down now. I don't think apps in general are this new and exciting thing anymore. Call me an optimist, but I think we've survived peak app.

Edited June 2, 2015 by narcissa

[+wmpastor]

 

...

 

Every month, especially since the app became a dominating factor, the pastime has become less of a recreational pastime and more of a competitive sport.

 

...

 

 

Competitive sports are fun (for some), but I don't see much competition in caching. Maybe for some with the find count or the FTF hunt, but not as a whole.

 

Where is all this competition? Tell me so I can join in! I *crave* competition!

[+AustinMN]

Quality is not all that subjective. Sure, there is some wiggle room, but not all that much.

 

Categorically untrue. If you speak of container quality, I give it to you. If you speak placement, there is a lot of wiggle room. Different strokes...

 

I am not referring to container quality. Tell me of one person that would consider, say, a LPC in a Walmart parking lot a "quality" cache.

 

You know how they say there's someone for everyone on this big ol' Earth?

 

There you go. No doubt there are some who like them.

Oh, I have NO DOUBT there are some that LIKE them. But I still say they would not consider them "quality". Big difference.

 

Without a strict definition of quality, we cannot make that call.

OK, you win. But you're wrong.

 

You'd probably argue with me if I said that we all agree that the sky is blue, too.

 

I certainly don't agree. The sky on earth varies from pale blue to cyan (the primary color) to magenta, red, orange, yellow, and even green. What's more, I know that, unless you are functionally colorblind, you have seen all of those colors.

 

I have no doubt that there are high quality LPC's out there. The fact that I've never found one does not preclude their existence.

 

BTW, since one of my aims in caching is places to photograph, if someone did a LPC in a dramatic scenic overlook that I might have missed otherwise, I would call that a high quality cache.

 

Austin

[+niraD]

I would like to see a limit on how many caches you can place. Once you reach that limit if you want to place a new cache, you would have to retire one of your other ones.

Either that, or you could create a new account and use it to keep hiding caches.

 

Oh, I'm pretty sure most people share a pretty similar idea of what "quality" means.

At the extremes, sure. There are caches that more than 90% of geocachers agree are excellent. There are caches that more than 90% of geocachers agree are terrible. But most caches are probably somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.

 

Some people absolutely hate caches that I love, to the point that they'd like to see them eliminated from the game. Some people love caches that you couldn't pay me to search for. So yes, there is real disagreement about what "quality" means.

 

The Geocaching app didn't exist in 2005.

Geocaching apps have existed since at least 2003. Yes, the apps have become more capable as the devices they run on have become more capable. But Groundspeak didn't even have the first geocaching app for a GPS-enabled smartphone.

 

Like most of the OP's complaints, Groundspeak isn't driving this, and Groundspeak actually has very little control over this. Geocachers are the ones driving it.

[+dprovan]

Every day I can go out during lunch, drive 20 minutes, walk a mile or two while finding a handful of caches, then be back to work after 2 hours. Every day. I've been doing that for 4 years, and the only difference in the the first year I was caching is that I could just walk from work or drive 5 minutes.

 

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been able to do anything like that in 2005. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I would have stopped geocaching after a year if the only caches were out in the woods at the places you would consider wonderful. I just wouldn't have the time to go that far every time I wanted to go caching.

[+irisisleuk]

I'm afraid it's too late.

I think the real issue is not the quality of the caches, but the quality of the geocachers.

 

When we started in 2008 we first saw a small item on TV on a geocache placed in a forest (not even available on this site). A year later I still remembered this when I was thinking about how we could do walks without having to depend on a local walking organisation. I did some research on geocaching (reading everything I could find on internet, like this site) and then we rented a gps for a weekend. Then we were hooked and within a month we bought a second hand gps etc.

 

Now starting the game can be done without any reading or preparation, just click, click, click and off you go. This attracted totally different people, with different interests who just as quickly placed caches and TFTC logs. New cachers read these logs, first find these type of caches (since they are closer to home) and think this is geocaching. A lot of those cachers only play this game for a day or few days/weeks. But the TFTC logs and mentality effected others who stayed a bit longer. Statistics got more important than stories for a lot of those cachers, since finding a cache didn't mean visiting an interesting, special or beautiful place and enjoying a nice walk, it meant something different. The goals of the geocachers changed and with that the (number of) geocaches.

 

It is impossible to define quality, for some it is the environment, for some it is a special creation (which can be in someone's frontyard) and for others it is just a matter of if the log paper is dry and empty enough to write their names on (or stamp it, to be extra quick).

 

And no, I'm not happy with this.

We often get mails of CO's thanking us for our logs. Isn't that sad?!

(although of course we like receiving a nice email)

We write logs to thank the CO and to share our experiences with other cachers. They also make great memories to read later again as well. But nowadays a CO can not expect a decent log anymore, they start thanking cachers who keep their spirits up! For us logs are the only thing that seperates geocaching for other games where you go to coordinates to find/do something.

 

So if anything should be changed it is the way how writing logs is "promoted". By making it possible to write empty, TFTC and even batch logs, this site made it even easier for the lazy cacher (my description of the smartphone cacher who doesn't read anything about the game, on the page, other logs etc. and writes just a TFTC) to miss an essential part of the quality game geocaching. The shorter the better seems to be Groundspeak's motto, since the maximum log length was even limited over the years. And adding photos to a log.... pffff......

 

Imagine if there would have been a minimum of 30 unique words needed to post a log. Would anyone do that for a lousy cache or would they skip it to save themselves from this extra "work"?

Writing logs isn't work, isn't a negative side effect of the game, or just needed to thank the CO as some seem to think, it is what made this game special and interesting.

[+on4bam]

I'm afraid it's too late.

I think the real issue is not the quality of the caches, but the quality of the geocachers.

 

+1 and +1 for the rest of the post.