Is Geocaching Dead?

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If on average everyone is content, then the sad people leave allowing more people to be happier, there are fewer people but the average happiness is higher. So was it better with more people, or fewer but happier people?

 

There are many ways to interpret the numbers. People have different ways to judge what is good or bad or growing or declining.  Numbers are just numbers.  Geocaching is far from dead or dying, but it depends on who you ask.

 

How does the saying go?

 

There are lies, dadgum lies and statistics?

 

'Sad' people leaving doesn't automatically equate to more people being happier.

 

It could be, for example, that the sad people leaving are the ones who place the best caches and maintain them to the highest standard.

 

In fact in my local area at least there's some evidence to support that being the case.

 

Although I suppose it is possible that the people left behind will continue to be happy with poorer, less well maintained caches.

[+thebruce0]

8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

'Sad' people leaving doesn't automatically equate to more people being happier.

 

Analogy, dude. Illustration. Those weren't geocachers. Just a very simple little "if this then" picture. The point still stands, not going to use 'more words' to generate other analogies just to illustrate the same concept.

 

12 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Although I suppose it is possible that the people left behind will continue to be happy with poorer, less well maintained caches.

Again:

12 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

People have different ways to judge what is good or bad or growing or declining.

 

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Analogy, dude. Illustration. Those weren't geocachers. Just a very simple little "if this then" picture. The point still stands, not going to use 'more words' to generate other analogies just to illustrate the same concept.

 

Again:

 

 

Ah - so we're not talking about anything real then. Gottit

[+thebruce0]

*blinks* *walks away slowly*

[+L0ne.R]

21 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

'Sad' people leaving doesn't automatically equate to more people being happier.

 

It could be, for example, that the sad people leaving are the ones who place the best caches and maintain them to the highest standard.

 

In fact in my local area at least there's some evidence to support that being the case.

 

Although I suppose it is possible that the people left behind will continue to be happy with poorer, less well maintained caches.

1

 

I agree. As the standard changes (defined as 'declined' for those who leave or limp along), those that are left are happy with the new standard--numbers, stats, grid filling; a competitive game culture; a culture where the geocache part of geocaching doesn't matter, what matters is an active listing.   Will the people who enjoy the new culture, eventually grow tired of smileys for the sake of smileys?  The pendulum hasn't swung that far yet, but it should be interesting to see what it's like 3-5 years from now.

[+thebruce0]

8 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

As the standard changes (defined as 'declined' for those who leave or limp along), those that are left are happy with the new standard--numbers, stats, grid filling; a competitive game culture; a culture where the geocache part of geocaching doesn't matter, what matters is an active listing.   Will the people who enjoy the new culture, eventually grow tired of smileys for the sake of smileys?

 

Yes, that is the question. Your first word "changes" is accurate from a neutral viewpoint. From the "those who leave or limp along" view, it's "declined"; (because of the points you mention); from the "those that are left" view, it's "improved" (say, because the old grognards are gone/leaving).  So what is "dead"?  What is "declining"?  It depends who you ask. If you only care about numbers, then sure, various numbers are in decline (indisputable as posted earlier). But as soon as you add a value judgement - quality of geocaching, community, ethics, etiquette, ease of use, it becomes entirely subjective either by personal preference or even dramatically different by localized regions...

 

It's not a cut and dry question.

What would be interesting is how Groundspeak would answer that question (well, the thread topic) That would also give us insight to which perspective and viewpoint they are sitting at.  So yeah, prooobably won't happen...

[+justintim1999]

35 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

How does the saying go?

 

There are lies, dadgum lies and statistics?

 

'Sad' people leaving doesn't automatically equate to more people being happier.

 

It could be, for example, that the sad people leaving are the ones who place the best caches and maintain them to the highest standard.

 

In fact in my local area at least there's some evidence to support that being the case.

 

Although I suppose it is possible that the people left behind will continue to be happy with poorer, less well maintained caches.

I see it as a supply and demand problem.   Everyone wants new caches, preferably in their local caching area.  As most long timers know it doesn't take long to exhaust caches within a 10 or 20 mile radius.   So how do you get more "new" caches?    Increase the number of people caching with the idea that some of these will go on to be cache owners themselves.   I think we've all seen the result of that effort.   Now we're seeing a steady decline in the number of people caching along with a slower decline in actual cache hides.   The trick is to have enough new caches to satisfy the old timers (who own many of the really good caches out there)  while making sure there's plenty of good caches out there that will attract newbies.    Tough job.   One possible answer is to "recycle" caches.   Archive some caches and replace them with something new.  Maybe even swap areas with another cacher so the hides will be different.   To me increasing ones hide count isn't the best way to accomplish this.  Typically more cache hides by one person results in a decline in cache maintenance. 

 

I think the Geocaching app was the last big attempt to increase numbers.  Other things may come along but nothing will have the impact that did.   

 

When you think about it,  Geocaching hasn't experienced something like this in it's history,  so there's no real data on if and how things will rebound.    I think what your seeing now is a natural leveling off and when it dose settle we'll have a better idea of what the norm will be going forward. 

[+coachstahly]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I agree. As the standard changes (defined as 'declined' for those who leave or limp along), those that are left are happy with the new standard--numbers, stats, grid filling; a competitive game culture; a culture where the geocache part of geocaching doesn't matter, what matters is an active listing.   Will the people who enjoy the new culture, eventually grow tired of smileys for the sake of smileys?  The pendulum hasn't swung that far yet, but it should be interesting to see what it's like 3-5 years from now.

 

That's only if the standard is what you've defined.  I disagree.  That's not my standard and not the standard of most in my home area.  There are some that are high numbers cachers but they're the minority around here, not the majority.  Competition isn't really a thing around here (FTF used to be but not so much anymore as those cachers have moved on) and the active part of the listing only applies to those few numbers cachers in the area (I can think of 4 high numbers cachers off the top of my head).  One of them files NMs when she feels it needs it and the others typically don't.  We have a few power trails but I wouldn't consider them the drive/walk up, hop out, swap containers, sign log on way to next, repeat, type of power trails.  We have a rails to trails with caches just about every .10 that runs through Indianapolis but they're not all 1.5/1.5 and range all over in D/T combos.  There are a couple geo-arts out on country roads, but those are smaller in scope.  About an hour to 1 1/2 hours we have some larger geo-arts out in the farmlands.

 

I think a big part of the decline in hides is tied to saturation in our area.  The only area around me (25 miles or less) that consistently puts out new caches is south (where more farmland is being converted to homes/businesses).  Most of the area around Indianapolis just doesn't have a lot of room for new caches.  As to the numbers of cachers declining, I'd have to say that's certainly a thing.  Our peak hit between 2010-2013 (as far as hides and cachers) and active cachers have steadily declined since.  While it's certainly not dying, it's definitely not growing either.

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

As the standard changes (defined as 'declined' for those who leave or limp along), those that are left are happy with the new standard--numbers, stats, grid filling; a competitive game culture; a culture where the geocache part of geocaching doesn't matter, what matters is an active listing.

I don't see this culture you describe where people care most about numbers, stats, grid filling, or competition. The stress, at least in my area, is, in fact, on the geocache part of geocaching. But I observe that that in itself is a change: the focus is on finding the geocache, so things that "old timers" miss like views and hikes and interesting locations and swag are no longer considered critical, although they are sometimes seen as positive features for a good cache.

4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Will the people who enjoy the new culture, eventually grow tired of smileys for the sake of smileys?  The pendulum hasn't swung that far yet, but it should be interesting to see what it's like 3-5 years from now.

I think it would be even more interesting to go 3-5 years back in the forum and see if we can find another thread just like this one musing about whether geocaching would be dead by now. I can't help but think I've read these dire predictions before.

[+thebruce0]

6 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I think it would be even more interesting to go 3-5 years back in the forum and see if we can find another thread just like this one musing about whether geocaching would be dead by now. I can't help but think I've read these dire predictions before.

 

heh, methinks we'll also read these dire predictions yet again, on an Olympic schedule perhaps, or every generation at the very least...

[+Team Microdot]

On 08/05/2018 at 7:30 AM, fizzymagic said:

I think that there are a number of steps Groundspeak could take to limit the decline; there has been some positive movement in that direction recently, so I am guardedly optimistic.

 

I just happened on a copy of the most recent email-newsletter-thingy from Groundspeak in which they promote streaking.

 

This strikes me as a step aimed at limiting decline.

[coocootoo]

15 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I just happened on a copy of the most recent email-newsletter-thingy from Groundspeak in which they promote streaking.

 

I'll pass on that. I get enough scratches just on my hands from geocaching, I really don't think the full monty is a good idea.

[+Lynx Humble]

36 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I just happened on a copy of the most recent email-newsletter-thingy from Groundspeak in which they promote streaking.

 

This strikes me as a step aimed at limiting decline.

I don't think streaking is a good thing to promote because :

 

It make you skip cache so you have some left for an another day.

Also it make you find cache in all kind of weather / strange hours.

You can't filter quality of cache because you have to find something/anything.

Finally it make people lie (e.g. find 10 the same day but log them on 10 different days) or put throwdown just to continue the streak...  

[+Mudfrog]

23 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

How does the saying go?

 

There are lies, dadgum lies and statistics?

 

'Sad' people leaving doesn't automatically equate to more people being happier.

 

It could be, for example, that the sad people leaving are the ones who place the best caches and maintain them to the highest standard.

 

In fact in my local area at least there's some evidence to support that being the case.

 

Although I suppose it is possible that the people left behind will continue to be happy with poorer, less well maintained caches.

 

This is exactly what i've seen happen. Many cachers that used to put thought into and maintain their hides are gone. With the app came a new breed of cacher, mainly game players that never really discovered what geoaching really was. The few caches they found were mainly of the easy park and grab micro variety so it was inevitable that they'd grow bored fairly quickly and then move on to the next app. Cache owners with those more difficult caches had less logs coming in. The few logs that did come in contained very little content. It's no wonder many COs developed the feeling that it seemed pointless to go through any trouble of putting much effort into future hides. Hiding is/was the more important aspect for many cachers and when they figure out it's for not, they sometimes begin losing interest.

 

There are dedicated geocachers who are sticking it out. There are some areas where geocaching is thriving and where quality is an important part of the hobby. But i don't believe this is the case for many, probably most, areas. The declining numbers don't tell the whole story but they do show that there are issues that need to be addressed.

 

 

[+Mudfrog]

57 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I just happened on a copy of the most recent email-newsletter-thingy from Groundspeak in which they promote streaking.

 

This strikes me as a step aimed at limiting decline.

 

Maybe a step at limiting decline but it may backfire. Every, and i mean every, cacher i know that went for a streak, developed almost a hatred for having to go out and find a geocache every day. Some quit midstream and never looked back. Some kept at it because they felt they didn't want to waste all the effort they had put into it from the beginning. I never heard so much whining and crying, especially towards the ends of those streaks.. And of course, there were the ones that cheated fudged their finds to "complete" the goal. Except for being able to brag at an event, there wasn't much else positive for them about the experience.

[+Team Microdot]

8 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Maybe a step at limiting decline but it may backfire. Every, and i mean every, cacher i know that went for a streak, developed almost a hatred for having to go out and find a geocache every day. Some quit midstream and never looked back. Some kept at it because they felt they didn't want to waste all the effort they had put into it from the beginning. I never heard so much whining and crying, especially towards the ends of those streaks.. And of course, there were the ones that cheated fudged their finds to "complete" the goal. Except for being able to brag at an event, there wasn't much else positive for them about the experience.

 

Indeed.

 

Once it becomes a chore

 

But what would geocaching be without fudging?

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Lynx Humble said:

Also it make you find cache in all kind of weather / strange hours.

I'm from California. What is this "all kind of weather" you speak of?

1 hour ago, Lynx Humble said:

Finally it make people lie (e.g. find 10 the same day but log them on 10 different days) or put throwdown just to continue the streak...  

As someone who maintained a streak for a year and a day, I can say that streaks do no such thing.

 

Of course, if one is inclined towards lying or dropping throwdowns, then a streak won't stop you from doing such things. But a streak doesn't make you do them.

[+GeoElmo6000]

50 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Maybe a step at limiting decline but it may backfire. Every, and i mean every, cacher i know that went for a streak, developed almost a hatred for having to go out and find a geocache every day. Some quit midstream and never looked back. Some kept at it because they felt they didn't want to waste all the effort they had put into it from the beginning. I never heard so much whining and crying, especially towards the ends of those streaks.. And of course, there were the ones that cheated fudged their finds to "complete" the goal. Except for being able to brag at an event, there wasn't much else positive for them about the experience.

The only time geocaching stopped being fun for me was when I was trying to fill in the last 50 or so non-contiguous days of my 366 day calendar.  Some days it was difficult to find time around real life to get out and find a cache, and I felt I had to purposely avoid finding caches so that I could have nearby caches to find on tougher days.  There was no one to blame for any of this but myself, but the thought "if I don't find it today, I'll have to wait a whole year" drove me to finish.  And I did finish, with one of the best caches (Bridges & Arches of Central Park) with a great group of people.

It's nice to have that accomplishment behind me, and with no current geocaching goals, I now find caches as often or as little as I feel like.

[+Korichnovui]

I’m really new to the game and trying to get interested in the different aspects.

 

I’m trying for a streak, I figure I better try it while I’m new and there are plenty of caches to find near my home. I’m not very far into it, I think just getting 31 days or some easy milestone should be good enough. What you guys say about streaking becoming a chore and degrading the fun makes a lot of sense and I don’t want to fall into that trap.

 

For hides, I definitely am interested in putting thought and effort into my hides. I hid a nice one not too long ago “Secret Swamp” which I’m pretty proud of finding this interesting location in the middle of town, and so far only 2 separate entities (a team and 1 other person) have found it.

 

I’m working on several different projects for more intricate hides, including the first 5/5 hide in my area, as well as a series of YouTube videos, and I’m growing increasingly concerned that my efforts will all be for only a very few people.

 

For now I’m going to press forward with the intent of

1) improving the quality of caches in my area, set a good example, raise the bar

2) so I can look back and say “I did that, at least I tried my best”

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

I don't think streaking is a good thing to promote because :

 

It make you skip cache so you have some left for an another day.

Also it make you find cache in all kind of weather / strange hours.

You can't filter quality of cache because you have to find something/anything.

Finally it make people lie (e.g. find 10 the same day but log them on 10 different days) or put throwdown just to continue the streak...  

 

As a relative newcomer, and one who is "streaking" to find a cache a day in 2018 (so far, so good - 131 days and counting) here's my response:

Yes, we do "skip" some caches close to home to save for another day.  But not that many.  We may regret it later in the year, because we drove 5 miles, and found and logged all 5 caches at that highway off ramp area in one day, when we could have only found one.  There's another frontage road nearby that we'll do one or two, and leave others for another day.  So we will skip some, but clean out a nearby area as well.

 

As with niraD, the worst weather we have is rain and wind, and we generally go out in daylight.  Strange hours and weather have not been an issue so far!

 

We have a plethora of caches in the area - and of all qualities.  We certainly CAN filter what we are searching for.  And we also have lots of new caches being published every week - so I'm not too concerned about running out of caches to find.  I realize that's not the case in many areas, but I'm happy it is the case for us.

 

I will not lie, or throwdown just to keep a streak going.  We have our own personal rules for what we consider a "find" for the day, regardless of what our stats say. Virtuals, EC's, and events don't count - I can do one of those but I also have to find a physical container and sign the logsheet.  If I placed the container, it doesn't count (eliminating throwdowns!).  I also won't log any of my husband's hides, because I helped create and hide them!

[+CAVinoGal]

3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Maybe a step at limiting decline but it may backfire. Every, and i mean every, cacher i know that went for a streak, developed almost a hatred for having to go out and find a geocache every day. Some quit midstream and never looked back. Some kept at it because they felt they didn't want to waste all the effort they had put into it from the beginning. I never heard so much whining and crying, especially towards the ends of those streaks.. And of course, there were the ones that cheated fudged their finds to "complete" the goal. Except for being able to brag at an event, there wasn't much else positive for them about the experience.

 

Wow - I hope I never get to that point!  We are loving geocaching, and the anticipation of "Where are we going to find our cache today?"  Whining, crying, cheating, fudging ... nope, not going to go there.  It's a hobby and a game!  And "brag" at events?  THAT's considered the most positive part of the expereience?  I must have a totally different mindset and perspective on what this is all about!  Just wow.

 

Wasted effort to quit midstream?  No time spent geocaching to me is wasted - hubby and I are together, whether we find it or not, and high fives when we DO solve a difficult puzzle or find a tough hide or a lonely cache - nothing wasted about those moments.  We may have frustrating moments, but no wasted time!

 

Is this really that rare of an attitude?

Edited May 10, 2018 by CAVinoGal

[+Mudfrog]

44 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

Wow - I hope I never get to that point!  We are loving geocaching, and the anticipation of "Where are we going to find our cache today?"  Whining, crying, cheating, fudging ... nope, not going to go there.  It's a hobby and a game!  And "brag" at events?  THAT's considered the most positive part of the expereience?  I must have a totally different mindset and perspective on what this is all about!  Just wow.

 

Wasted effort to quit midstream?  No time spent geocaching to me is wasted - hubby and I are together, whether we find it or not, and high fives when we DO solve a difficult puzzle or find a tough hide or a lonely cache - nothing wasted about those moments.  We may have frustrating moments, but no wasted time!

 

Is this reallt that rare of an attitude?

 

I'm just going by what i have witnessed first hand from a few people i know. As we all know, there are some people that like these kinds of things and can keep going and going. A couple of those cachers griped a lot but at the end, said it felt good to complete the challenge. In the same breath though, they also stated they would NEVER do it again. I don't think it helped overall though as just about all of them have quit or slowed their geocaching activity down immensely.

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Every, and i mean every, cacher i know that went for a streak, developed almost a hatred for having to go out and find a geocache every day.

I know they said that, but I bet in most cases it was just so they could brag about the streak. I have to admit, I can't imagine actually hating something but continuing to do it, so this sounds a little to me like someone protesting too much. It was an effort and was sometimes inconvenient, but I never disliked geocaching while I was doing my streak. I live near niraD, so there's not much rain, but I had a few days where I had to put on rain gear and find someplace to cache that wouldn't be too muddy, and even that was fun.

 

Streaking brings a very different feel to geocaching, and I enjoyed it even though it was sometimes hard work.Other people might set a goal of doing 10 pushups every day for a year or doing two inches of knitting every day for a year or whatever. They don't do it because it's inherently fun. They do it to see if they can.

 

I was glad to be done with my leap year and a day streak. I relished in a 3 day break as soon as I reached my goal. But I still enjoyed the challenge and don't regret the effort one bit. And I have to admit, I've never heard of people getting sick of it. In fact, some of the most joyous logs I've read are people claiming the find for a streak challenge. Yeah, most of them celebrate being done, but I don't recall anyone saying they regret the finished.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

3 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

I don't think streaking is a good thing to promote because :

 

It make you skip cache so you have some left for an another day.

Also it make you find cache in all kind of weather / strange hours.

You can't filter quality of cache because you have to find something/anything.

Finally it make people lie (e.g. find 10 the same day but log them on 10 different days) or put throwdown just to continue the streak...  

 

One of the trends that I have notice in the past 10 years ago is something I call "responsive hiding".

 

When the "don't place a cache every 600 feet just because you can" guideline was removed it began a ever growing trend of "numbers caching".  The goal for many was to achieve the highest find count possible rather than to find the highest quality.  In response we got large power trails and thousands of smaller "cache series" in response to numbers hounds.

 

The challenge cache became all the rage in many areas.   There were all sorts of convoluted criteria such as spell out a name, or find N cache with a specific set of letters, and even a proliferations of various challenges based on D/T ratings and other criteria.   In response, hider started placing cache with names, ratings and other criteria which would allow finders to quickly complete these challenges.  The challenges came first, and in response, hiders would place caches for the purpose of satisfying different criteria.

 

Whenever GS comes up with a new souvenir promotion, in response geocachers will create events, or hide caches which will allow those interested in the souvenir to obtain it.  

 

If there are a bunch of local geocacher interested in doing a 1 year streak, you can be there will be a cache series with 366 caches created so that everyone can find a cache a day.

 

In all of these case,  the reason for placing the cache isn't to bring geocachers to an interesting location, showcase a unique container or provide a challenging hide.  The quality of the hide takes a back seat to placing a cache in response to numbers hounds,   challenge cache seekers, and souvenir collectors.  For those just interested in finding caches based on quality, it becomes more and more difficult when areas are saturated with cache placed for some other reason.

 

[+cerberus1]

2 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

...In all of these case,  the reason for placing the cache isn't to bring geocachers to an interesting location, showcase a unique container or provide a challenging hide.  The quality of the hide takes a back seat to placing a cache in response to numbers hounds,   challenge cache seekers, and souvenir collectors.  For those just interested in finding caches based on quality, it becomes more and more difficult when areas are saturated with cache placed for some other reason.

 

Yeah, on most agreed. 

I was looking strictly at terrain, assuming that the higher number would at least keep me in green areas, to find parking lot and roadside hides.

 - Placed just for D/T combos for challenges/grids, and found similar instances with that CO.

Now I simply keep track of COs already known for woods/distance hides, and look at the map for green on others "high" D/T caches.   

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

I’m trying for a streak, I figure I better try it while I’m new and there are plenty of caches to find near my home. I’m not very far into it, I think just getting 31 days or some easy milestone should be good enough. What you guys say about streaking becoming a chore and degrading the fun makes a lot of sense and I don’t want to fall into that trap.

 

I finished 366 days and intended from the start not to go past that, knowing that it's tempting not to give up a streak. So I started with a goal from the beginning. That helps.

I didn't have a car at the time, so ALL of my treak was by bus, foot, biking, or with caching friends. Some days it felt rushed and a "need" more than a "want", but in the grand scheme I had fun all the way through.  I highly recommend planning at least a week ahead all the time, then you're never left flailing trying to find something to find. Always plan a backup or two in case of DNFs.  Take events into consideration (usually near a physical cache if you want to make sure every date is a physical cache found), as well as vacations. Work from the outside in - find the farthest cache you're feasibly able to on any day.   Save park & grabs for bad weather days; don't go for easy ones unless you have to.  If there are powertrails nearby and you can restrain yourself, go for one or two per visit; stretch out the finds as long as you can.

 

It seems like a lot of points to consider making it work, but really you set your own strategy for success.  It only becomes a "chore" if you're not having fun - and you can still have fun while you're working   Just remember that there will be days when you'll be getting caches that aren't fun at all. Go in with that expectation and you should be fine, looking forward to the fun days!

 

When I did mine by bus, I budgeted a couple of hours every weeknight after work to travel to some far corner of town and grab a cache. If I had other plans I'd find the closest to that engagement, or one en route somewhere during the day. Geocaching events were opportunities to go caching with friends (almost always out of town).  Vacations always had caching involved

 

The key though is really to make your own fun. Sometimes the fun will come from the caches, but ultimately you set the bar for what you expect and what you want by doing the streak. The moment the experience goes below that bar, that's when you'll second guess that you should keep going. So, unless it's actually making life worse or causing other people harm or pain because your goal has become an obsession and detriment to other more important things in life, keep pushing on and don't give up!

(this streak challenge btw was what inspired my youtube channel theme)

 

 

2 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

Is this really that rare of an attitude?

 

I'd say no, but that doesn't mean it's not rare.   Certainly, enjoyment of streak-caching is not a common thing.  It's not for everyone. Thankfully it's not something everyone has to do.  You either like it or you don't, and if you don't, then just don't do it. I did, and loved it!

 

 

1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

A couple of those cachers griped a lot but at the end, said it felt good to complete the challenge. In the same breath though, they also stated they would NEVER do it again

 

Yeah, I'm in the same boat there at least - once you get a long streak, it's hard to start from the beginning again. Some people are at multiple years' length. If they stopped, it's unlikely they'd start again - unless they did it because of the daily finds, and not to break some streak length record. I mean, if you like the rush/challenge of just finding a cache every day, then if you break a streak it's no big deal. But those sorts of people I think are pretty rare (they'd likely be doing it for some streak goal/challenge)

.

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Yeah, most of them celebrate being done, but I don't recall anyone saying they regret the finished.

 

I know of one who regretted they finished -- Because if they'd gone another, I think it was 55 days, they'd qualify for the longest local streak challenge (which wasn't yet published when they finished the streak).  If only they'd kept going another couple of months... hehe

 

 

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

One of the trends that I have notice in the past 10 years ago is something I call "responsive hiding".

 

I like that explanation, makes sense.
Thankfully, at least in my area, there is still a proliferation of quality caches - whether location or container creativity; that's still going strong.  As well as areas with lots of roadsides, geoarts, easy series, powertrails... but then we have a whole lot of long walking trails, and loads of small forests and woodlots with self-contained trail systems ripe as beautiful cache locations.  So I suppose the landscape of cache experiences is very dependent on local .. landscapes.

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by thebruce0

[+hzoi]

On 12/26/2016 at 8:19 PM, Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hide said:

There's so little discussion on here nowadays that I have to wonder if Geocaching is soon to be a thing of the past.

 

I've been caching for a number of years, and remember the heady days where that's all I wanted to do in my spare time, but the last few years, finding caches has generally been a disappointment. Most of the time the caches are mouldy, smelly boxes of tat, the kind of stuff you'd normally throw away. And good luck finding a pencil, or a sharpener to fix that broken one you do find.

 

And don't get me started on travel bugs and that sort of thing. The number of tags and coins I put out and never saw or heard from again is really a huge letdown.

 

Now that people are more into games like Pokemon Go, perhaps Geocaching won't survive.

 

Am I wrong to feel this way?

 

Hey, look, the original topic of this thread.

 

I'm still geocaching.  The other folks who have posted close to 300 over 600 responses here are still geocaching.

 

I guess geocaching's not dead.  Hooray!

 

Now, back to the numbers discussion that this thread somehow splintered into.

Edited May 10, 2018 by hzoi

[+thebruce0]

15 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Now, back to the numbers discussion that this thread somehow splintered into.

*counts number of letters in the above comment*

*counts number of smileys used in the thread*

*takes numbers out for statistical analysis and a beer*

*covers the bill*

*counts number of letters in the recei---

[+NYPaddleCacher]

25 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

One of the trends that I have notice in the past 10 years ago is something I call "responsive hiding".

 

I like that explanation, makes sense.
Thankfully, at least in my area, there is still a proliferation of quality caches - whether location or container creativity; that's still going strong.  As well as areas with lots of roadsides, geoarts, easy series, powertrails... but then we have a whole lot of long walking trails, and loads of small forests and woodlots with self-contained trail systems ripe as beautiful cache locations.  So I suppose the landscape of cache experiences is very dependent on local .. landscapes.

 

I agree about local landscapes.   Although many trends in geocaching start locally, they often the continue to spread.  Although the Nevada desert is conducive to large power trails, the number of different PT and large series in Nevada is ridiculous.   Look at the map of an area where creating a mid size cache series had become popular and the entire area will be covered with squiggly lines.   I know that challenge caches were very popular in your area a few years ago.   GeoArt seems to be a lot more common in some of the midwestern states than in the east.   The FTF game seems to be highly regional.  There is a lot of copy-catting among cache owners and cache finders.      I know that a lot of areas still have long walking trails, and lots of caches placed in wooded areas, but the caching for the numbers, and caches as commodities to meet some sort of challenge or obtain a souvenir seems to be a growing trend.  Locally, we didn't have anything that resembled a power trail or small series five years ago.  That's not so true anymore and there has been a general trend towards caching for the numbers that didn't exist five years ago either.    Creating events every time there's a new souvenir promotion has become quite common in my area.

 

One of the issues that I see with basing ones experience and general health of the game on the local landscape is that it seems to frequently foster "it's not a problem for me, therefore it's not a problem worth discussion" mentality. 

[+Twentse Mug]

The percentage of puzzle caches has increased dramatically with lower average number of founds. What do the statistics for the European countries look like for traditionals only?

[+hzoi]

22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

*takes numbers out for statistical analysis and a beer*

*covers the bill*

 

I seem to recall covering the bill for the beer, actually. 

[+thebruce0]

2 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

One of the issues that I see with basing ones experience and general health of the game on the local landscape is that it seems to frequently foster "it's not a problem for me, therefore it's not a problem worth discussion" mentality. 

 

Yes indeed!

And the arguments kind of go both ways to the extreme. Some think if it's not a problem for them, then it's not a problem. Or if it is a problem for them then it's a universal problem.

More of value to know is "it's not a problem for me, therefore it isn't actually a problem everywhere", or "it is a problem for me, therefore it is a problem somewhere"

[+thebruce0]

Just now, hzoi said:

24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

*takes numbers out for statistical analysis and a beer*

*covers the bill*

 

I seem to recall covering the bill for the beer, actually. 

 

Yep, and the number hasn't been lost (really, a bar that doesn't take credit card? c'mon *sigh*)

But it was a good number to prep for the numbers in the placed date gained by the cache to follow!  That geocache ain't dead, that's for sure...

[+hzoi]

5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

7 minutes ago, hzoi said:

31 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

*takes numbers out for statistical analysis and a beer*

*covers the bill*

 

I seem to recall covering the bill for the beer, actually. 

 

Yep, and the number hasn't been lost (really, a bar that doesn't take credit card? c'mon *sigh*)

But it was a good number to prep for the numbers in the placed date gained by the cache to follow!  That geocache ain't dead, that's for sure...

Well, there you go.  QED. 

[+L0ne.R]

7 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

ow I simply keep track of COs already known for woods/distance hides, and look at the map for green on others "high" D/T caches

 

I wish Groundspeak would make it easy for us to find those owners and their hides, especially when we travel to areas we are not familiar with. 

Edited May 11, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+dprovan]

5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

One of the trends that I have notice in the past 10 years ago is something I call "responsive hiding".

So by "responsive hiding" you mean COs hiding caches people want to find? Isn't that what COs should do?

 

5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

The challenge cache became all the rage in many areas.   There were all sorts of convoluted criteria such as spell out a name, or find N cache with a specific set of letters, and even a proliferations of various challenges based on D/T ratings and other criteria.   In response, hider started placing cache with names, ratings and other criteria which would allow finders to quickly complete these challenges.  The challenges came first, and in response, hiders would place caches for the purpose of satisfying different criteria.

I'm not seeing the problem here. Is "helps with challenge X" a bad reason to hide a cache while "is at a nice view" is a good reason? Sure, I suppose the person creating the challenge might not like it, but that's an entirely different issue.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

7 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

One of the trends that I have notice in the past 10 years ago is something I call "responsive hiding".

So by "responsive hiding" you mean COs hiding caches people want to find? Isn't that what COs should do?

 

I think the distinction is that the term is referring to caches being hidden only for the digital/listing stats, not so much for physical cache container or location and whatnot. Like, finding the cache is a technicality, just to get a qualification for a title that starts with X. eg.

 

Nonetheless, do people still like finding those caches? I'm sure some people do. So, yeah, it'd probably be just as faulty to assume that just because more people may not appreciate the hide, that no one does... *shrug*

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

So by "responsive hiding" you mean COs hiding caches people want to find? Isn't that what COs should do?

 

I'm not seeing the problem here. Is "helps with challenge X" a bad reason to hide a cache while "is at a nice view" is a good reason? Sure, I suppose the person creating the challenge might not like it, but that's an entirely different issue.

 

Of course a cache can both help with a challenge and provide a nice view or experience in its own right. Last August I created a challenge cache requiring 20 finds having the "takes more than an hour" attribute. 14 of my own hides have that attribute, not because I particularly wanted them to be qualifying caches for the challenge but simply because they take more than an hour to do. As well as that, they all take the seeker to places of natural interest, either a view, waterfall, stunning rock formation or some such. Likewise the challenge cache itself (GC752YF), located on Scopas Peak in Brisbane Water National Park (hidden with permission, and boy did that take some effort and patience!) is in an interesting rock formation with extensive views across the park. The walk out to the cache (about 6km from any of the three access points) is on a segment of the Great North Walk between Sydney and Newcastle and also offers quite a bit of natural interest along the way.

 

So, have my qualifying caches been inundated with people going for the challenge? Nup. Has there been a sudden surge in helper caches with that attribute? Nup, but there wasn't any shortage of qualifying hides anyway for those prepared to make the effort. Has there been much interest at all in the challenge? Nup, just 8 finds in 9 months - 3 locals, 2 from Sydney and the others a group in the area for the mega over Easter looking for something to do along the way. There've been plenty of tyre-kickers, though, with 93 positive hits on the challenge checker.

 

In a little over a year I'm going to have to front up to the park ranger to justify the cache's continuing existence, so it'd be nice to get a few more finds before then, particularly since one of the reasons they now allow caches is to entice visitors to their parks.

[+Twentse Mug]

I think the statistics are deceiving and that on average a traditional cache has more founds than less founds.

[+Twentse Mug]

It is logical that a puzzle cache on average has less founds than a traditional cache so it is better to split the stastistics on cache types and you get different results.

[+Twentse Mug]

Besides, newbie cachers usually do not start with puzzle caches so they get bored soon.

[+Twentse Mug]

On 5/9/2018 at 3:40 PM, thebruce0 said:

And, declining numbers are just declining numbers.  If 30% of the pot is 'good' and 70% is 'bad', and the total quantity is only reduced of the 'bad', then yeah the quantity may be less but the ratio of good to bad is higher. So is it better to have less overall, or more 'good' than 'bad'?

If on average everyone is content, then the sad people leave allowing more people to be happier, there are fewer people but the average happiness is higher. So was it better with more people, or fewer but happier people?

 

There are many ways to interpret the numbers. People have different ways to judge what is good or bad or growing or declining.  Numbers are just numbers.  Geocaching is far from dead or dying, but it depends on who you ask.

 

I don't agree with the assumption that the average number of founds on puzzle caches is the same as on traditionals.

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, Twentse Mug said:

 

I don't agree with the assumption that the average number of founds on puzzle caches is the same as on traditionals.

 

I don't think anyone has said puzzles should have the same number of finds as traditionals. Traditionals are generally going to be more popular with beginners and visitors to an area, and of course don't require any extra effort beyond going to GZ, retrieving and opening the cache. Curiously, though, one of my least-found caches (5 finds in 14 months) is a D1.5/T3 traditional (GC71QN9), but it does have 4 FPs.

Edited May 11, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+Twentse Mug]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I don't think anyone has said puzzles should have the same number of finds as traditionals. Traditionals are generally going to be more popular with bThebeginners and visitors to an area, and of course don't require any extra effort beyond going to GZ, retrieving and opening the cache. Curiously, though, one of my least-found caches (5 finds in 14 months) is a D1.5/T3 traditional (GC71QN9), but it does have 4 FPs.

Do you think that the number of finds on traditional caches is decreasing? Statistics.

[+thebruce0]

I don't even recall when the issue cache type became part of the discussion (or at least my comment which was quoted)

 

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Of course a cache can both help with a challenge and provide a nice view or experience in its own right.

 

This is true. There might be a difficult challenge someone posts which prompts a CO to create caches - that doesn't mean that those 'responsive caches' are merely for the statistical gain. The CO could easily know of the 'perfect spot' for relevant caches that make great finds and give the statistical result desired, if the finder desires it towards the challenge.  But the cache are still there, with intended positive geocaching experiences, for anyone who wishes to find them even if they don't know anything about the challenge that prompted their placement.

[+redsox_mark]

8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I don't even recall when the issue cache type became part of the discussion (or at least my comment which was quoted)

 

 

 

 

It was thrown into the conversation, but I agree wasn't part of your comment.

 

"The percentage of puzzle caches has increased dramatically with lower average number of founds. What do the statistics for the European countries look like for traditionals only?"

 

It sounds like in Twentse Mug's area, they are seeing a lot of new caches are puzzles, and puzzles get found less.   So that could result in less finds overall in the area.

Which is an interesting comment.   If you have a lot of keen puzzle hiders but not so many keen puzzle finders, that could cause an overall drop in finds.   Particularly if over time traditionals get archived and are replaced with puzzles.  

 

[+Twentse Mug]

What do stastics say about the average number of founds on traditional caches? 

[+dprovan]

14 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think the distinction is that the term is referring to caches being hidden only for the digital/listing stats, not so much for physical cache container or location and whatnot. Like, finding the cache is a technicality, just to get a qualification for a title that starts with X. eg.

I understand the distinction, I just contest that it has any significance. Some people want caches with views. Some people want caches with names starting with "X". Why is one desire more worthy of being satisfied than the other?

 

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Of course a cache can both help with a challenge and provide a nice view or experience in its own right.

Yes, of course. But the sentiment I'm questioning is that one that implies that helping with a challenge is a negative attribute. If it is a superior experience, that's fine. If it helps me with a challenge, that's fine, too. If it does both, even better.

 

And if it does neither, it's still fun to find a cache. All that other stuff is just gravy.

[+thebruce0]

21 minutes ago, dprovan said:

15 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think the distinction is that the term is referring to caches being hidden only for the digital/listing stats, not so much for physical cache container or location and whatnot. Like, finding the cache is a technicality, just to get a qualification for a title that starts with X. eg.

I understand the distinction, I just contest that it has any significance. Some people want caches with views. Some people want caches with names starting with "X". Why is one desire more worthy of being satisfied than the other?

Oh I wasn't putting a value judgement on either. I was just looking at the distinction.

When "responsive cache placement" was referenced, as far as I understood it's the act of COs putting out caches in response to challenge cache requirements that are hard to qualify locally.  The implication from the term being raised was a negative one: that the caches had no value beyond the statistical gain. Obviously the caches can be placed being prompted by a statistical desire, but while also providing a quality geocaching experience regardless of the statistical gain.

 

Thus, is "responsive cache placement" universally a bad thing? I don't think that absolute statement can be made. I might see a hard challenge pop up, and decide then to place some caches that make qualifying easier - but appropriately, to provide a great caching experience whether or not your intent to find the cache is just for the stat.

 

On one hand you may have alphabet powertrails of uncamo'd cheap film cans beside a walking trail every .1 miles popping up for those alphabet challenges (no longer allowed), on the other hand you may have a specific high D/T traditional appear in the middle of a beautiful forest after a 6 hour hike, to fill that rare DT for a county fizzy. Are either of those good or bad? Well that would depend on who you ask

 

Another example could be Liar caches, which when allowed, were a way for people to place 5/5's to be found that didn't actually meet a 5/5 standard, often just as an easy way to fill that 5/5 spot... as opposed to being prompted to hide a worthy 5/5, even if one goal of the placement was to fill the spot.

 

 

So no, "responsive cache placement" isn't itself an objectively bad thing. But the perspective being implied by the initial commenter raising the term, I believe was referring to placement of the container with no attention to experience/quality, just so people could find them and get the listing stat.  Even then, some people might enjoy finding them, so the commenter was projecting their own distaste of that style of placement.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

So no, "responsive cache placement" isn't itself an objectively bad thing. But the perspective being implied by the initial commenter raising the term, I believe was referring to placement of the container with no attention to experience/quality, just so people could find them and get the listing stat.

That's a possibility, but my take on the original comment was that it was saying such caches are inferior precisely because they kowtow to the requirements of a challenge. And my counter point was that satisfying a need makes a cache better, not worse, even if it's not a need you have.

 

I understand that some people have this notion that such caches will always be poor quality caches in bad locations, but there's no good reason to think that and, in fact, my experience has been just the opposite.

 

I always feel a need to make comments on things like this because I find that too often people declare a cause of bad caches, like satisfying challenge requirements or being spaced every tenth of a mile, when I can't see any causal relation. I find that individual caches placed for no particular reason are bad as often as evenly spaced series caches or caches planted to satisfy challenge requirements. Well, actually, that's not true: in my area, at least, people satisfying challenge requirements or planting a series tend to take more care in using a good container and placing it in a good place because they have a reason to care more about the cache than someone just dropping it because they had it with them.