According to Google Trends, interest in Geocaching is the lowest it's been in well over a decade

[+dprovan]

From the guidelines:

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

This very first guideline is hardly followed. If it were, geocaching might be more interesting, don't you think

It might make individual geocaches more interesting, but if every CO over the years had felt they had to follow that guideline, there wouldn't be enough interest in the sport for us to be worrying about a slight downtrend today. As geocaching spread from the hiking crowd to the general population over the last 10 years, it is quite natural that the geocache itself has, indeed, become the most important part in the minds of most participants. You might not like people thinking that way, but there's no denying those are the people counted in the uptrend before this downturn.

 

If we focus on "a better spot" to the exclusion of anything else, a lot more people would never get to that better spot to consider geocaching at all than would get there and be more impressed with geocaching because of our focus.

[+Mudfrog]

FWIW, my GC mailbox used to be flooded quite often. But now, I only get a handful notifications every day. Almost no new publications in a 40km circle, my caches almost get no more visits... I know it's a very cold winter here, but the trend started even before. A lot of the most active cachers of the area have singularly reduced their interest, some even almost completely stopped playing.

It may bea local phenomenon. It may not...

I'd say the main reason is the poor quality of the new caches placed. I guess that after a while, cachers just no longer want to go out looking for micros without interest.

From the guidelines:

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

This very first guideline is hardly followed. If it were, geocaching might be more interesting, don't you think

You are so on the money! I used to receive lots of emails but in the past year or two, they've slowed to a trickle. I sincerely believe the main problem is, not necessarily that they're all carpy caches, but that so many are just too routine. Same ole stuff over and over. It's true, these are placed by the caching community but imo, it's not exactly the fault of the community. Groundspeak has chosen to move geocaching in the direction it has been going.

 

Groundspeak chose to allow power trails, caches placed mainly to make it easy for people to score smilies. With most PTs comes placement of bad containers and owners who could care less if people use questionable practices. They sometimes even encourage it.

 

Groundspeak chose to make a phone app too easy for new people to just jump right in and "play". Not only do new people not know how to play, it's probable that most never realize the possibilities and variety that geocaching can offer. Just like most other apps, it's one that most people enjoy for a short time before moving on to the next latest and greatest.

 

Groundspeak chose to take away virtuals and challenge caches. These are popular with a good many people. Sure, these caches were causing some headaches. But instead of nixing them all together, GS should have come up with a solution to keep them.

 

I see posts above where people are so positive and i suppose this is because they are lucky enough to live in an area that has some dedicated goecachers. However, i don't believe this is the case for geocaching as a whole. I do know for a fact that activity in ours and the Houston areas have slowed way down compared to what it was in years past.

[+L0ne.R]

From the guidelines:

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

This very first guideline is hardly followed. If it were, geocaching might be more interesting, don't you think

It might make individual geocaches more interesting, but if every CO over the years had felt they had to follow that guideline, there wouldn't be enough interest in the sport for us to be worrying about a slight downtrend today. As geocaching spread from the hiking crowd to the general population over the last 10 years, it is quite natural that the geocache itself has, indeed, become the most important part in the minds of most participants.

 

I would argue that the geocache has become one of the least important parts of geocaching (along with location). The most import part in the minds of most participants is the smiley.

 

Most hiders foremost thought is "How can I hide in bulk, with the cheapest chinese-knock-off eBay containers. It doesn't matter if it's leaky, and I don't plan on coming back to fix it when it's a problem. Someone will replace the wet tattered moldy sheet or throwdown another bulk cheap container and they'll all get their smiley to fill grids."

[+dprovan]

In my own case, my own decrease is due almost 100% to the fact that I've found most, if not all, of the caches in the areas I can get to easily in my day-to-day activities. Where is THAT in your list?

It's #5, right? Anyway, this is a very valid point that I always have to remind myself of. (I'm almost embarrassed to admit that after I expanded by driving time to 30 minutes, there's literally no end of geocaches I can find because of the density of geocaches and vibrancy of geocaching in my area. I'm sure very few areas have it so good.)

 

But on the other hand, this is a perfect example of a problem that cannot possibly be solved other than through local action. I have no problem with someone deciding it's boring and quitting because there are no more caches to find. I might quit, too. But I can't help but notice that when they quit, they stop hiding caches in addition to no longer looking for caches.

[+narcissa]

FWIW, my GC mailbox used to be flooded quite often. But now, I only get a handful notifications every day. Almost no new publications in a 40km circle, my caches almost get no more visits... I know it's a very cold winter here, but the trend started even before. A lot of the most active cachers of the area have singularly reduced their interest, some even almost completely stopped playing.

It may bea local phenomenon. It may not...

I'd say the main reason is the poor quality of the new caches placed. I guess that after a while, cachers just no longer want to go out looking for micros without interest.

From the guidelines:

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

This very first guideline is hardly followed. If it were, geocaching might be more interesting, don't you think

You are so on the money! I used to receive lots of emails but in the past year or two, they've slowed to a trickle. I sincerely believe the main problem is, not necessarily that they're all carpy caches, but that so many are just too routine. Same ole stuff over and over. It's true, these are placed by the caching community but imo, it's not exactly the fault of the community. Groundspeak has chosen to move geocaching in the direction it has been going.

 

Groundspeak chose to allow power trails, caches placed mainly to make it easy for people to score smilies. With most PTs comes placement of bad containers and owners who could care less if people use questionable practices. They sometimes even encourage it.

 

Groundspeak chose to make a phone app too easy for new people to just jump right in and "play". Not only do new people not know how to play, it's probable that most never realize the possibilities and variety that geocaching can offer. Just like most other apps, it's one that most people enjoy for a short time before moving on to the next latest and greatest.

 

Groundspeak chose to take away virtuals and challenge caches. These are popular with a good many people. Sure, these caches were causing some headaches. But instead of nixing them all together, GS should have come up with a solution to keep them.

 

I see posts above where people are so positive and i suppose this is because they are lucky enough to live in an area that has some dedicated goecachers. However, i don't believe this is the case for geocaching as a whole. I do know for a fact that activity in ours and the Houston areas have slowed way down compared to what it was in years past.

 

One thing I still find surprising is that geocaching hasn't become more fractured in terms of listing sites. I know it's hard to compete with such a juggernaut, but it seems like there is some level of demand that might be satisfied by alternatives. The only one that ever seemed to get any traction (because it had a big company behind it) was quickly taken over by some pretty unsavoury elements and the people running the site were too naive to stop the damage before it was too late.

 

I think people might need to learn that they can't look to TPTB to stop all the things they don't like. It seems like every time things kind of go in a bad direction, the kneejerk response is to ask Groundspeak to make more rules. People might be happier if they were better able to articulate what they want geocaching to be and then find other like-minded people to go in a new direction.

[+Team Microdot]

From the guidelines:

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

This very first guideline is hardly followed. If it were, geocaching might be more interesting, don't you think

It might make individual geocaches more interesting, but if every CO over the years had felt they had to follow that guideline, there wouldn't be enough interest in the sport for us to be worrying about a slight downtrend today. As geocaching spread from the hiking crowd to the general population over the last 10 years, it is quite natural that the geocache itself has, indeed, become the most important part in the minds of most participants.

 

I would argue that the geocache has become one of the least important parts of geocaching (along with location). The most import part in the minds of most participants is the smiley.

 

Most hiders foremost thought is "How can I hide in bulk, with the cheapest chinese-knock-off eBay containers. It doesn't matter if it's leaky, and I don't plan on coming back to fix it when it's a problem. Someone will replace the wet tattered moldy sheet or throwdown another bulk cheap container and they'll all get their smiley to fill grids."

 

The never ending race to the bottom.

 

These are the sorts of things that have resulted in my becoming too embarassed to mention to others that I geocache in case they get interested and have a go and find out that the reality is a far poorer thing than the concept.

[+brendan714]

1. Too many micros, too many power trails. The game has been watered down.
   
2. Poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly maintained caches.
   
3. Land managers (often Parks officials) restrict or outright ban geocaching in many fascinating areas.
   
4. Issues with the app and/or the subscription model in the new app caused many to lose interest.
   
5. Some found all/most the geocaches in their area long ago and lost interest in the game.
   
6. Other virtual games or outdoor activities simply overtook their interest in geocaching.
   
7. The game has become too competitive, and geocachers only care about statistics and competing for numbers.
   
8. The local active geocaching community primarily consists of a few veteran geocachers who are elitist.
   

 

Saying these points "have been agreed upon" is not really worth saying. Agreed upon by whom? How are these discussed? Here in the forums? Is a nationwide poll given to geocachers of all types? Nothing is "agreed upon" or "settled"...so let's dispense with that, shall we?

 

Honestly, the second and third points are the only ones that I believe have a measurable impact. In my own case, my own decrease is due almost 100% to the fact that I've found most, if not all, of the caches in the areas I can get to easily in my day-to-day activities. Where is THAT in your list?

Agreed upon by the users of the other forum where the original discussion was held (this topic is essentially a repost of that original topic with the main points summarized). I'm not sure I'm allowed to link to the original discussion, so I won't. But a simple search would surely lead you in the right direction.

 

People may lose interest in the game for a wide variety of reasons. Some of these reasons may not apply to you, but they may apply to others. For example, I know at least a half dozen cachers personally who lost interest in the game when a certain virtual game was unveiled last summer (#6 on the list). I know for a fact that is true.

 

I personally know people who have been affected by #2, 3, 5, 6, 7. I can easily believe #1 and 4 could or has affected many people. #8 isn't as good of a reason as the others in my opinion - but this is a more minor point.

 

PS - your own case is basically an extension of #5 in the list.

Edited January 25, 2017 by brendan714

[+dprovan]

I would argue that the geocache has become one of the least important parts of geocaching (along with location). The most import part in the minds of most participants is the smiley.

 

Most hiders foremost thought is "How can I hide in bulk, with the cheapest chinese-knock-off eBay containers. It doesn't matter if it's leaky, and I don't plan on coming back to fix it when it's a problem. Someone will replace the wet tattered moldy sheet or throwdown another bulk cheap container and they'll all get their smiley to fill grids."

While I do not have global statistics, as so often happens, there's no evidence of anything like this in my area, so I deny it's a universal problem. It's true that we have people that are undeniably counting smileys. Heck, Alamogul's in my neck of the woods. But Alamogul is one of the most likely to comment on a good cache or complain about a bad one, and he regularly hides new caches in interesting areas with quality containers. And while there is the occasional newbie hiding cheap containers, they get plenty of grief, and in the end they either learn their lesson -- some of them have become much valued COs -- or they stop hiding and their caches disappear.

[+J Grouchy]

 

PS - your own case is basically an extension of #5 in the list.

 

Not really. I haven't lost interest at all. If I moved...or if suddenly 500 caches got published where I can easily travel to during my brief periods of free time, I'd be gung-ho all over again. As it is, I am often trying to find ways to make detours or find a half hour here or there to extend my normal radius and grab a cache.

[+dprovan]

One thing I still find surprising is that geocaching hasn't become more fractured in terms of listing sites. I know it's hard to compete with such a juggernaut, but it seems like there is some level of demand that might be satisfied by alternatives.

I don't know anything about any of the other sites, and haven't really given the idea of an alternative site much thought, but what I've noticed here in the forums is that even though I've seen many float the idea of an alternative site to get out from one or another of GS's thumbs, the sites described are always quite different from each other. My conclusions is that it's easy to imagine how a site would serve my needs better, but impossible to design a site that would serve a significant number of other people's needs better.

[+niraD]

Some found all/most the geocaches in their area long ago and lost interest in the game.

 

The game has become too competitive, and geocachers only care about statistics and competing for numbers.

FWIW, these are related. If you're focused on numbers, then you're going to clear your blast radius more quickly.

 

One of the things I learned while working on a streak is that a single cache can be plenty for a geocaching hike. Rather than clearing all the unfound caches in a nearby park, I found a single cache each visit. That way, I could go geocaching in that park over and over and over again.

 

I was doing it so I could maintain a streak, but it would work just as well to simply extend the amount of time you can continue geocaching while staying relatively close to home.

[cezanne]

From the guidelines:

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

This very first guideline is hardly followed. If it were, geocaching might be more interesting, don't you think

It might make individual geocaches more interesting, but if every CO over the years had felt they had to follow that guideline, there wouldn't be enough interest in the sport for us to be worrying about a slight downtrend today. As geocaching spread from the hiking crowd to the general population over the last 10 years, it is quite natural that the geocache itself has, indeed, become the most important part in the minds of most participants.

 

I would argue that the geocache has become one of the least important parts of geocaching (along with location). The most import part in the minds of most participants is the smiley.

 

Most hiders foremost thought is "How can I hide in bulk, with the cheapest chinese-knock-off eBay containers. It doesn't matter if it's leaky, and I don't plan on coming back to fix it when it's a problem. Someone will replace the wet tattered moldy sheet or throwdown another bulk cheap container and they'll all get their smiley to fill grids."

 

While my area is certainly different from dprovan's area in many respects my experience is much closer to his than to yours. Bulk hides with the cheapest containers are not a very prominent problem in my area.

 

There are many caches out there that I consider as high quality caches, but they do not appeal to me. I'm a member of the hiking crowd and caches like that one

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2017/01/a-box-of-red-herrings-geocache-of-the-week/

are an absolute nightmare for me.

 

I prefer by far a cheap container at one out of 100 trees which I reach after a magnificent 10km hike to which the cache invited me.

 

So while I'm one of those for whom the container is the least important part, I do not care about the smiley aspect at all. You generalize too much. There are many reasons for not caring about the type and condition of the container much. I'm interested into the outdoor experience and not in looking at containers (which is something which is rather an indoor activity to me like knitting etc).

[+narcissa]

From the guidelines:

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

This very first guideline is hardly followed. If it were, geocaching might be more interesting, don't you think

It might make individual geocaches more interesting, but if every CO over the years had felt they had to follow that guideline, there wouldn't be enough interest in the sport for us to be worrying about a slight downtrend today. As geocaching spread from the hiking crowd to the general population over the last 10 years, it is quite natural that the geocache itself has, indeed, become the most important part in the minds of most participants.

 

I would argue that the geocache has become one of the least important parts of geocaching (along with location). The most import part in the minds of most participants is the smiley.

 

Most hiders foremost thought is "How can I hide in bulk, with the cheapest chinese-knock-off eBay containers. It doesn't matter if it's leaky, and I don't plan on coming back to fix it when it's a problem. Someone will replace the wet tattered moldy sheet or throwdown another bulk cheap container and they'll all get their smiley to fill grids."

 

While my area is certainly different from dprovan's area in many respects my experience is much closer to his than to yours. Bulk hides with the cheapest containers are not a very prominent problem in my area.

 

There are many caches out there that I consider as high quality caches, but they do not appeal to me. I'm a member of the hiking crowd and caches like that one

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2017/01/a-box-of-red-herrings-geocache-of-the-week/

are an absolute nightmare for me.

 

I prefer by far a cheap container at one out of 100 trees which I reach after a magnificent 10km hike to which the cache invited me.

 

So while I'm one of those for whom the container is the least important part, I do not care about the smiley aspect at all. You generalize too much. There are many reasons for not caring about the type and condition of the container much. I'm interested into the outdoor experience and not in looking at containers (which is something which is rather an indoor activity to me like knitting etc).

 

I'm also not too fussed about containers. I think a good container is more important for the owner's sanity than anything - my motivation for using a good container is to reduce maintenance and avoid whining.

 

When I'm geocaching, the container is just a small aspect of the experience. I'll definitely mention if it has problems, but it has to be pretty gosh darn bad to spoil the entire experience for me. We often seek out caches that are found infrequently because they're only accessible by boat, or just in a remote place. I really don't expect a cache that's found once a year to be in perfect shape, especially in this climate.

[+narcissa]

One thing I still find surprising is that geocaching hasn't become more fractured in terms of listing sites. I know it's hard to compete with such a juggernaut, but it seems like there is some level of demand that might be satisfied by alternatives.

I don't know anything about any of the other sites, and haven't really given the idea of an alternative site much thought, but what I've noticed here in the forums is that even though I've seen many float the idea of an alternative site to get out from one or another of GS's thumbs, the sites described are always quite different from each other. My conclusions is that it's easy to imagine how a site would serve my needs better, but impossible to design a site that would serve a significant number of other people's needs better.

 

Yes, that's very true.

 

And I suspect that despite the endless griping, many people ultimately come to the conclusion that this site does meet their needs, especially if they learn how to use it well.

[+L0ne.R]

FWIW, my GC mailbox used to be flooded quite often. But now, I only get a handful notifications every day. Almost no new publications in a 40km circle, my caches almost get no more visits... I know it's a very cold winter here, but the trend started even before. A lot of the most active cachers of the area have singularly reduced their interest, some even almost completely stopped playing.

It may bea local phenomenon. It may not...

I'd say the main reason is the poor quality of the new caches placed. I guess that after a while, cachers just no longer want to go out looking for micros without interest.

From the guidelines:

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

This very first guideline is hardly followed. If it were, geocaching might be more interesting, don't you think

You are so on the money! I used to receive lots of emails but in the past year or two, they've slowed to a trickle. I sincerely believe the main problem is, not necessarily that they're all carpy caches, but that so many are just too routine. Same ole stuff over and over. It's true, these are placed by the caching community but imo, it's not exactly the fault of the community. Groundspeak has chosen to move geocaching in the direction it has been going.

 

Groundspeak chose to allow power trails, caches placed mainly to make it easy for people to score smilies. With most PTs comes placement of bad containers and owners who could care less if people use questionable practices. They sometimes even encourage it.

 

Groundspeak chose to make a phone app too easy for new people to just jump right in and "play". Not only do new people not know how to play, it's probable that most never realize the possibilities and variety that geocaching can offer. Just like most other apps, it's one that most people enjoy for a short time before moving on to the next latest and greatest.

 

Groundspeak chose to take away virtuals and challenge caches. These are popular with a good many people. Sure, these caches were causing some headaches. But instead of nixing them all together, GS should have come up with a solution to keep them.

 

I see posts above where people are so positive and i suppose this is because they are lucky enough to live in an area that has some dedicated goecachers. However, i don't believe this is the case for geocaching as a whole. I do know for a fact that activity in ours and the Houston areas have slowed way down compared to what it was in years past.

 

One thing I still find surprising is that geocaching hasn't become more fractured in terms of listing sites. I know it's hard to compete with such a juggernaut, but it seems like there is some level of demand that might be satisfied by alternatives.

 

I've looked at the other sites. They are full of micros and virtuals. At least for me, and assume a lot of other geocachers, there isn't enough quality (unless you're happy with micros and virtuals). I've tried posting caches on one site but only managed to attract 2 finders in 3 years. Groundspeak might be full of carp but there's some trout among them - there's just not much trout, and a lot of carp keep hooking up on to your trout-only-lures. The real trout are hard to get, yet you have a better chance in the geocaching.com river then in the other rivers. Someone needs to start a geocaching website that emphasizes quality maintained caches that attract the majority of cachers (from people who just want a smiley, to people who enjoy a dry container with more then a logsheet inside for trackables and swag).

[+narcissa]

FWIW, my GC mailbox used to be flooded quite often. But now, I only get a handful notifications every day. Almost no new publications in a 40km circle, my caches almost get no more visits... I know it's a very cold winter here, but the trend started even before. A lot of the most active cachers of the area have singularly reduced their interest, some even almost completely stopped playing.

It may bea local phenomenon. It may not...

I'd say the main reason is the poor quality of the new caches placed. I guess that after a while, cachers just no longer want to go out looking for micros without interest.

From the guidelines:

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

This very first guideline is hardly followed. If it were, geocaching might be more interesting, don't you think

You are so on the money! I used to receive lots of emails but in the past year or two, they've slowed to a trickle. I sincerely believe the main problem is, not necessarily that they're all carpy caches, but that so many are just too routine. Same ole stuff over and over. It's true, these are placed by the caching community but imo, it's not exactly the fault of the community. Groundspeak has chosen to move geocaching in the direction it has been going.

 

Groundspeak chose to allow power trails, caches placed mainly to make it easy for people to score smilies. With most PTs comes placement of bad containers and owners who could care less if people use questionable practices. They sometimes even encourage it.

 

Groundspeak chose to make a phone app too easy for new people to just jump right in and "play". Not only do new people not know how to play, it's probable that most never realize the possibilities and variety that geocaching can offer. Just like most other apps, it's one that most people enjoy for a short time before moving on to the next latest and greatest.

 

Groundspeak chose to take away virtuals and challenge caches. These are popular with a good many people. Sure, these caches were causing some headaches. But instead of nixing them all together, GS should have come up with a solution to keep them.

 

I see posts above where people are so positive and i suppose this is because they are lucky enough to live in an area that has some dedicated goecachers. However, i don't believe this is the case for geocaching as a whole. I do know for a fact that activity in ours and the Houston areas have slowed way down compared to what it was in years past.

 

One thing I still find surprising is that geocaching hasn't become more fractured in terms of listing sites. I know it's hard to compete with such a juggernaut, but it seems like there is some level of demand that might be satisfied by alternatives.

 

I've looked at the other sites. They are full of micros and virtuals. At least for me, and assume a lot of other geocachers, there isn't enough quality (unless you're happy with micros and virtuals). I've tried posting caches on one site but only managed to attract 2 finders in 3 years. Groundspeak might be full of carp but there's some trout among them - there's just not much trout, and a lot of carp keep hooking up on to your trout-only-lures. The real trout are hard to get, yet you have a better chance in the geocaching.com river then in the other rivers. Someone needs to start a geocaching website that emphasizes quality maintained caches that attract the majority of cachers (from people who just want a smiley, to people who enjoy a dry container with more then a logsheet inside for trackables and swag).

 

I think the key problem here is "Someone needs to start..."

 

I have never taken a close look at other sites, because this one meets my needs. It just strikes me that the fussier geocachers might be happier if they took the initiative to create something in their own image.

 

But anyone who assumes that they're going to attract, or need to attract, some silent majority of geocachers is probably going to be disappointed and unsuccessful.

[+brendan714]

Some found all/most the geocaches in their area long ago and lost interest in the game.

 

The game has become too competitive, and geocachers only care about statistics and competing for numbers.

FWIW, these are related. If you're focused on numbers, then you're going to clear your blast radius more quickly.

Not true (I'm not saying it can't be related, but it's not always related). There are geocachers in my area who regularly travel down to power-trail hotspots like Nevada for the sole purpose of finding geocaches. Some, if not most of these people are competitive (some have explicitly told me that they are competitive). This competitive nature can/does spill over into local cache finding, hiding, challenges, puzzles, etc. I can say first hand that my enjoyment of the game has been affected by competitive players.

 

On the other hand, a more casual cacher like myself could easily lose interest in the game after finding the vast majority of geocaches in my general area. I find caches in my area at a rate faster than the publishing rate of new caches. Hence, there will come a time (in the not-too-distant future at this rate) where I will be waiting for new geocaches to be published so I can find geocaches. That's already happened to some extent in certain areas. Thankfully, I am free to HIDE caches at my own will; so at the very least, the game will live on for me in that way (except that our Parks officials have given restrictions in the majority of interesting areas - d'oh! )

 

These two topics are unrelated issues to me, and yet they've both impacted my enjoyment of the game.

[+brendan714]

 

PS - your own case is basically an extension of #5 in the list.

 

Not really. I haven't lost interest at all. If I moved...or if suddenly 500 caches got published where I can easily travel to during my brief periods of free time, I'd be gung-ho all over again. As it is, I am often trying to find ways to make detours or find a half hour here or there to extend my normal radius and grab a cache.

Close enough, I think you get the point. If you found all the caches in your general area, you might lose interest in the game until more are published / you drive a little farther / you go on vacation / you move.

[+geodarts]

Someone needs to start a geocaching website that emphasizes quality maintained caches that attract the majority of cachers (from people who just want a smiley, to people who enjoy a dry container with more then a logsheet inside for trackables and swag).

 

There is at least one site that claims to focus on quality, but I don't know first hand. It has never gained enough local traction to make me want to start fresh over there.

 

Perhaps there is little mystery why my caching reached a peak around 2010-2011 and has dropped each year. I no longer see a need to find a lamp post series even if there are some a few blocks from where I live. I rarely will go someplace specifically to cache, and even then I may not stop for a traditional.

 

My caching now focuses on virtuals, earthcaches, and containers that provide a reason to go somewhere - kayaking, hiking, photography, ancient sites. Virtuals in areas where containers are not appropriate are my favorite, but dwindling. They define the boundaries of this game for me, so at some point . . . For now, other caches that I might want to find are fewer in number without further travel. The catchers who once were the most active in my area have largely left the game - when I first started I could look forward to caches being placed in areas that I might hike - some with a unique sense of humor. Those days are gone, pretty much along the curve for the google chart. Time. Priorities. Geography. Things change. Life is a curve.

Edited January 26, 2017 by geodarts

[+GeoBain]

* I apologize. I think I prefer to just lurk this topic out.

 

(comment removed by me)

Edited January 26, 2017 by GeoBain

[cezanne]

Someone needs to start a geocaching website that emphasizes quality maintained caches that attract the majority of cachers (from people who just want a smiley, to people who enjoy a dry container with more then a logsheet inside for trackables and swag).

 

There will hardly exist many geocaches that attract the majority of all cachers. The reasons to geocache are too different.

 

Also what should be quality maintained mean? Someone could choose a good container and choose the hideout wisely but for a non urban cache which only gets say up to 3 visits a year you will never have a guarantee that

the condition of all things in the container will be perfect when you happen to visit the container and that's also not something which I expect.

 

I'm not interested at all into those caches which are hidden close to where someone lives or works and where they can pass by every week and have a look at the cache. Of course someone hiding a cache up a mountain should be willing to go there again in case there is an issue but I do not expect regular owner visits.

 

Cache quality means something else for each of us and based on that the resulting fractions would be much too small to warrant a separate site.

 

Even when you focus on a certain target audience, for example hikers and hiking caches what you would like to have would not work in my opinion. For me a virtual hiking cache or a hiking cache which ends with a micro which is not difficult to find would be fine too while you would further cut down the target audience up to the point where not many cachers except yourself remain which have the very same preferences. I could not even list one of my caches on the site you have in mind as my caches only contain a log book (trackables are something you should forget for alternative sites anyway).

[+L0ne.R]

Someone needs to start a geocaching website that emphasizes quality maintained caches that attract the majority of cachers (from people who just want a smiley, to people who enjoy a dry container with more then a logsheet inside for trackables and swag).

 

There will hardly exist many geocaches that attract the majority of all cachers. The reasons to geocache are too different.

 

An example:

 

We both trek up to the mountaintop and enjoy a beautiful hike. We get to ground zero and find the cache.

 

If the cache is a film canister. You are happy. Your overall experience is a good one.

If the cache is a film canister with a wet tattered logsheet, you're still happy and consider the experience a good one.

Me, I'm disappointed, maybe even irritated if that cache was listed as a small and not a micro, I can't leave the trackable I brought with me. My overall experience is that I had a nice hike, but the quality of caching portion of the experience was disappointing. Especially when the area can easily support a larger cache but the owner could care less about appealing to a majority of geocachers. I would have been happier just hiking up the mountain to enjoy the view without a cache experience that sullied the experience.

 

If the cache is an ammo can with contents that are dry, I am extremely happy. You are happy too. You have your piece of paper to sign. I get to leave a signature item and a trackable, knowing there's an excellent chance (because of the quality ammo can) that those items will be in good shape when the next visitors arrive. I may even be able to pick up a trackable or a nice item as a momento.

Can you say your overall experience would be diminished because you found an ammo can instead of a film canister?

 

Also what should be quality maintained mean? Someone could choose a good container and choose the hideout wisely but for a non urban cache which only gets say up to 3 visits a year you will never have a guarantee that

the condition of all things in the container will be perfect when you happen to visit the container and that's also not something which I expect.

 

A guarantee is not required. When there are a couple of logs that say there's a problem with the cache (water damage, broken tab, cracked lid) then the owner goes out to the cache to fix the problem so the next cachers don't have a disappointing experience at the end. At least disable it so cachers who care about finding better quality caches can filter out the cache until it gets checked/fix. That's quality maintenance.

Edited January 26, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+dprovan]

I would have been happier just hiking up the mountain to enjoy the view without a cache experience that sullied the experience.

Well, there's your problem. The rational view would be that the wonderful hike was still wonderful, and the cache didn't, for you, add to the experience. Instead you choose to view the caching experience as ruining the unrelated wonderful hike. Even with caches listed on your imagined superior website, you might still get to GZ and find a missing or mangled cache since those aren't always in the CO's power to prevent, so while you're waiting for your website to appear, perhaps you should learn to accept that things are not always perfect.

 

It's just a happy coincidence that that means you won't be upset with caches other people like but you don't. You just won't be as pleased with them as you might be.

 

But, to get myself back on topic, if you're putting this forward as an example of why some people leave geocaching, then I'm not worried about it. If geocaching can ruin someone's hike like this, geocaching probably isn't the sport for them, and I'd encourage them to drop it. And my opinion wouldn't be much changed even if they could go to website such as you suggest that would minimize -- but not eliminate -- the possibility of disappointment.

[cezanne]

Can you say your overall experience would be diminished because you found an ammo can instead of a film canister?

 

No, except at a location where I would not to get seen with an ammo box. As a cache hider however I would not like that much to carry an ammo box for several hours and as a cache finder I do not like to have to dig through swag to get to the log book and even less in difficult terrain I want to drop swag.

 

However my point was a different one. The more restrictive one is, the less caches there will be on a platform and at some point the number of people to whom it targets will be much too small.

 

The concept of caches that are enjoyed by the majority is one to fail in my opinion.

 

I have never aimed at hiding a cache that is enjoyed by the majority. If I did that I could e.g. not hide caches which involve a walk of >15km - this is not enjoyed by the majority. I do not care however about the majority at all, but just about a small group. By offering my caches on gc.com this works more or less as those to whom the caches appeal have access to them and they themselves can also hide caches directed to their target audiences which will not be exactly the same as mine. I get the chance to be provided with caches which I enjoy hidden by cachers who also enjoy different caches.

 

Using your kind of argument it would boil down to that someone like me should not set up a multi cache that sends you on a 20km round trip hike but hide a traditional near to a parking lot and mention the potential round trip as an option for those who are interested. That is however not the sort of cache I enjoy and thus also not the type of cache I would ever hide.

 

Using a platform which is used by many cachers allows to focus on a minority audience easier than it would be on a specialized platform given that the preferences of the cachers are so heterogeneous.

 

 

 

A guarantee is not required. When there are a couple of logs that say there's a problem with the cache (water damage, broken tab, cracked lid) then the owner goes out to the cache to fix the problem so the next cachers don't have a disappointing experience at the end.

 

Quite often in my area the log sheet is damp in winter without a cracked or leaky container.

When one cacher reports an issue and it gets fixed, it is not too unlikely that a year later another visitor will still encounter an issue, namely a new one.

A couple of logs reporting a problem that would mean for many mountain caches a history of say a problem over 3 years which has not been fixed which is of course not what I had in mind.

 

On the realistic side however dampness often is an effect of someone visiting the cache and is almost unavoidable in particular in the winter season or when it is raining and so it will not be reported by those who

contribute to the issue.

Edited January 26, 2017 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

I would have been happier just hiking up the mountain to enjoy the view without a cache experience that sullied the experience.

Well, there's your problem. The rational view would be that the wonderful hike was still wonderful, and the cache didn't, for you, add to the experience. Instead you choose to view the caching experience as ruining the unrelated wonderful hike. Even with caches listed on your imagined superior website, you might still get to GZ and find a missing or mangled cache since those aren't always in the CO's power to prevent, so while you're waiting for your website to appear, perhaps you should learn to accept that things are not always perfect.

 

It's just a happy coincidence that that means you won't be upset with caches other people like but you don't. You just won't be as pleased with them as you might be.

 

But, to get myself back on topic, if you're putting this forward as an example of why some people leave geocaching, then I'm not worried about it. If geocaching can ruin someone's hike like this, geocaching probably isn't the sport for them, and I'd encourage them to drop it. And my opinion wouldn't be much changed even if they could go to website such as you suggest that would minimize -- but not eliminate -- the possibility of disappointment.

 

+10000

[+cerberus1]

I would have been happier just hiking up the mountain to enjoy the view without a cache experience that sullied the experience.

We really like to see a clean, dry container.

- But once pill bottles sorta became the norm (kinda a replacement to the film can...) we've cached for the last 6 years or so with the idea that the cache is secondary to the hike or view that's intended at GZ.

 

Guess it's one of those lemon/lemonade things...

[+fizzymagic]

I would have been happier just hiking up the mountain to enjoy the view without a cache experience that sullied the experience.

Well, there's your problem. The rational view would be that the wonderful hike was still wonderful, and the cache didn't, for you, add to the experience. Instead you choose to view the caching experience as ruining the unrelated wonderful hike.

 

As I have said before, if finding a bad cache is going to ruin your experience, then perhaps geocaching is not a good activity for you.

[+redsox_mark]

As generally happens, any post about geocaching declining/dying/etc leads to discussion about "quality". I agree with others that quality means different things to different cachers. But we saw a hint on another thread that Groundspeak was going to make "quality" a focus for this year. We will need to wait and see what that means.

 

I don't think Groundspeak can regulate the perceived quality of the cache location. But they could do things to "crack down" on caches needing maintenance. Or even putting limits on the number of hides an owner can have.

 

While we may have differing views about how important a good, well maintained container is, I don't think many of us prefer:

 

- A leaky container with a CO who doesn't maintain it

 

vs

 

- A quality, dry container with a CO who will maintain it if issues are reported.

 

Whether that will make Geocaching more popular I don't know, but it can only be a good thing if containers are good and maintained.

 

For me, taking a nice hike to find a leaky filmpot in the woods doesn't spoil the experience. But the same walk with a nice dry ammo can is better.

[+redsox_mark]

From the guidelines:

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

This very first guideline is hardly followed. If it were, geocaching might be more interesting, don't you think

It might make individual geocaches more interesting, but if every CO over the years had felt they had to follow that guideline, there wouldn't be enough interest in the sport for us to be worrying about a slight downtrend today. As geocaching spread from the hiking crowd to the general population over the last 10 years, it is quite natural that the geocache itself has, indeed, become the most important part in the minds of most participants. You might not like people thinking that way, but there's no denying those are the people counted in the uptrend before this downturn.

 

If we focus on "a better spot" to the exclusion of anything else, a lot more people would never get to that better spot to consider geocaching at all than would get there and be more impressed with geocaching because of our focus.

 

I agree with the sentiment behind that quote in the guidelines. And I think that regardless of urban or natural locations, the owner should think "is this a good spot". But the reasons can be other than a nice hike and a view. Someone hides a cache near a shopping center. Their "reason" can be to give the geocacher a chance to combine finding a cache with their shopping. I much prefer a hike in the woods/mountains/etc than a cache in/near a parking lot, but I don't think the existence of caches in such locations hurts the game. One can easily see from the map what sort of location the cache is in, and make a choice. I see lots of caches being hidden in the countryside, and when I plan a day's or a few hours caching, that is where I go. But if I happen to be shopping and there is a cache, there, I'll find that too. That doesn't make me a numbers cacher, just someone who likes to find caches. I feel a bit like I'm eating junk food when I find a cache like that, but I can't resist.

 

I have friends who on principle will NOT find that cache near the stores; even if they parked next to it.

 

And I have friends who do mainly urban/suburban caches or ones they can park near, and hardly ever do a long hike to a cache.

 

To each their own.

 

But even that shopping center cache can consider location, e.g. avoid locations which are likely to get muggled.

[+Team Microdot]

But even that shopping center cache can consider location, e.g. avoid locations which are likely to get muggled.

 

And locations likely to result in a bomb scare - which has happened more than once in even my short caching career.

[cezanne]

But we saw a hint on another thread that Groundspeak was going to make "quality" a focus for this year. We will need to wait and see what that means.

 

Having read this blog post

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2017/01/ten-tips-for-a-tip-top-geocache/

I do not expect that. They seem to focus on the container which is the least important part of a geocache for me.

 

I don't think many of us prefer:

 

- A leaky container with a CO who doesn't maintain it

 

vs

 

- A quality, dry container with a CO who will maintain it if issues are reported.

 

However, if I have the choice between the majority of caches being in locations which the cache owners (and anyone else) can reach quickly and with ease to allow very fast reactions to very minor issues and between more caches in beautiful areas where however noone lives closely and where reacting to issues will take longer and where the risk that I encounter an issue after no finds withing the last months is higher, I definitely would decide for the latter option.

 

A local cacher once told me that he can only hide caches that are close to where he lives or works as he thinks that maintenance needs to be done quickly (in his case the same day or the next after a DNF). I rather wait 1 or 2 months until a hiking cache gets maintained than being restricted to caches which do not appeal to me but are easy to maintain quickly.

 

I would be very unhappy if the 2017 initiative increased the time pressure - caches that need maintenance should be maintained but the time periods feasible for doing so should be chosen wisely.

[+redsox_mark]

 

However, if I have the choice between the majority of caches being in locations which the cache owners (and anyone else) can reach quickly and with ease to allow very fast reactions to very minor issues and between more caches in beautiful areas where however noone lives closely and where reacting to issues will take longer and where the risk that I encounter an issue after no finds withing the last months is higher, I definitely would decide for the latter option.

 

 

Me too. And if Groundspeak was to stress speed of maintenance so much that cachers stopped hiding caches in remote areas, that would be bad.

 

But putting a quality container in that remote area will require less maintenance. Sure you can't make it fool proof - if someone doesn't close the lid it will get wet inside.

[+Mudfrog]

For many people, the container isn't the focus of their geocaching adventure. People fond of power trails come to mind because it doesn't matter what the container is, just so it's easily logged. People doing these aren't interested in container or location. But for a lot of people, quality containers, or at least, ones that stay dry inside, do enhanced the experience. Myself, i don't get disgruntled when i come across a cache that has leaked. It's nice to find a dry cache at the end of a great hike but if not, i still had a great time with the hike itself. Bad container quality/wet logs don't help but imo, it isn't a big reason for the declining interest we're seeing.

 

I really think it's the lack of variety available, especially for new geocachers. Finding any cache container, in any location (lightpole, guardrail, dumpster, in a leaky pill bottle, even a baggie), is cool for the first few finds. Most people are going to get very excited at first. But i can go look at profiles of new cachers and see that most of them find a few caches and then just quit. There are other reasons i'm sure but to me it seems obvious why a lot of new people last only a month or two,,, they get bored.

[+narcissa]

For many people, the container isn't the focus of their geocaching adventure. People fond of power trails come to mind because it doesn't matter what the container is, just so it's easily logged. People doing these aren't interested in container or location. But for a lot of people, quality containers, or at least, ones that stay dry inside, do enhanced the experience. Myself, i don't get disgruntled when i come across a cache that has leaked. It's nice to find a dry cache at the end of a great hike but if not, i still had a great time with the hike itself. Bad container quality/wet logs don't help but imo, it isn't a big reason for the declining interest we're seeing.

 

I really think it's the lack of variety available, especially for new geocachers. Finding any cache container, in any location (lightpole, guardrail, dumpster, in a leaky pill bottle, even a baggie), is cool for the first few finds. Most people are going to get very excited at first. But i can go look at profiles of new cachers and see that most of them find a few caches and then just quit. There are other reasons i'm sure but to me it seems obvious why a lot of new people last only a month or two,,, they get bored.

 

I have had conversations with a few people who tried geocaching and found it boring for these reasons. I don't want to slag on the apps too much, because I think there is a lot to be said about expanding the ways people can access the game. However, I think the trade-off has been that new people who enter through the app just don't get a quality introduction to the game. If they don't get bored and quit right away, they are still learning to view the game through a very narrow lens where most of the caches they find are lackluster traditionals in dull locations.

 

I really believe that things could be improved with a better system of onboarding new players. It would be great to introduce them to the game in a more comprehensive way, and it would put experienced players more at ease about the direction things are going. It would help reduce some of the common mistakes that new players make, and really open their eyes to the possibilities in this game.

[+dprovan]

As generally happens, any post about geocaching declining/dying/etc leads to discussion about "quality". I agree with others that quality means different things to different cachers. But we saw a hint on another thread that Groundspeak was going to make "quality" a focus for this year. We will need to wait and see what that means.

You're right: the regular "geocaching is dying" thread always has many people blaming it on quality, and almost every time, they cite micros and caches that are easy to get to as the problem. But that's absurd: micros that are easy to get to are the reason geocaching is so popular, not the reverse.

 

While we may have differing views about how important a good, well maintained container is, I don't think many of us prefer:

 

- A leaky container with a CO who doesn't maintain it

 

vs

 

- A quality, dry container with a CO who will maintain it if issues are reported.

 

Whether that will make Geocaching more popular I don't know, but it can only be a good thing if containers are good and maintained.

All I can tell you is that in my area, leaky, unmaintained caches are rare, and geocaching is very popular, so there may very well be a connection, although I'm not sure which is the cause and which is the effect.

 

I have friends who on principle will NOT find that cache near the stores; even if they parked next to it.

 

And I have friends who do mainly urban/suburban caches or ones they can park near, and hardly ever do a long hike to a cache.

 

To each their own.

I do mostly suburban caches, but in most cases I don't park anywhere near where they are because, for me, the whole point of geocaching is the walk. I enjoy all my walks, even the ones I decide to take when the cache location didn't force me into one.

[cezanne]

 

You're right: the regular "geocaching is dying" thread always has many people blaming it on quality, and almost every time, they cite micros and caches that are easy to get to as the problem. But that's absurd: micros that are easy to get to are the reason geocaching is so popular, not the reverse.

 

It's not a reason why geocaching is dying but it is a reason for many of the oldtimers to have left or to consider leaving. That's not the same.

 

The needs of different people are different. Some wish to have variety while for example I do not have an interest in variety when it comes to the cache set. The variety comes from the area and routes for me.

[+dprovan]

You're right: the regular "geocaching is dying" thread always has many people blaming it on quality, and almost every time, they cite micros and caches that are easy to get to as the problem. But that's absurd: micros that are easy to get to are the reason geocaching is so popular, not the reverse.

It's not a reason why geocaching is dying but it is a reason for many of the oldtimers to have left or to consider leaving. That's not the same.

You have a good point, but I think the people that complain about easy to get to micros often confuse the two themselves. At least, that's what I have to assume when they bring it up in a thread about how geocaching is dying.

[+geodarts]

[You're right: the regular "geocaching is dying" thread always has many people blaming it on quality, and almost every time, they cite micros and caches that are easy to get to as the problem. But that's absurd: micros that are easy to get to are the reason geocaching is so popular, not the reverse.

 

-----------------

 

All I can tell you is that in my area, leaky, unmaintained caches are rare, and geocaching is very popular, so there may very well be a connection, although I'm not sure which is the cause and which is the effect.

 

 

I don't think the game is dying, but in my area - not too far from where you live - it is not vibrant or popular by any means. Although we are surrounded with open space, and have a number of caches in these areas (apart from the NPS lands), the caching community that once sustained these hides has been dwindling.

 

Apart from the hiking hides, the nearest cache to my house has been found eight times since November. The smileys have included two groups and the CO. With one possible exception, it has not been found by any of the community who once formed the core of local cachers, those who still go on group hikes or events, or those who once placed the majority of the caches, including myself.

 

People who once left the most creative caches have moved on to other interests, found new personal relationships, or for one reason or the other, do not do the type of caching they once did. But it has very little to do with either micros or leaky containers.

 

In general, I think the game is something you "get" or simply do not understand. My family has never been interested. Friends and colleagues (who live closer to you) have tried it as a family activity but it was not what they ended up doing for very long.

 

So in many ways it is natural that there should be surges in popularity, and it is natural that the curve will flatten and decrease. What creates sustained interest is harder to figure out.

 

Those of us that remain active in my area have found particular niches. One friend focuses almost entirely on puzzles. Another likes to climb trees and leave occasional micros where he goes. I like to find virtuals and earthcaches, and have described myself as an "ammo can in the woods" type of cacher.

 

Micros have never bothered me because I look upon containers as a kind of "summit register" to mark interesting spaces that I might visit, rather than an end to themselves. But I don't think micros are the reason why geocaching is popular. My friend told me he placed micros in the woods is because they are easier to carry. Fair enough. They seem to be the path of least resistance, and why you either place them or find them is different than why you choose to cache or what sustains interest.

Edited January 27, 2017 by geodarts

[+Mudfrog]

You're right: the regular "geocaching is dying" thread always has many people blaming it on quality, and almost every time, they cite micros and caches that are easy to get to as the problem. But that's absurd: micros that are easy to get to are the reason geocaching is so popular, not the reverse.

 

And you're right,,, to a point. Micros that are easy to get are very popular. That is, for awhile. People get gung ho and go after them like crazy but most don't stick with it for all that long. I've seen firsthand, too many people jump in, get excited, find a few caches, and then leave. Of course there are people jumping in behind those leaving but the process just repeats itself. Some people stick with it longer but the majority leave pretty quickly. I doubt seriously there is much revenue being generated from all this revolving door action and i figure this is one of the reasons why Groundspeak got the strange notion of promoting and increasing quality for 2017.

 

How many threads have been started asking what cache size people liked best? In those threads, how many replied micros? How many threads have there been complaining of micros hidden in goofy spots? How many on power trails and sometimes, the questionable practices that come with them? How many complaining that a micro was hidden where a larger cache could be placed? It's not absurd at all to believe that the proliferation of micros hidden in identical fashion has something to do with the decline in geocaching activity. (your area is evidently one of the exceptions)

 

And no, i'm not saying that any of these are killing geocaching. I've found plenty of good micros so i'm certainly not trying to say they are all bad or that they should be nixed. What i am saying is that the proliferation of them has made it tough to keep things interesting for most people. While there are always exceptions, even those people who just go for numbers get bored after awhile.

[+fizzymagic]

I have been working on an update to my infamous "Geocaching Growth" thread that I last updated in 2011. I was unfortunately called away for a week because of a death in the family, but I will post the data early next week. In my preliminary analysis, I am not seeing any particularly dramatic changes in the statistics I track, but I will describe why they may no longer be the best statistics to use, because of the increase in power trails. I am thinking about designing some statistics to elucidate those effects. So look forward to a somewhat technical discussion in a few more days!

 

That's assuming that "looking forward to" even applies to my posts, of course.

[+edexter]

To actually try to capture the interest in the game you would need to "define your terms" in a way that might capture say "time spent geocaching" or "how much I like geocaching" and do a survey of folks who actually spend (or spent) time playing. The graph shows that website traffic varies a lot but says nothing about how individuals feel about the game (it's like saying the number of caches you log determines your interest in the game). I understand that many people see "traffic flow" or "clicks" as meaningful which it may be if you are designing a website but to me it's just another way to look at something based on quantity not quality. Just off the top of my head, much better quantitative ways to measure interest would be to assume that folks who pay to play are "more interested" and then look at trends in: 1, the percentage of folks who open a membership who then become premium members. 2, The total number of premium memberships and 3, the annual renewal rate for premium memberships. That data would tell the tale in a limited but more useful way. As for why interest might be increasing or decreasing, a fairly straight forward answer could be had by a simple survey of the membership...My own personal bias is that ignoring qualitative aspects of the game is detrimental to it's long term health. A survey would likely clearly reveal a schism between those who like more and those who like better (and those who believe more is better). Among folks I know who were "really into caching" most have essentially dropped out coincident with both "doing all the caches within an hour's drive" and the proliferation of P&G micros, power trails and Geo-Art, but as they say "correlation is not causation"... Understanding the reason these folks gave up the game will reveal a lot more than click counting and speculation.

edexter

[+brendan714]

The numbers are in for the month of January...

Canada - 33% fewer active geocachers, 46% fewer geocaches placed

USA - 39% fewer active geocachers, 41% fewer geocaches placed

Germany - 34% fewer active geocachers, 49% fewer geocaches placed

Australia - 37% fewer active geocachers, 59% fewer geocaches placed

This is a comparison between January 2016 and January 2017 - stats courtesy Project GC.

 

I know it's just January (arguably one of the quietest months), but this sure isn't a good trend!

My city of over 1 million people saw 12 geocaches placed in January 2016; in Jan 2017: 3 caches. When's the last time we saw 10 or fewer geocaches placed in January? Answer: 2004. Again, probably nothing to panic about, but still a noteworthy observation.

 

Google Trends data over the last year shows a relative drop from 40 points in early February 2016 to now 26 points in early February 2017 (July being 100).

 

It's getting harder and harder to argue that a decline ISN'T happening. So why is it happening?

Do you agree that any of the points in the original post could possibly be a contributing factor? Anything else? Is there any way to turn things around?

[+narcissa]

The numbers are in for the month of January...

Canada - 33% fewer active geocachers, 46% fewer geocaches placed

USA - 39% fewer active geocachers, 41% fewer geocaches placed

Germany - 34% fewer active geocachers, 49% fewer geocaches placed

Australia - 37% fewer active geocachers, 59% fewer geocaches placed

This is a comparison between January 2016 and January 2017 - stats courtesy Project GC.

 

I know it's just January (arguably one of the quietest months), but this sure isn't a good trend!

My city of over 1 million people saw 12 geocaches placed in January 2016; in Jan 2017: 3 caches. When's the last time we saw 10 or fewer geocaches placed in January? Answer: 2004. Again, probably nothing to panic about, but still a noteworthy observation.

 

Google Trends data over the last year shows a relative drop from 40 points in early February 2016 to now 26 points in early February 2017 (July being 100).

 

It's getting harder and harder to argue that a decline ISN'T happening. So why is it happening?

Do you agree that any of the points in the original post could possibly be a contributing factor? Anything else? Is there any way to turn things around?

 

There was a period of immense growth that brought many casual people to the game through app-based geocaching. That growth opportunity has been exhausted. Unless Groundspeak finds another new market to tap into somehow, I think things are going to settle back down to a quieter baseline. That's probably not a bad thing, and will alleviate many of the gripes that people shout about but rarely leave the game over.

[Andronicus]

 

...

 

I'd like to toss another reason for leaving Geocaching into the mix: Overzealous and/or inconsistent rule enforcement. I've heard both neophyte and veteran cachers make this complaint, and cite this as a reason for their losing interest in Caching.

 

...

 

 

I would tend to agree with this point. However, I suspect that these events just speed up the loss of interest. That is my experience. While I have been finding/hiding fewer and fewer caches each year, a dispute I had with a visiting Australian reviewer put a big time damper on my find count, and I have completely stopped hiding caches.

[RuideAlmeida]

I have been watching this debate thinking how different is my "regional experience"...

The OP seems to try to justify with these figures a previous thaked conclusion instead of reaching to any other. One that merges all the countries where the game is played, like if it was a whole. But each country is different, and even if in the biggest (USA, Germany, etc.) we may watch some (natural) decrease, there are other where the geocaching can be considered emergent, like in South America and Brazil, by instance.

 

I placed the above graph in the Brazil sub forum, so it is in Portuguese (sorry)... the green bars are published caches in each year, the red those Archived.

 

 

Until February 3rd 2017: 155 published and 27 Archived.

 

Sure... we (they) have a low expression yet. But the growing margin is huge.

Edited February 3, 2017 by RuideAlmeida

[+brendan714]

There was a period of immense growth that brought many casual people to the game through app-based geocaching. That growth opportunity has been exhausted. Unless Groundspeak finds another new market to tap into somehow, I think things are going to settle back down to a quieter baseline. That's probably not a bad thing, and will alleviate many of the gripes that people shout about but rarely leave the game over.

First question: Why do you think that "opportunity has been exhausted"? I'd argue that Groundspeak and the hard-working app developers are hoping it's just getting started!

 

Second question: Is a decrease in users really a good thing? If this website were a non-profit, then no issue! But it's a for-profit site. A decrease in users means a decrease in profits. Which could certainly mean bad news for the active players (we are almost like investors in a way, aren't we?).

 

What about for the Groundspeak staff and the website infrastructure? What about investors who are looking for growth on their investments? I don't think it's a secret that a significant investment has gone into the development of the 'official' mobile apps. When there are bills to pay, I just don't see how a decrease in users can ever be a good thing.

[+brendan714]

 

...

 

I'd like to toss another reason for leaving Geocaching into the mix: Overzealous and/or inconsistent rule enforcement. I've heard both neophyte and veteran cachers make this complaint, and cite this as a reason for their losing interest in Caching.

 

...

 

 

I would tend to agree with this point. However, I suspect that these events just speed up the loss of interest. That is my experience. While I have been finding/hiding fewer and fewer caches each year, a dispute I had with a visiting Australian reviewer put a big time damper on my find count, and I have completely stopped hiding caches.

Have you tried lately? Perhaps this "visiting" reviewer has now left? Is the reviewer really the main reason for your decline, or are there other reasons too? A reviewer shouldn't impact your ability to find geocaches.

[+niraD]

Is a decrease in users really a good thing?

That depends entirely on which users are leaving.

 

Are we talking about "muggles with apps" or other here-today-gone-tomorrow users? Or are we talking about those who contribute time/money towards supporting the local geocaching community in various ways?

 

This is an important distinction, and one that I am discussing in another (non-geocaching) context. Attracting newbies who try out a hobby and then disappear is relatively easy, but it won't support the hobby in the long term. Attracting people who will stick with it is harder, and retaining the people who have been sticking with it is critical.

[+brendan714]

Is a decrease in users really a good thing?

That depends entirely on which users are leaving.

 

Are we talking about "muggles with apps" or other here-today-gone-tomorrow users? Or are we talking about those who contribute time/money towards supporting the local geocaching community in various ways?

 

This is an important distinction, and one that I am discussing in another (non-geocaching) context. Attracting newbies who try out a hobby and then disappear is relatively easy, but it won't support the hobby in the long term. Attracting people who will stick with it is harder, and retaining the people who have been sticking with it is critical.

We (mere plebes of the game) have no way of knowing. But arguably the best way to get more users to commit to the game is to get as many as you can to try it. A certain percent will love it and help the health of the community. Fewer users trying likely means fewer will stick around long-term. Where I'm from I know that the vast majority of average Joes don't even know the game exists.

(PS, in my opinion, having the 'official' app restrict geocaches to 1.5/1.5s or whatever is a terrible way to excite new players)

[+Manville Possum]

Attracting people who will stick with it is harder, and retaining the people who have been sticking with it is critical.

 

Locally, it's the veteran geocachers that seem to be leaving or losing interest in the hobby.

 

I seldom ever see any new listings that are interesting, it became a race of junk placed for FTF's.

 

If you do want to find interesting geocaches, then you need a Premium Membership. I wonder if PMO caches locally have been part of the decline.