Jump to content

OMG What Happened to Geocaching?


GarminArmin

Recommended Posts

I meant displaying all caches at the same time (with one command) without visiting the FP lists of all cachers who have favourited a cache.

I don't understand what you're looking for.

I haven't read the past topics that cezanne has mentioned, so I'm not sure what has been presented in previous years.

 

A possibly feasible system I could imagine is something like:

-- When PM's favorite a cache, then they'd also select from a list of reasons that they favorited it. Maybe there are 100 caches favorited for 'clever container' and 50 caches favorited for 'nice view'. Cachers that like finding caches with nice views could then search for caches that were favorited with the 'nice view' reason.

-- This would return the 50 caches, potentially ranked by how many times they were favorited because of 'nice view'. One cache might've been favorited as 'nice view' by 30 cachers, while another cache by only 2 cachers.

-- But maybe the latter cache is at a more isolated location and only had 2 finds, so the ranking would need to be based on percentage, but only on the percentage of PM's that favorited the cache after the "reasons" system was created.

-- And then, there could be a cache favorited for multiple reasons - a clever container with a nice view.

Yikes, a lot of work involved in creating such a system to store and process the related data.

 

Another system that I don't think is feasible within the geocaching.com platform is something like the 'recommendation systems' employed by Amazon or Netflix. Recommendation algorithms look at what products someone likes and then recommends other products that are similar and/or recommends other products that similar people have liked. It may not be apparent to everyone that such systems are very complex and rely on a great deal of both data and time. They are rarely accurate at the outset.

-- Both the users (cachers) and the products (caches) have to be categorized and clustered into similar groups.

-- Since BM's cannot like (favorite) caches, then the recommendation system cannot factor them into the algorithm and that leaves a large gap. Since caches aren't flagged as film cans vs Lock-n-Lock's, then the algorihtm can't cluster caches together based on the 'quality' of their containers, only on their listed size/type/D/T.

-- They require a lot of data and they need time to refine. If the algorithm recommends PRODUCT-A to USER-1 and USER-1 buys/watches/finds PRODUCT-A, then the algorithm can learn by whether USER-1 likes/favorites PRODUCT-A later on. If USER-1 doesn't end up favoriting PRODUCT-A, then the algorithm might interpret that as a missed recommendation when it's just because USER-1 didn't have anymore favorite points left to give.

That's my flawed attempt at explaining a complex process. There are plenty of articles/discussions on the web about recommendation algorithms and what they involve.

Link to comment

Yikes, a lot of work involved in creating such a system to store and process the related data.

 

What you proposed are some of the many possibilities that would exist. Some involve algorithms (more or less complex ones), others are simpler and involve less automatism and leave more work to the users but still provide them with more data than is provided now.

 

FP lists are lists - so it should not be hard to treat them like bookmark lists and allow comments and if comments are possible there could also be a system of some predefined tag categories.

 

While I agree that algorithms of the type you suggest could be quite complex, it would already help a lot to know the reasons why a cache got a FP by someone.

 

For example, when someone is interested into recommendable hiking caches sorting by FPs usually is not a good idea as this will let the caches with special containers, gadget caches, certain night caches etc show up very prominently while the target caches get hidden somewhere quite down the sorted lists. Of course there are further search criteria one can use in addition that make things easier but I still think that making available the reasons why people favourited caches would be helpful even if only a subgroup participated. As never all cachers will participate it should not be a real issue that only PMs can award FPs.

 

I think it is pretty unrealistic to think that whatever system could be reliable in the sense that one can assure that there are no false positives and no false negatives. There will actually be quite a number of those but it should still be a helpful tool for many cachers and even more so in areas they are not familiar with and where they have many unfound caches and only want to select a few of them. The methods I have in mind never would be exclusively used tools, just decision supporting tools used in addition to well established routines the various types of cachers have come up with.

 

BTW: Does someone know whether the API provides the FP lists of the cachers? If so, someone with a less statistics oriented approach than the people behind project-gc could try to come up with a third party tool based on the data of gc.com.

Link to comment

I used to feel that way, until a local cacher pointed out that there's no need to get them all and there's something for everyone. I think power caching is stupid, but no one's forcing me to do power trails. There are plenty of quality caches out in the woods I can go for that provide exercise and make me happy. For those people who only care about numbers or tiny hides in urban areas, there are caches for them, too. Geocaching has plenty of room for everyone.

 

It seems however that your area does not have many repetitive trails and even for the series that exist like for example the Ram Fan geoart (which catched my attention on the map) the behaviour seems to be different than around here where the first or last cache of such a series would accumulate high numbers of FPs which makes FPs per se not very useful for cache selections in such areas. That's also why I think that additional data on why someone liked a cache would be helpful.

 

I firmly believe that the area we cache in has a lot of impact on how difficult it is for us to select attractive caches. There seem to be very large differences even within the same country or within areas with comparable cache density. Some live in areas that are much more affected by some issues than others. For example, there have never been many challenge caches in my area while the area of Lone.R seems to have been heavily affected. In my area copy and paste logs and cachers leaving throwdowns are quite common meanwhile while they are much less common in other areas. There are many more examples along these lines.

 

Moreover I think that experiencing the change continuously is easier than returning suddenly after a long break - this must be like a shock in many areas and certainly would be in my area.

 

So you think that people who cut and paste logs and find 500 caches in a day are going to fill in details when they assign FPs? Is that how that is supposed to work?

Link to comment

So you think that people who cut and paste logs and find 500 caches in a day are going to fill in details when they assign FPs? Is that how that is supposed to work?

 

No, I do not think that they will fill in details (and I mentioned this) but I think that some other group of cachers will do and that's enough to be helpful.

Link to comment

FP lists are lists - so it should not be hard to treat them like bookmark lists and allow comments and if comments are possible there could also be a system of some predefined tag categories.

 

While I agree that algorithms of the type you suggest could be quite complex, it would already help a lot to know the reasons why a cache got a FP by someone.

Of course, these reasons would only exist for future FP's. I think the majority of cachers will not go back through their FP lists and tag the reasons they awarded those FP's, especially cachers that have lost interest in the game because it's not as 'good' as it was in 'the good old days'. The FP's from those cachers may be some of the most insightful to have tagged.

And to clarify, I'm not necessarily 'suggesting' such solutions be implemented, just postulating on what a possible solution might look like.

 

For example, when someone is interested into recommendable hiking caches sorting by FPs usually is not a good idea as this will let the caches with special containers, gadget caches, certain night caches etc show up very prominently while the target caches get hidden somewhere quite down the sorted lists. Of course there are further search criteria one can use in addition that make things easier but I still think that making available the reasons why people favourited caches would be helpful even if only a subgroup participated. As never all cachers will participate it should not be a real issue that only PMs can award FPs.

But then it sounds like we're back to filtering by attributes. Again, something possible only for PM's with PQ's and only for caches published after attributes became available. For cachers that have been in the game for a long time, they may favor caches that are quite different from the caches favored by cachers that have joined the hobby more recently. Would we then end up with the same laments about how it's difficult to find 'quality' caches that are reminiscent of the 'good old days'?

 

It's quite a challenge to address and I wonder whether the resources that might be spent on such an endeavor wouldn't be better invested elsewhere.

Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

So you think that people who cut and paste logs and find 500 caches in a day are going to fill in details when they assign FPs? Is that how that is supposed to work?

 

No, I do not think that they will fill in details (and I mentioned this) but I think that some other group of cachers will do and that's enough to be helpful.

 

I am not confident that the volume of data needed to make an effective recommendation system is possible if large swaths of cachers don't participate.

Link to comment

FP lists are lists - so it should not be hard to treat them like bookmark lists and allow comments and if comments are possible there could also be a system of some predefined tag categories.

 

While I agree that algorithms of the type you suggest could be quite complex, it would already help a lot to know the reasons why a cache got a FP by someone.

Of course, these reasons would only exist for future FP's. I think the majority of cachers will not go back through their FP lists and tag the reasons they awarded those FP's, especially cachers that have lost interest in the game because it's not as 'good' as it was in 'the good old days'. The FP's from those cachers may be some of the most insightful to have tagged.

And to clarify, I'm not necessarily 'suggesting' such solutions be implemented, just postulating on what a possible solution might look like.

 

When FPs got introduced indeed many cachers went back. Of course many will not, others will and the more useful the system then turns out the more might be motivated to invest some time.

 

For example, when someone is interested into recommendable hiking caches sorting by FPs usually is not a good idea as this will let the caches with special containers, gadget caches, certain night caches etc show up very prominently while the target caches get hidden somewhere quite down the sorted lists. Of course there are further search criteria one can use in addition that make things easier but I still think that making available the reasons why people favourited caches would be helpful even if only a subgroup participated. As never all cachers will participate it should not be a real issue that only PMs can award FPs.

But then it sounds like we're back to filtering by attributes.

 

No not at all - there do not exist attributes for what I have in mind though of course the introduction of a group of attributes for reasons why a cache got hidden might also be helpful (but owner classification can be quite misleading).

 

Again, something possible only for PM's with PQ's and only for caches published after attributes became available. For cachers that have been in the game for a long time, they may favor caches that are quite different from the caches favored by cachers that have joined the hobby more recently. Would we then end up with the same laments about how it's difficult to find 'quality' caches that are reminiscent of the 'good old days'?

 

The latter issue will always stay an issue when these caches are rare among the new ones. A recommendation system cannot change that.

 

What I have in mind does not depend on how long someone is in the game. If someone does not care about the hike and the scenery along the route that much, the provided reason for FPs will typically be a different one.

If say 95% of the cachers award a FP to a cache in a forest for the container, than this says a lot.

 

It's quite a challenge to address and I wonder whether the resources that might be spent on such an endeavor wouldn't be better invested elsewhere.

 

As I said the data need to come from GS but not the system and thus not the resources.

Link to comment

Gosh...another thread about someone who started way back in the day when every cache was an ammo can hidden two miles into the woods at a majestic waterfall view and now they are unhappy because lots of people have begun to enjoy the game and maybe like other kinds of caches too.

 

[pause for breath]

 

Surprise surprise.

 

/sarcasm

 

The audacity that people have to put a cache under a lamp post in a Fred Meyer parking lot instead of under a beautiful cascading waterfall with baby sea otters frolicking about with a majestic lion on a huge rock on the horizon watching while basking in the sun.

Link to comment

I enjoy Power Trail caches. And there are a lot in my area. I take my dog out and we walk for miles finding caches every 528 feet and it's awesome.

 

Locally, our PT's are along a busy 4 lane highway. I'd be too afraid to walk my dogs and be distracted every 528 feet to find a geocache. I can't imagine pulling on and off the highway back into traffic every 1/10 of a mile not being a safety hazard. :blink: I can't even run a PQ without that dreaded PT showing up, there are about 500 or more that clutter up my PQ now.

 

I see the PT as a very negative part of geocaching. LPC's seem to be the popular choice now, but parents of small children may view PT's along highways just as I do, and they are to be avoided. :)

Link to comment

I enjoy Power Trail caches. And there are a lot in my area. I take my dog out and we walk for miles finding caches every 528 feet and it's awesome.

 

You are are a lucky guy. The game has been designed around your preferences for about a decade. No filtering required, just turn on the app and go.

Link to comment

I enjoy Power Trail caches. And there are a lot in my area. I take my dog out and we walk for miles finding caches every 528 feet and it's awesome.

 

Locally, our PT's are along a busy 4 lane highway. I'd be too afraid to walk my dogs and be distracted every 528 feet to find a geocache. I can't imagine pulling on and off the highway back into traffic every 1/10 of a mile not being a safety hazard. :blink: I can't even run a PQ without that dreaded PT showing up, there are about 500 or more that clutter up my PQ now.

 

I see the PT as a very negative part of geocaching. LPC's seem to be the popular choice now, but parents of small children may view PT's along highways just as I do, and they are to be avoided. :)

 

I've never cached along a busy highway for caches. Here in Washington we have paved walking trails that go deep into wooded areas where we can observe nature and listening to babbling brooks, cross over wooden bridges, etc. Its quite refreshing. And my dog loves it because she gets to chase squirrels while I find caches. :)

Link to comment

I enjoy Power Trail caches. And there are a lot in my area. I take my dog out and we walk for miles finding caches every 528 feet and it's awesome.

 

You are are a lucky guy. The game has been designed around your preferences for about a decade. No filtering required, just turn on the app and go.

 

While I do love PT series caches, my most favorite are moderately busy areas in urban environment. I just love geocaching, actually.

Link to comment

I enjoy Power Trail caches. And there are a lot in my area. I take my dog out and we walk for miles finding caches every 528 feet and it's awesome.

 

Would your enjoyment of power trails become any smaller if it would be easier for others who do not like the power trails in their area to filter them out?

Features like a power trail attribute and being able to automatically ignore all caches of a particular cache owner?

This would certainly not solve all issues around power trails and would not be perfect (for example not everyone would use the attribute) but it would be helpful for many cachers.

 

If many different people have to share the same playground it would be helpful if there existed support that helps them to get better along with each. I'm missing Groundspeak's contribution in that direction somehow.

It's certainly important to take care about the needs of the volunteer reviewers with a high priority as without those the system would collapse. However things like the ones suggested above do not cause any additional work for the reviewers.

Link to comment

I firmly believe that the area we cache in has a lot of impact on how difficult it is for us to select attractive caches.

True. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better place to cache in than Colorado. We have just about everything: backcountry caches, urban hides, geotours, power trails, geoart, mountains and flatland, you name it. And we have a very active geocaching community with events, competitions, and annual geocoin editions.

Link to comment

I enjoy Power Trail caches. And there are a lot in my area. I take my dog out and we walk for miles finding caches every 528 feet and it's awesome.

 

Locally, our PT's are along a busy 4 lane highway. I'd be too afraid to walk my dogs and be distracted every 528 feet to find a geocache. I can't imagine pulling on and off the highway back into traffic every 1/10 of a mile not being a safety hazard. :blink: I can't even run a PQ without that dreaded PT showing up, there are about 500 or more that clutter up my PQ now.

 

I see the PT as a very negative part of geocaching. LPC's seem to be the popular choice now, but parents of small children may view PT's along highways just as I do, and they are to be avoided. :)

 

I've never cached along a busy highway for caches. Here in Washington we have paved walking trails that go deep into wooded areas where we can observe nature and listening to babbling brooks, cross over wooden bridges, etc. Its quite refreshing. And my dog loves it because she gets to chase squirrels while I find caches. :)

 

Awesome. It sounds like places that we have in our National Forest where geocaches require a special use permit of $59 per year per geocache. Maybe that was not a bad idea after all. :D

Link to comment

Here's a little venn diagram I whipped up attempting to group these stereotypes everyone's tossing around in the discussion. Regions not necessarily to scale: (red would denote what most seem to consider the "problem cachers")

geovenn.png

 

A log that I read reminded me of that smiley-oriented could mean two things: One aspect is that some care about increasing their find count but for some apparently the cache map focus plays a huge role. They like to turn cache icons on the map into smilies and also mention this in their logs (for example like this: "Today we went to city X to turn a few caches into smilies". Or the blue question mark icon on the map close to my home annoyed me and now I managed to turn into into a yellow smilie.

 

I also notice that some cachers are equally happy or sometimes even more happy if a cache gets archived and they can get rid of it on their maps in this way.

 

"Tidying up" the cache map does not really fit into your diagram but seems to play an important role too. Of course one could somehow locate in the left part of the diagram but the map focus is a visual one and does not fit perfectly into the scheme above.

 

Again this is a trend which developped over the years. In the beginning there even has been no geocaching map.

Link to comment

I enjoy Power Trail caches. And there are a lot in my area. I take my dog out and we walk for miles finding caches every 528 feet and it's awesome.

 

Would your enjoyment of power trails become any smaller if it would be easier for others who do not like the power trails in their area to filter them out?

 

 

It would make no difference in my life if people were able to filter out power trails or not. I go Caching to cache. Simple as that. At least that's how I understand the game; find caches. So I go find them. If there are 45 along a trail or road, then so be it. If there are three around a mall parking lot, same thing.

Link to comment
"Tidying up" the cache map does not really fit into your diagram but seems to play an important role too. Of course one could somehow locate in the left part of the diagram but the map focus is a visual one and does not fit perfectly into the scheme above.
I think "tidying up the map" falls pretty clearly in the "goal oriented geocachers" section on the left.

 

When I first started, my geocaching was pretty voracious and pretty omnivorous. I created several significant blast radii (around home, around church, around work, around the train stations I used often, etc.), and some of those blast radii actually merged.

 

But I wasn't trying to "tidy up my map". I was just finding geocaches, and using the "nearest to" lists to find my next targets.

 

On the other hand, I have heard people describe "tidying up their maps" as an explicit goal at times. I think that kind of "goal oriented geocaching" is similar to filling your 366 day grid, or maintaining a streak. The caches themselves don't matter, except for the way their data fits into some system that you actually care about.

Link to comment
"Tidying up" the cache map does not really fit into your diagram but seems to play an important role too. Of course one could somehow locate in the left part of the diagram but the map focus is a visual one and does not fit perfectly into the scheme above.
I think "tidying up the map" falls pretty clearly in the "goal oriented geocachers" section on the left.

 

Yes, I agree. I just meant it does not fit into one of the two smaller circles inside the left area as it is not about numbers.

Link to comment

I'd say people caring about clearing their map could be anywhere in the "goal" oriented section.

Motivated by stats, not the experience is "Numbers" oriented - the blue section.

If they also care about the experience at times, then they'd be in the middle neutral section.

If they're careless about the container because they just want to clear the map, then they'd be in the "smiley" oriented red sub-section of "Numbers".

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...