Thought Experiment: If the ET trail was a single multi cache... would anyone do it?

[+Fugads]

Someone posted a comment in another thread that got me thinking about multi-caches versus power-trails.

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I usually hate when multis have no purpose except to be a multi. S1, S2, and Final could just as easily be three Traditional.

 

This got me thinking about the difference between a string of traditional caches versus a single multi cache. Both can take you to the same number of spots, and same locations. Both more or less give you the same kind of experience. And yet, I am guessing they attract very different kinds of attention from the overall geocaching community. And my brain jumped to a funny spot, thinking about one of the most famous power-trails of all time, the ET highway. What if instead of thousands of traditional caches, it was instead a multi cache with thousands of stages. Would anyone still find it? Would people still make that barren desert in Nevada the geocaching travel destination that it has become?

 

Since I'm starting off this thread, here are some of my thoughts:

The value that geocachers place on doing something like the ET Highway is mostly due to the # of finds that result in doing it. Same can be said for most power trails. Yes, there is something to be said about the experience that doing such a trail gives (good and bad), but if that same experience could be had but only counted for a single find, would it still draw much attention from the geocaching community? I suspect it would instead be a rare oddity of a geocache, a D5 endeavor that a few people would seek out as a crazy challenge, but mostly would go on people's ignore lists. And I bet folks can post examples of crazy multi-stages that are like this, with hundreds of stages and very rare "found" logs. I'd love to see some.

 

That said, I think the answer to the above bolded questions will be a resounding NO. In a nutshell, this really shows how the find count numbers play into the overall psych of the geocaching community. But then most people already know that about power-trails. I am more curious about the perception of multi-caches. If the experience of a multi-cache can be almost identical to the experience of finding several traditional caches along a trail, do people still feel like multi caches of this sort should be pursued? In order for a multi cache to stand out against a series of traditional caches, is it necessary for it to use some of the guidelines that would not be allowed by traditionals (virtual stages, stages without containers but still coordinates, stages in close proximity etc..)?

 

 

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I see two reasons for doing a power trail. The first is for the overall find count, and the second is a high find rate per day. Both are measurable stats that some people like to compare, and brag about.

 

To answer your question, I believe the answer is no, if it was a 1,000+ stage multi-cache, no one would do it.

[+arisoft]

Just now, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

I see two reasons for doing a power trail. The first is for the overall find count, and the second is a high find rate per day. Both are measurable stats that some people like to compare, and brag about.

 

This may be important feature for the business and it may be a new experience. I have no problems with power trails, I just skip them but there is a side effect. If some area is crowded with a power trail, I prefer to skip the whole area - not only the trail.

 

The question in the OP has been in my mind many times and I know one answer. The final of a thousand stage multi would be shared as fast as the final of any quite easy mystery cache. There would be the FTF finder and then many other that are pretending that they have done the multi-cache. Much less visitors that the power trail would have anyway.

[+baer2006]

The ET power trail is too extreme. It is obvious, that nobody would do it as a single multi. Well, at least I wouldn't, and I'm really a fan of long multis.

 

In my area there are many small series of traditionals (usually around 5 - 20 caches), often with a bonus cache. These are much more comparable to "classic" multis. The find counts speak a clear message: Series of traditionals typically have at least 10 times the number of finds as a multi of similar characteristics (length, difficulty, terrain). Multis longer than, say, 5 km or so get hardly any finds at all. Trad series + bonus have effectively replaced the classic multi with physical stages. Even the nomenclature becomes blurred - I've seen logs where the caches in a series were called "stages", and the bonus cache "final". So it seems that only a minority of cachers would do a multi instead of a typical traditional trail.

 

I've heard or read several arguments for this:

• "More finds per hour" (or kilometer ). No surprise here. "The more smileys the better" is a principle followed by many cachers.
• "If I don't find a stage of the multi, it was all in vain". Spending several hours in the woods without a single guaranteed find as "reward" seems unacceptable to many. Also, I have the feeling that with trad trails, many see "options" like throw-downs, fake-logging, etc. as a sure way keep the DNF count at 0.
• "Multis often come with arduous calculations, CO mistakes, too difficult field puzzles, etc". So even if the multi "works" as planned by the CO, it can still be very hard to get to the final. Again, there is the "risk" of ending up without a smiley.

I can more or less understand all these points. Personally, I enjoy both multis and (smaller) traditional series ... but no power trails with 50+ caches.

[+Mausebiber]

Since no one would do it, I would do it.  Imagine, I'm the only one worldwide who has done this cache... 

[+Viajero Perdido]

Risk.

 

A single DNF on any of the stages would blow the entire project.

 

Let's see...  Suppose 1 attempt in 20 is a DNF; that's me on a very good day. 0.95^1000 = 5E-23.  Essentially zero chance of success.

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Viajero Perdido
Add numbers

[+niraD]

55 minutes ago, Fugads said:

What if instead of thousands of traditional caches, it was instead a multi cache with thousands of stages. Would anyone still find it? Would people still make that barren desert in Nevada the geocaching travel destination that it has become?

What if it was a new type, a sort of multi-cache where people could still get hundreds/thousands of smileys, one for each stage/filmcan they found?

[+on4bam]

As for the ET trail, no, I won't do it but, given the chance to do the same tour as a multi with 20 WPs or a series of 20 traditionals I would go for the multi.

I find less and less joy in just finding a traditional so they have to be "special" in some way. Solved mysteries are like traditionals but there's the added fun in solving them. Multi's, letterboxes, Wherigo's are all preferred over (simple) trads.

 

We have a 64 WP/60 Km multi on our todo list one of the following weeks (we need to get our bikes back from the shop after getting tailgated while our bikes were mounted on the back of the car). Temperatures have to get a bit lower too (it's around 28-30°C for a while now).

We did a 130 Km multi in several stages as all WPs in it self were mysteries (solve mystery, get info at coordinates to find caches).

We have done several multi's that kept us busy most of the day that ended in a DNF, not a big deal, there's one that took most of the day where we got stuck 3WP from the cache, the next time we got to GZ and found the cache to be missing, we now just have to go sign the log as we logged a DNF both times.

 

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, Fugads said:

I think the answer to the above bolded questions will be a resounding NO. In a nutshell, this really shows how the find count numbers play into the overall psych of the geocaching community.

 

Interesting topic to think about. 

For me, a single multi cache on the ET highway  means I connect with just one owner. I experience only one owner's project. I prefer more variety and sharing of a location.

 

If the trail is saturated with a PT owned by one owner or group (almost always the same container after the same container, often the same style of hide as well), or if it's taken up by one multi (assuming all physical stages and no other caches on that trail by various owners and cache types) it lacks variety and a sense of a larger community of sharing and connection. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by L0ne.R
clarity

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Fugads said:

What if instead of thousands of traditional caches, it was instead a multi cache with thousands of stages. Would anyone still find it?

I tend not to travel far for the purposes of geocaching. I go places for other reasons, and then I go geocaching while I'm there.

 

With that said, if I were in the ET Highway area, I might find 0001-E.T., since it's an ammo can. (Except it's a "traditional with a stamp" style of LBH. Bleh.) And I'd definitely be interested in any of the local individual caches that have survived being in such close proximity to the numbers trail.

 

But I have no interest in hundreds of fungible film canisters, whether it's part of a multi-cache, or a couple thousand traditionals, or a new numbers trail type.

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, Fugads said:

What if instead of thousands of traditional caches, it was instead a multi cache with thousands of stages. Would anyone still find it? Would people still make that barren desert in Nevada the geocaching travel destination that it has become?

 - snip -

That said, I think the answer to the above bolded questions will be a resounding NO. In a nutshell, this really shows how the find count numbers play into the overall psych of the geocaching community. But then most people already know that about power-trails. I am more curious about the perception of multi-caches. If the experience of a multi-cache can be almost identical to the experience of finding several traditional caches along a trail, do people still feel like multi caches of this sort should be pursued? In order for a multi cache to stand out against a series of traditional caches, is it necessary for it to use some of the guidelines that would not be allowed by traditionals (virtual stages, stages without containers but still coordinates, stages in close proximity etc..)?

 

 

 

We've only seen a handful of people do 2+ terrain multis here with just 6+ stages.  

 - Throw in any distance, and it's often the same 3-4 people.

 

In your example I don't think that it's how "find count" numbers have taken over though.

I see vehicle rental (don't want to use your own...) and other costs being a factor, time another ... for a cache that has no creativity to it whatsoever.

 

[+Fugads]

Good point.

2 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Risk.

 

A single DNF on any of the stages would blow the entire project.

There is much greater risk that by doing a multi you will come away with a DNF. A set of traditional caches along a route does not have this same risk. I concede that this is a factor for geocachers deciding what to spend their time on.

 

I think my use of the ET highway in this thought experiment was perhaps misguided. I glommed onto the ET highway as an extreme example, but that's not really necessary for thinking about this topic. What if I framed the thought experiment this way:

 

Two geocachers decide that they want to spend their day geocaching. One of them chooses a single multi cache in an interesting area that is very involved with many stages. The other chooses a trail of traditional geocaches by the same CO which define a route in an interesting area. Both geocachers spend the same amount of time driving to and hiking to the various "stops" along their route. They both find the same kind of containers, mostly affordable and readily replaceable containers that the CO can get in bulk and which makes maintenance for the CO easier. They both complete their journey and enjoy themselves. What is the difference in their experiences?

 

These two geocachers have more or less the same experience. the main difference I see is in the stats that accompany their experience. One gets one find credited to their account, the other gets multiples. My hypothesis is that these stats are driving what motivates cachers more than the experiences themselves. if given a choice over these two rather identical experiences, geocachers tend to gravitate towards the choice that shows "better stats".

 

There is the issue that Viajero brings up too though; that the multi-cache experience involves more risk that you walk away with a DNF before completing the whole route, and therefore have your experience cut short and are left unsatisfied. This may also explain why geocachers gravitate away from long multi-caches and towards trails of traditionals. Being risk averse. Despite this argument, my gut tells me that stats is still a strong motivating factor.

[+Fugads]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

If the trail is saturated with a PT owned by one owner or group (almost always the same container after the same container, often the same style of hide as well), or if it's taken up by one multi (assuming all physical stages and no other caches on that trail by various owners and cache types) it lacks variety and a sense of a larger community of sharing and connection. 

This is another interesting point you bring up. I agree that variety is nice. The simple fact that a CO places multiple hides (whether they are traditionals or a single multi) means that this one road or trail lacks a certain variety. One difference for the greater community though is that a trail of traditionals makes it clear where there is/isn't room for other hides and variety, whereas with the multi, new COs who wish to place hides along that area need to make guesses as to where they can place hides, or complete the multi themselves so that they don't run into proximity issues. Often I've seen that a certain trail or area that has a long multi cache ends up getting a lot less other hides on it because other COs don't wan't to figure out where all the stages are that they need to avoid.

 

To take your point further though, its seems like you wouldn't be an advocate of multi-caches really at all, since they take up more locations that others could use to increase the variety of hides in an area. unless all those stages were virtual...

[+Fugads]

3 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Since no one would do it, I would do it.  Imagine, I'm the only one worldwide who has done this cache... 

I share this feeling. Going after lonely caches brings me joy.

[+Fugads]

3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Trad series + bonus have effectively replaced the classic multi with physical stages. Even the nomenclature becomes blurred - I've seen logs where the caches in a series were called "stages", and the bonus cache "final". So it seems that only a minority of cachers would do a multi instead of a typical traditional trail.

I see this too. And my gut feeling is that this is driven by people's desire to improve their stats. But I also need to concede that it could have something to do with cachers being risk averse and wanting to make sure that they come away from their day of geocaching with "something to show".

[+L0ne.R]

4 minutes ago, Fugads said:

This is another interesting point you bring up. I agree that variety is nice. The simple fact that a CO places multiple hides (whether they are traditionals or a single multi) means that this one road or trail lacks a certain variety. One difference for the greater community though is that a trail of traditionals makes it clear where there is/isn't room for other hides and variety, whereas with the multi, new COs who wish to place hides along that area need to make guesses as to where they can place hides, or complete the multi themselves so that they don't run into proximity issues. Often I've seen that a certain trail or area that has a long multi cache ends up getting a lot less other hides on it because other COs don't wan't to figure out where all the stages are that they need to avoid.

 

To take your point further though, its seems like you wouldn't be an advocate of multi-caches really at all, since they take up more locations that others could use to increase the variety of hides in an area. unless all those stages were virtual...

 

Yes, I guess that's true.  I hadn't considered that long multi-stage multi-caches might have almost as negative an effect as power trails with respect to not sharing space and making it difficult for others to hide caches with a variety of owners and cache styles.  

[+Mausebiber]

3 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

A single DNF on any of the stages would blow the entire project.

 

Not sure if this was answerd already.

Why do you think that a single DNF on any stage will blow the project?  Isn't it a matter how the multi is designed?  You could have coordinates on any stage which will get you to the next 3 stages, so even missing one will get you going.

 

[+Fugads]

6 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 I hadn't considered that long multi-stage multi-caches might have almost as negative an effect as power trails with respect to not sharing space and making it difficult for others to hide caches with a variety of owners and cache styles. 

I'd like to think that multi's are not as "negative" as a power trail as far as making it difficult for others to place new caches on a trail, but then I am fond of multis so quite biased here. With a bunch of traditional hides, it is very easy for new hiders to locate available spots. With a long multi, new hiders need to put in more work to determine where the available spots are. A multi along a 5 mile trail with 5 stages still leaves a lot of room for other geocaches, but the entry barrier for folks figuring out where those stages are means that less people will bother to make their hides there.

 

There is one area I know in Alamogordo, NM where one CO has a bunch of very difficult, adventurous multi caches in several canyons near the town. There are almost no other geocaches hidden in those canyons, although a few exist, and I bet this has a lot to do with not many geocachers being able to complete these multi caches and not knowing where the available locations are in those canyons. And I very selfishly think that this is ok, because I loved every single one of those multi-cache adventures that I went on.

[+Fugads]

3 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Why do you think that a single DNF on any stage will blow the project?  Isn't it a matter how the multi is designed?  You could have coordinates on any stage which will get you to the next 3 stages, so even missing one will get you going.

You are right that depending on how the CO designed the multi, it may be doable even if some of the stages are not found. But I would guess that this is pretty rare and that the majority of multi caches rely on  a linear progression: stage A goes to stage B goes to stage C etc... If a stage isn't found then further progress is unlikely. Maybe I need to find more multi caches though.

[+dprovan]

"What is the difference in their experiences?" Are you kidding? What's the similarity? It's like two different games.

 

With traditionals, all you do is find the cache and sign the log.

 

With a multi, you have to read the coordinates of the next stage, copy them into your GPSr, and then you have to figure out where the next stage is and how to get there. You don't know where you're going when you start, so you can't plan your route and you won't know where you're going to end up. The only similarity is that there's a container at each specific location. (We'll ignore the fact that multi stages don't have to be anything like cache containers.)

 

I don't doubt there are a lot of people that skip multis because the same number of traditions will give them a higher count, but I think far more people skip multis because they think they're too much work and are unpredictable. And that's just 2 stage multis. Talk about a multi that takes a day, and only a very special group of people will do it. You can't tell me that the other 95% of cachers are all numbers hounds. It's just obviously not true.

 

There's no doubt people often do the power trails because they think the stats are important, but I think that argument evaporates when you talk about about a day's worth of typical caches. 20, 30, even 100 finds doesn't make much of a difference in statistics considering what's impressive by today's standards. If someone picks 10 traditionals over a 10 stage multi, it's hard for me to imagine they're doing it for the stats. There have to be other reasons...and I think I've explained what they are.

 

(For the record: I love multis and do any I run into. On the other hand, I've never done a power trail.)

[+Mausebiber]

Come to Germany, this is one of my most favorites cache I have ever made, 1600 Km (1000 Miles) on a bicycle for just one cache.

https://coord.info/GC3JH5D

 

From the listing:

The Cache is about a bike tour over 1600km through 7 states from the northernmost point of Germany to the southernmost.  Yes, that is meant very seriously and yes, it is very far. But the reward is an infinite amount of new impressions and the incredible feeling of having crossed the whole country on your own.W

Would I change this experience for 1000 additional Cache?  Sure not!

 

[+niraD]

45 minutes ago, Fugads said:

Two geocachers decide that they want to spend their day geocaching. One of them chooses a single multi cache in an interesting area that is very involved with many stages. The other chooses a trail of traditional geocaches by the same CO which define a route in an interesting area. Both geocachers spend the same amount of time driving to and hiking to the various "stops" along their route. They both find the same kind of containers, mostly affordable and readily replaceable containers that the CO can get in bulk and which makes maintenance for the CO easier. They both complete their journey and enjoy themselves. What is the difference in their experiences?

 

These two geocachers have more or less the same experience.

I beg to differ.

 

I have spent a day finding multiple traditional caches. The "Best Day" listed in my geocaching.com statistics was such a day. I remember very little about the geocaches we found that day.

 

I have also spent a day finding the stages of a single multi-stage cache. I have done this several times. Many of those caches are on my Favorites list, and I definitely remember the adventure I had on that single cache.

 

Not the same experience at all.

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

What if it was a new type, a sort of multi-cache where people could still get hundreds/thousands of smileys, one for each stage/filmcan they found?

 

Not accepted due to daisy chaining That would be a linked series of bonus caches.

[+Mausebiber]

2 minutes ago, niraD said:

Not the same experience at all.

+1

[+STNolan]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

If the trail is saturated with a PT owned by one owner or group (almost always the same container after the same container, often the same style of hide as well), or if it's taken up by one multi (assuming all physical stages and no other caches on that trail by various owners and cache types) it lacks variety and a sense of a larger community of sharing and connection. 

 

This is actually an interesting concept. Is anyone aware of a Power Trail constructed in as a "Community Project," by the local geocaching community? I'm thinking to something similar to the old "Spirit Quests" in the S.E. where the "theme" was set up but each cacher could submit their own Geocache.

Imagine a "power trail" where different cachers in the community set up their own cache along the route. With only one or two caches to maintain, quality should improve; diverse cachers mean diversity in the caches themselves AND competition with other cachers could improve creativity.

All in all it's an interesting though.

[+niraD]

4 minutes ago, arisoft said:

3 hours ago, niraD said:

What if it was a new type, a sort of multi-cache where people could still get hundreds/thousands of smileys, one for each stage/filmcan they found?

Not accepted due to daisy chaining That would be a linked series of bonus caches.

There is no daisy chaining in the proposed new numbers trail type. There would still be 2000 fungible film canisters in the desert, each of which could be found (or not) independently. The only difference is how they are listed and logged on the web site.

 

Now: 2000 traditional cache listings, posting a separate log for each cache found.

Proposal: 1 numbers trail cache listing with 2000 waypoints, posting only a single log that specifies how many of those you found, granting a smiley for each one.

[+niraD]

7 minutes ago, STNolan said:

Imagine a "power trail" where different cachers in the community set up their own cache along the route. With only one or two caches to maintain, quality should improve; diverse cachers mean diversity in the caches themselves AND competition with other cachers could improve creativity.

Back before the modern numbers trail, when the guidelines still included the sentence "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can", a trail in our area was referred to as a "power trail". It was saturated with caches placed by various owners, with various types of container, with various styles of hide.

 

The county parks department still uses it for their intro geocaching courses. Beginning geocachers can meet at the trailhead for a brief explanation of geocaching, and then spend a couple hours (accompanied by an experienced geocacher) hiking this trail and finding 8-10 varied caches. It's a great introduction to geocaching, and they can be back at the trailhead by lunchtime if they so desire.

 

This kind of "power trail" develops naturally in popular geocaching parks, especially when the park management requires caches to be within a short distance of established trails.

[+arisoft]

2 minutes ago, niraD said:

There is no daisy chaining in the proposed new numbers trail type. There would still be 2000 fungible film canisters in the desert, each of which could be found (or not) independently. The only difference is how they are listed and logged on the web site.

 

I figured it wrong way

 

Maybe a better idea - Groundspeak could sell rights to make special caches which gives ten, hundred or thousand finds once. A resonable fee could keep these rare but for a CO it could be more economic to pay for a licence than pay for gas. Win-win situation for every participant.

[+Fugads]

11 minutes ago, niraD said:

I have spent a day finding multiple traditional caches. The "Best Day" listed in my geocaching.com statistics was such a day. I remember very little about the geocaches we found that day.

 

I have also spent a day finding the stages of a single multi-stage cache. I have done this several times. Many of those caches are on my Favorites list, and I definitely remember the adventure I had on that single cache

I agree with you to a point. I too have spent a days going after single multi-stage caches, and days spent finding bunches of caches. The thought experiment isn't really for you to compare any particular experience you have had going after a long multi-cache, with any other experience you have had finding a bunch of traditional.

 

The point I am unsuccessfully trying to make is that a series of traditional caches and a single multi-cache can offer the same experience. A hypothetical multi-cache could be 5 stages along a trail/road, and someone would need to go to each spot to complete it. Alternatively, there could be a series of 5 traditional caches along the same road/trail, requiring a geocacher to make the same 5 stops in order to complete the series. In both cases, you travel the same route and have to find the same things. But it can be a "multi" or a "series" and one main difference is the stats you come away with.

 

I will admit, I may be communicating this idea poorly, or maybe am just not making a good point at all. I guess I just got to thinking about multis versus a series of trads.

 

27 minutes ago, dprovan said:

"What is the difference in their experiences?" Are you kidding? What's the similarity? It's like two different games.

 

With traditionals, all you do is find the cache and sign the log.

 

With a multi, you have to read the coordinates of the next stage, copy them into your GPSr, and then you have to figure out where the next stage is and how to get there. You don't know where you're going when you start, so you can't plan your route and you won't know where you're going to end up. The only similarity is that there's a container at each specific location. (We'll ignore the fact that multi stages don't have to be anything like cache containers.)

As to dprovan's point, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is like two different games... but I see that the expereince can be very different. It can also not be different if that makes any sense? I think what you are getting at at the main difference between these two "options" is that with a multi-cache listing there is an unknown element that leads to surprises and having to think on your feet. With a series of traditionals, this is not really the case as you know before you even leave your house what the route will be like.

 

I may be taking this whole idea too seriously, but a lot of long multi caches I have found the route is not really that ambiguous. You know from the outset that you will be going up X mountain, or down Y canyon and while you may not know precisely where each stage is going to be along the trail, or in the canyon, you more or less know what to expect and where you'll end up. In my warped way of thinking about this today, I see this as giving a very similar experience to a series of traditional geocaches also along a trail to X mountain or down Y canyon.

 

What really got me thinking about this subject was a comment in another thread

Quote

I usually hate when multis have no purpose except to be a multi. S1, S2, and Final could just as easily be three Traditional.

and I wondered how prevalent this attitude might be. A lot of multi-caches could be turned into a series of traditional hides and you can give people more or less the same experience (minus the sense of surprise?). And a series of traditionals could also just as easily be turned into a single multi-cache listing. Why do one over the other? What is the appeal of one over the other? Hwat is the role that stats play in making one experience more rewarding than another? Or what is the role of ambiguity in the multi-cache and is this a necessary feature?

[+cerberus1]

6 minutes ago, niraD said:

Back before the modern numbers trail, when the guidelines still included the sentence "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can", a trail in our area was referred to as a "power trail". It was saturated with caches placed by various owners, with various types of container, with various styles of hide.

 

The county parks department still uses it for their intro geocaching courses. Beginning geocachers can meet at the trailhead for a brief explanation of geocaching, and then spend a couple hours (accompanied by an experienced geocacher) hiking this trail and finding 8-10 varied caches. It's a great introduction to geocaching, and they can be back at the trailhead by lunchtime if they so desire.

 

Seems the majority of ours are the "placed while I was on the way to...." the older, before favorite points,  once lonely caches.

  - Those are seeing a few more people heading there because of the others in-between there and parking.

 

The other 2/3rds had a series that had different cache styles as a learning experience for beginners.  Folks really liked 'em .

 - She put a lotta thought in them, but had to archive for safety.  Years too early for many FPs, but she got nice emails. 

[+thebruce0]

I completed a 103 stage multi with 3 friends, over the course 2-3 days, while in 'emergency' contact with the CO in case any stages were missing. Some were.  After our find, another couple of groups tried and completed, also with maintenance problems. It was soon archived. We don't think it was meant to last very long at all. Next to impossible to maintain, and a headache to rely on people trying to complete it to proxy-maintain report any issues with stages.  1000 stages? Yeah probably some people would try, but proper maintenance would be out the window. Just like people doing the ET typically go with extra canisters, the CO would never do all the maintenance themselves, and would likely have some kind of auto-responder to provide the next stage coordinates in case someone replaced a stage.

It just wouldn't happen; not in a singular, linear sequence at least.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, Fugads said:

I may be taking this whole idea too seriously, but a lot of long multi caches I have found the route is not really that ambiguous.

The case you made is that numbers are the only reason for people to pick multiple caches over a multicache. I argued against it. It doesn't really make sense for you to turn around and talk about the fact that you can imagine a situation where the numbers really would be the only difference. Although I like multicaches, my point was that many people (most people, actually) don't like multicaches, so you just strengthen my argument by making the multicache in your thought experiment devoid of anything that would make anyone at all want to do it. All the more reason for people to pick the traditionals instead.

 

I'm not really sure I know what point you're trying to make, but I think the multicache doesn't support it. I think what you're trying to say is presented just as well with the thought experiment of 2 traditional out in the desert 100 miles apart vs. a string of 1000 traditionals strung out a tenth of a mile apart. I think you're trying to suggest that it's only an obsession with numbers that would make the 1000 cache string more popular. Would that be as valid a thought experiment to get to your point?

 

There are people that do power trails. Some of them, I guess, do it just for the numbers, but I think most do it for the challenge. Yes, the mind numbing challenge. I've considered trying one for that reason, but haven't had a reason to be near one.

 

Furthermore, even if you could prove that the only people that ever did power trails were people that had no interesting in geocaching beyond the find count, I'd still just say, "More power to them!" There's invalid about being motivated by numbers.

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, dprovan said:

I like multicaches, my point was that many people (most people, actually) don't like multicaches

 

Maybe they like good quality multi-caches? It is not the cache type you like or not it is the cache itselft. It is obvious that when an ordinary geocacher choose between multi-cache and bunch of traditional micro caches the traditional wins at the beginning but the favorite may go later to the multi-cache.

[+redsox_mark]

My thoughts and observations:

 

1.  Most cachers I meet are not "numbers hounds", but they do like to see their numbers go up, and they do like to be "successful" when caching.   So a single multi which takes half a day or more (and might end up in a DNF if there is an issue at any stage) will put people off.    When recommending a good (but long) multi, I've had several cachers say "why should I spend a day for that one cache when I can do a series of 20?".     

 

2.  Some cachers are the opposite, but I find them a minority.   I know some cachers who ONLY target difficult, multis or puzzles, and avoid any series on principle.   

 

3.  I like all sorts of caches.   I'll happily spend a full day on one good cache.    But I'm also not opposed to doing a (walking) series of good caches.   

 

4.   If I was comparing like with like - a 10 stage multi with 9 film pots with coordinates and a big box at the end with a series of 9 trad (film pots) plus a large bonus at the end.. and the same location.. I would prefer the series.    But the memorable multis I've done aren't like that.

 

5.  I have one real data point.  I used to own a multi with approx 10 stages (mainly virtual stages).    It didn't get many finders.   Shortly after I archived it, someone placed a series of 10 Trads there.   Each cache in that series gets found approx 10 times as often as my original multi.  

 

[+thebruce0]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

It is not the cache type you like or not it is the cache itselft.

 

That's quite a definitive statement. Who is "you"? Me? Every single person? Or a generic group of unidentified people? Can you confidently say that no one alive prefers the concept of a multi-cache over the concept of a traditional cache regardless of the cache itself? Nah

[+dprovan]

9 hours ago, arisoft said:

Maybe they like good quality multi-caches?

I think we're straying off topic, but I actually think most of the people that don't like multi-caches don't like them for the reasons I've described, which have nothing to do with quality. What I would consider a good quality multi-cache has precisely the elements that I listed as negatives: requires thought and leads me in an unexpected direction. From what I've seen, most geocachers prefer just finding the container and not running into any surprises.

[+arisoft]

1 minute ago, dprovan said:

From what I've seen, most geocachers prefer just finding the container and not running into any surprises.

 

I would agree that "don't like" means in this case that they just ignore multi-caches and go for easier targets until they are all consumed. They just don't care, not dislike.

[+dprovan]

7 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

Most cachers I meet are not "numbers hounds", but they do like to see their numbers go up, and they do like to be "successful" when caching.   So a single multi which takes half a day or more (and might end up in a DNF if there is an issue at any stage) will put people off.    When recommending a good (but long) multi, I've had several cachers say "why should I spend a day for that one cache when I can do a series of 20?".

All geocachers I've met like to find caches. I've never detected anyone that liked to see their numbers for up for the sake of the numbers going up. They like seeing their numbers go up because it reflects that they're having fun caching. The "worst" I've ever heard of are people that were doing a powertrail just to see how fast they could run up numbers -- i.e., the challenge of running the numbers up, not the challenge of having a high count -- but then as soon as they got back from their trip, they'll do a five mile hike to get that one new cache on the backside of some park.

 

Also, while it's undeniable that multi-caches aren't as popular, I've never run into someone that just refused to do a multicache. They skip multicaches and don't seek out multicaches, but I've never run into someone that turned their nose up at a multicache when caching with someone that wanted to do it. And I've never heard anyone say they won't do the multicache because it will be 10 times the work for the same reward. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong people. The times I suggested a multicache with someone that doesn't usually do them, the response is always enthusiasm for the different experience even if the experience confirms that it's not their favorite type of geocaching.

 

All I've ever heard negative about multicaches is that they're too much trouble. Which makes perfect sense to me: they are more trouble, so if that trouble isn't enjoyable to someone, that's a good reason not to go out of their way to do one.

[+dprovan]

6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I would agree that "don't like" means in this case that they just ignore multi-caches and go for easier targets until they are all consumed. They just don't care, not dislike.

OK. I guess we agree. I meant preferring A and not liking not A to be identical. I guess it would have been clearer if I'd said "don't like as much". I didn't mean to imply an active dislike or hatred.

[+on4bam]

13 minutes ago, dprovan said:

 they are more trouble, so if that trouble isn't enjoyable to someone, that's a good reason not to go out of their way to do one.

 

This is exactly the reason why we prefer multi's. We enjoy finding WPs, making calculations, decoding tags or solving puzzles to get to the next stage. We don't care if, after being out all day, get stuck on a WP or DNF the cache and only +0.

We have done geoart and even stayed in a B&B nearby to do it but we always end up doing a few multi's or high favorite other caches to finish up the (long) weekend as we quickly get bored by picking up one micro after another.

 

As for "too much trouble", I know a cacher who will do series of traditionals but doesn't bother about the codes in them to pick up the bonus even if he walks past it on the way to the car.

 

Edited July 4, 2018 by on4bam

[+arisoft]

22 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I didn't mean to imply an active dislike or hatred.

 

I know some that hate multi-caches. At least they said that they hate.  It may be a love and hate relationship.

[+thebruce0]

And technically, caches like wherigos and some mysteries are themselves conceptually the same as multis. Not a single waypoint at which you find the physical cache.

ET trail could be a mystery depending on how the "final" is calculated and/or determined. It wouldn't need to be a Multi. Probably more accurate would be to describe the series alternative as anything but at Traditional =P

[+niraD]

On 7/3/2018 at 9:49 AM, Viajero Perdido said:

A single DNF on any of the stages would blow the entire project.

Not necessarily. There are ways to encode the final location such that seekers need to find any 100 stages to get the final location, so as log as 100 of the 2000 stages are still available, the final location can be found. And with 2000 stages in a multi-cache, the system for determining the final location would need a redundant system like that.

 

FWIW, there was a 45-stage multi around here. A number of the Find logs mention that one or two stages were missing, but they were able to soldier on anyway and make it to the final. It has since been replaced by a 54-stage multi, which also has occasional logs from people who made it to the final even though one or two stages were missing.

[+Fugads]

11 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

4.   If I was comparing like with like - a 10 stage multi with 9 film pots with coordinates and a big box at the end with a series of 9 trad (film pots) plus a large bonus at the end.. and the same location.. I would prefer the series.    But the memorable multis I've done aren't like that.

 

5.  I have one real data point.  I used to own a multi with approx 10 stages (mainly virtual stages).    It didn't get many finders.   Shortly after I archived it, someone placed a series of 10 Trads there.   Each cache in that series gets found approx 10 times as often as my original multi.  

What you say above is what interests me most. Do you care to expand on your observation #4 above? Why is it that if the experiences are the same, you would prefer a series of trads over a single multi?

 

Your observation #5 is also what I was getting at. It seems that more and more, geocachers are drawn towards high numbers of caches. Your original multi in that location would have been just as fun an experience for geocachers as the series of caches that replaced it. And the evidence shows that a lot more people will visit the series than the original multi in the same spot. Yes there are a myriad of reasons why multi's appeal less then traditionals, but I still think one of the main reasons is that folks prefer to get lots of finds rather than one for any given experience. Numbers are a big motivating factor in this game.

[+cerberus1]

4 hours ago, on4bam said:

As for "too much trouble", I know a cacher who will do series of traditionals but doesn't bother about the codes in them to pick up the bonus even if he walks past it on the way to the car.

 

I've done that a couple times. 

I don't think of it as "too much trouble" like the person you know, but have forgotten to add the codes often enough (my last was a bear.  I thought that was important.  :-)  that I just don't think about it much anymore.  I just missed one cache. NBD.

[+IceColdUK]

1 hour ago, Fugads said:

12 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

4.   If I was comparing like with like - a 10 stage multi with 9 film pots with coordinates and a big box at the end with a series of 9 trad (film pots) plus a large bonus at the end.. and the same location.. I would prefer the series.    But the memorable multis I've done aren't like that.

 

 

What you say above is what interests me most. Do you care to expand on your observation #4 above? Why is it that if the experiences are the same, you would prefer a series of trads over a single multi?

 

Numbers play a part, but I think it’s the uncertainty of a complex (*) Multi that puts a lot of people off.  (How far will I have to walk?  How long will it take to find the cache?  How long will it take to get back to the car?  Will I be able to find all of the stages?  Will I understand what’s needed to move to the next stage?)

 

This unpredictability adds jeopardy, but if you are successful, you are rewarded with a greater sense of achievement - making the cache more memorable, and therefore more ‘favourite-worthy’.

 

(*)  In the UK, many of the Multis are simple offsets: a single virtual stage (or maybe a wander around a churchyard), a coordinate calculation and the cache, typically within a few hundred metres.

Edited July 4, 2018 by IceColdUK

[+cerberus1]

5 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

Numbers play a part, but I think it’s the uncertainty of a complex (*) Multi that puts a lot of people off.  (How far will I have to walk?  How long will it take to find the cache?  How long will it take to get back to the car?  Will I be able to find all of the stages?  Will I understand what’s needed to move to the next stage?)

 

This unpredictability adds jeopardy, but if you are successful, you are rewarded with a greater sense of achievement - making the cache more memorable, and therefore more ‘favourite-worthy’.

 

(*)  In the UK, many of the Multis are simple offsets: a single virtual stage (or maybe a wander around a churchyard), a coordinate calculation and the cache, typically within a few hundred metres.

 

Agreed (other than numbers play a part  ;-).

I usually enjoy the tasks achieved, but some get to the point of having to hoof-it-out another day, starting over miles away. 

One kinda recently, 7 out of over a dozen high D/T stages, multiple days, to find the CO archived it for "lack of interest". 

 - Only a couple "found" it, most PAF the CO the entire way (one did it with him).  Sheesh...  "Ignore hider" (for me) would be handy here...

 

One of our favorite hiders does simple two-stage multis pretty-much just to keep the cache from new kids (been doing easy mystery caches now too).

Seeing numerous  "NM, no log"  to find they only "found" the first stage sorta enforced his thinking. 

 

 

[+Fugads]

21 hours ago, dprovan said:

I think you're trying to suggest that it's only an obsession with numbers that would make the 1000 cache string more popular. Would that be as valid a thought experiment to get to your point?

You may be right.  I'm trying to understand why someone would suggest that a CO would be better off placing a string of traditionals caches along a route, rather than make the same experience a single multi-cache. That was basically what someone suggested in another discussion thread, and it rubbed me the wrong way. It struck me as a comment with a subtext.. that numbers of finds is what COs should be striving to create. As a CO who is wanting to place a string of containers along a route, I see that you have a choice of making is string of hides into either a multi cache or a bunch of separate listings, and I've come around to thinking that unless there is some special reason for making each hide an individual listing, CO's are better off creating a single multi-cache listing for the experience. This feeling is probably not a popular one though, but that's ok.

 

Another reason for this thought experiment is the topic of what makes a quality geocache, a thread that is going on right now and one I've been thinking of. My own thoughts are that the experience a geocache provides is mainly what makes it a quality geocache. And then I got to thinking, if the experience of finding a multi is more or less the same experience as doing a string of traditional hides, why would geocachers prefer a group of traditionals over a multi. And this train of thought led me to conclude that should the experiences be more or less the same, it is the number of finds that makes one more desirable. So yeah... that was my hare-brained thought process.

[+dprovan]

9 minutes ago, Fugads said:

22 hours ago, dprovan said:

I think you're trying to suggest that it's only an obsession with numbers that would make the 1000 cache string more popular. Would that be as valid a thought experiment to get to your point?

You may be right.  I'm trying to understand why someone would suggest that a CO would be better off placing a string of traditionals caches along a route, rather than make the same experience a single multi-cache. That was basically what someone suggested in another discussion thread, and it rubbed me the wrong way.

I can see that, but I'd take the advice as the simple practical comment: very few will do 1000 stage multi, so do a 1000 traditionals, instead. It doesn't much matter why that is. Even what you quoted in the OP sounds like nothing more than "don't bother me with a multi", not "if you do a multi, I won't get as many smilies."

 

12 minutes ago, Fugads said:

Another reason for this thought experiment is the topic of what makes a quality geocache, a thread that is going on right now and one I've been thinking of. My own thoughts are that the experience a geocache provides is mainly what makes it a quality geocache.

What's struck me about the quality question is that in almost every response to the quality poll, people keep calling it "quality" when what they talk about is what they like. I appreciate this thread in this context, because I think what we're seeing is that the multi-trad vs. multicache discussion boils down to what people like and not at all about which has more quality. Specifically, some people like lots of simple, individual caches, so by what right do we say those caches don't have "quality"? Yet dissing power trails in just what way is a prevalent position in the quality discussion.

[+redsox_mark]

12 hours ago, Fugads said:

What you say above is what interests me most. Do you care to expand on your observation #4 above? Why is it that if the experiences are the same, you would prefer a series of trads over a single multi?

 

 

4.   If I was comparing like with like - a 10 stage multi with 9 film pots with coordinates and a big box at the end with a series of 9 trad (film pots) plus a large bonus at the end.. and the same location.. I would prefer the series.    But the memorable multis I've done aren't like that.

 

In this example, I would prefer the series of 9 plus bonus for the following reasons:

 

1.  If become bored with it, I can stop at any time, and still have some finds to record what I did.

2.  And yes, I would prefer to have 10 finds rather than one, everything else being equal.  

 

Again, this doesn't mean I personally avoid multis (or puzzle caches with multiple field stages).     In fact I prefer to do a single good one, which has a story and clever stages which match the story, than an "ordinary" series of trads.    But if the multi is just as "ordinary" as the series, I'd rather do the series and find more caches.   

 

To overlap with another thread, at the moment because of the Hidden Creatures I am seeking out series of caches, as I'm trying to get the required number.  I'm less likely to do a complex multi at the moment.