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

[+on4bam]

1 hour ago, redsox_mark said:

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.  

 

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.

 

1. I have yet to come across a multi where I get bored, I got (almost) bored by series though.

2. I couldn't care less about the number of finds I can log

Most of the time I only realize our found number when I "publish logs" in GSAK after getting home in the evening and I see x founds, x DNF, x NM...

 

I'm not driven by any souvenir promotion whatsoever and will not change our caching plans. The only thing that can make us change plans are unexpected events (like we will now go caching on foot as our bikes were destroyed when being tailgated) or because of the weather (with the high temperatures we're having we will avoid open spaces like fields and try to find treecover).

 

BTW, saying (some) people are not "number hounds" and then preferring a series of 10 over a 10WP multi everything being equal seems a contradiction. Preferring a +10 over a +1 does make it about the numbers.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 7/3/2018 at 4:36 PM, arisoft said:

 

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

 

Since it would be a new cache type that would require a change to the guidelines to allow that type of cache.  Existing guidelines about daisy chaining would be superseded by a new guideline.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I don't think anyone would do the ET trail as a multi, when there are so many other power trails in the area.  There are dozens of other numbers trails with hundreds and over a thousand caches in them that numbers hounds would do instead.

[+redsox_mark]

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

 

BTW, saying (some) people are not "number hounds" and then preferring a series of 10 over a 10WP multi everything being equal seems a contradiction. Preferring a +10 over a +1 does make it about the numbers.

 

 

I don't see it as a contradiction.

 

It means I do care about the numbers, to some extent.      Yes, all things equal, if I find 10 containers I'd prefer 10 finds.     If you think that makes me a numbers hound, fine.

 

But I'd rather do one really good multi which takes me 4 hours, than a series of 20 "ok, but ordinary" caches that takes 4 hours.    And in practice, I do both.

 

[+L0ne.R]

I like anything with thought and purpose behind it. Caches where the owner creates something to delight the finder, and cares to provide a good experience from beginning to end.

It can be any cache type. 

 

 

[+thebruce0]

15 hours ago, Fugads said:

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

 

Don't forget that an extensive multi would have a LOT more concern for maintenance than individual caches. Individual caches can be dealt with easier than a multi, which would need to be verified from beginning to end in order to say it's truly "good to go".  So from a CO standpoint, a series of individual caches is generally much more feasible than the same set of containers a single multi-stage cache.

 

1 hour ago, redsox_mark said:

3 hours ago, on4bam said:

BTW, saying (some) people are not "number hounds" and then preferring a series of 10 over a 10WP multi everything being equal seems a contradiction. Preferring a +10 over a +1 does make it about the numbers.

 

I don't see it as a contradiction.

It means I do care about the numbers, to some extent.      Yes, all things equal, if I find 10 containers I'd prefer 10 finds.     If you think that makes me a numbers hound, fine.

But I'd rather do one really good multi which takes me 4 hours, than a series of 20 "ok, but ordinary" caches that takes 4 hours.    And in practice, I do both.

 

Yes, this, likewise.

 

If you want to call anyone who thinks that "10 is better than 1" under any circumstance a "numbers hound", then I guess there's no way around that. But typically that stereotype is used to refer to people who care about numbers above all else, which is vehemently untrue in our cases. I'd even wager that most people who - all things being equal - would choose to have 10 finds for 10 containers rather than 1 find, do not fall into that category of "numbers hound", especially if they might take 1 really good multi over 20 sub-par traditionals.

I would claim that a "numbers hound" is someone who, more often than not (blanket statements are never a good thing), will do anything to get a smiley, and more often than not do not stop to appreciate a cache or location, even if many before them express much praise for it in some manner; or will log caches found in a group they did not themselves visit or see; or tend to have a habit of not sharing unique experiences and fun they had at certain caches which generally garner those comments in logs from past finders but rather end up copy/pasting a full day's explanation...

Note also that these actions are not all universal indicators - a numbers hound is not necessarily all of these things, and non-numbers hounds may occasionally do some of these things, but I think that these practices are good indicators of someone who just might be in it for the numbers more than anything else.  And there are always exceptions.

 

So, please don't throw around labels like that merely on the basis that at some point a person may have a preference to log multiple finds instead of just one, given the opportunity...

Edited July 5, 2018 by thebruce0

[+on4bam]

14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If you want to call anyone who thinks that "10 is better than 1" under any circumstance a "numbers hound", then I guess there's no way around that.

 

I meant that in that case it means numbers are important. I just think they are not. For me, numbers are the result of going out finding caches, not the purpose. I keep a lot of statistics on our cache activity in order to see what we have done, not to have a goal.

 

[+Viajero Perdido]

Also, who wants to key in 1000 sets of coords by hand?

 

(Apologies if I'm repeating someone. I've only skimmed...)

[+Fugads]

13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Don't forget that an extensive multi would have a LOT more concern for maintenance than individual caches. Individual caches can be dealt with easier than a multi, which would need to be verified from beginning to end in order to say it's truly "good to go".  So from a CO standpoint, a series of individual caches is generally much more feasible than the same set of containers a single multi-stage cache.

I am not convinced that an extensive multi has a lot more concern for maintenance than a series of individual caches. This is of course true if the individual caches are treated as "disposable" and that when someone reports an issue with one, the CO simply archives it. I can see this happening, and this allows a CO who is not really committed to doing maintenance in the first place a way to keep the remaining members of the series alive. I can see this being especially appealing to remote area hides, where it can be difficult to get out to perform maintenance. But I think this is a different topic.

 

If a CO is committed to maintain the hides, I don't see how the maintenance for the multi is much different than maintaining a series of individual caches. Any time a cacher reports an issue, the CO can go out and perform maintenance on that stage/hide. I don't see that the CO is obligated to check on all the other stages/hides where no problems were reported. I will concede that for the multi-cache, if an issue is reported with one stage and a cacher does not visit the later stages, the status of those later stages may is unknown. And I guess this is where you may think it is the responsibility of the CO to check all those later stages to remove that uncertainty. I think the CO may be justified in assuming that those other stages are ok until a report comes in otherwise, but knowing that a cacher is going to make a return trip, it may be in the best interest of the CO to ensure that the rest of the stages are in good shape so that the returning cacher doesn't have another negative experience.

[+schmittfamily]

If you really wanted to place a high number of stages multi along a highway I know a way to do it without the maintenance headaches.

 

Basically you start with a number of waypoints that point to signs along the highway.    These would be signs placed by the DOT that aren't likely to change very often (mile markers, distance to exits, etc).    Also they would be signs you read without slowing down.  Then you use those numbers to calculate more waypoints along the route to get more numbers.  Eventually you end up with the numbers to plug in to get a final cache location.  It would be fairly straight forward to be build in redundancy and/or error checking into that system.    

 

If we saw a cache like that in an area we were traveling we would attempt it.   

[+ArkF]

I have examples of multis/series I have found, and also some examples of my own hides. I found this multi (http://coord.info/GC3A1WD) which was 8 containers, took a good portion of a day, more or less off-trail hiking. I also found the series of traditionals leading to http://coord.info/GC4GN5X which totaled 9 containers, took a good portion of a day, more or less off-trail hiking.

 

The experience was generally similar between both, and I enjoyed both days, but there were differences. The multi is a bit more intimidating during the planning process. Will I find all the stages? Will I understand the directions in each stage? Will I find 7 containers and then not get to finish the cache? The traditionals are a bit simpler, I know where they all are, I know where the destination is. So I can do the full route even if I don't find any of the first 8 containers. Which also means I can limit my search time for each container, instead of looking until I find it or give up for the day like I need to do on the multi.

 

But at the same time, the multi is a bit more interesting and fun. There is more to it than just navigating to coordinates and finding containers. There are little field puzzles for each stage. There is the anticipation of wondering where the final will be. And I prefer logging one multi to logging 9 traditionals. It is easy to write a good log for an all-day multi. Writing 9 logs means each log is shorter and less interesting to read. I could write one and copy-paste, but that feels weird to me.

 

I care a lot about my stats, I enjoy looking at them, but I don't really care much about 1 find vs. 9 finds. And that's with a low enough total that 9 actually is noticeable. All things considered, I like a multi better than a similar set of traditionals, but might be more likely to look for the traditionals, just because of the higher certainty of things working out well.

 

On the hiding side, http://coord.info/GC4GTR6 is a multi, but is essentially just a series of traditionals. No tricks or puzzles or anything other than navigating to coordinates and finding containers. I hid it as a multi because I like multis. And the fact that it's a multi has caused problems. When the first stage goes missing, the whole experience dies. On the other hand, http://coord.info/GC7KZB3 is a multi that could only be a multi. It has virtual stages and stages that couldn't work as a stand-alone cache. I think that one is probably the better use of a multi-cache, generally speaking.

 

I don't really have a point I suppose, but those are my thoughts about multi-caches.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

3 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

 

I don't see it as a contradiction.

 

It means I do care about the numbers, to some extent.      Yes, all things equal, if I find 10 containers I'd prefer 10 finds.     If you think that makes me a numbers hound, fine.

 

But I'd rather do one really good multi which takes me 4 hours, than a series of 20 "ok, but ordinary" caches that takes 4 hours.    And in practice, I do both.

 

 

I don't see it as a contradiction, either.

A CO creates a 10 stage multi and each stage is a micro that contains the coordinates to the next stage. Nothing really unique about the stages. They don't bring me to anywhere significant. There isn't a central theme to the multi. The only reason the waypoints exist is simply to make this a 10 stage multi. I wouldn't avoid that kind of multicache but at the end of it, I'd ask myself just what was the point? The CO created a 10 stage multi just to create a 10 stage multi. In that case, yes, I'd rather have 10 traditionals since the experience would be exactly the same.

 

A well designed 10 stage multi, where the stages were important to the theme of the cache or brought me to interesting places, would be more memorable than 10 separate traditionals. With the traditionals, you could quit after a few caches and might not get the entire experience the CO was going for. A multi sort of forces you to do the entire cache and if it's done well, you'll understand what the CO was trying to accomplish.

[+Fugads]

1 hour ago, ArkF said:

And I prefer logging one multi to logging 9 traditionals. It is easy to write a good log for an all-day multi. Writing 9 logs means each log is shorter and less interesting to read. I could write one and copy-paste, but that feels weird to me.

I feel the same way. The same kind of thing applies to a CO as well. It's easier to create one nice listing, than try to generate a bunch of geocache listings all having kind of similar information in them. At least I feel so.

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, Fugads said:

I am not convinced that an extensive multi has a lot more concern for maintenance than a series of individual caches. This is of course true if the individual caches are treated as "disposable" and that when someone reports an issue with one, the CO simply archives it.

 

If there's an issue with one cache, the CO can maintain it, and nothing else is affected.

If there's an issue with one stage, the entire cache is not able to be completed - later waypoints can't be located. Additionally, no one will know if there's a problem with a stage until the cacher progresses through all other waypoints and can progress no further until the CO maintains it. There's much more on the line of responsibility for the CO with a set of multi waypoints than a series of independent caches. Mainly in that one maintenance issue can stop the entire cache search. Not so with the series of traditionals.

A multi-cache  maintenance strategy can be a vastly different than the series of independent caches.

 

1 hour ago, Fugads said:

2 hours ago, ArkF said:

And I prefer logging one multi to logging 9 traditionals. It is easy to write a good log for an all-day multi. Writing 9 logs means each log is shorter and less interesting to read. I could write one and copy-paste, but that feels weird to me.

I feel the same way.

 

Well that's entirely personal preference, so sure There's nothing stopping me from writing longer interesting logs for those 9 traditionals either, if I want. So to me log value isn't something tied to cache type, not in the slightest. That's entirely tied to both my personal experience, and the value I found in whatever experience by created by the CO, regardless of the cache type.

 

[+niraD]

24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If there's an issue with one stage, the entire cache is not able to be completed - later waypoints can't be located.

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.

[+L0ne.R]

27 minutes ago, niraD said:

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.

 

Do you know if it bothers any of the hiders in the area? Or are all the stages (except the final) virtuals? 

[+niraD]

1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:

Do you know if it bothers any of the hiders in the area? Or are all the stages (except the final) virtuals? 

It seems to have become a destination cache. As I understand it, all the stages are micros. I'm considering doing it for a milestone.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 7/3/2018 at 12:00 PM, 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?

 

I can't imagine a Multi with 1000 stages that would be worth finding. Or even 100. 10 is probably the reasonable limit most of the time, especially with physical stages. I can think of exceptions with lots of Virtual stages, but only in a limited space. For example, find 20 statues in a shopping plaza and do some math to find the Final, the only physical stage.

 

Now if the theoretical ET Highway Multi was 2 stages (posted & final) with one at either end of the highway that would be memorable. Even a 5 or 10 stage multi the length of the highway might be memorable, with the intermediate stages located at points of interest (the best views perhaps).

 

But the problem with the ET Highway as a multi is that it's a long fairly straight stretch of a single highway. What's the purpose of a many-stage multi there?

 

There's a multi in a preserve area near me. I think there are six stages. If you placed a traditional at the final finders would mostly drive on one of the shellrock roads in the preserve, park at the nearest trailhead, and make a short hike. Instead, the intermediate stages start at the parking and are spaced out along the trail to try to force people to make the whole hike (probably 6 hours roundtrip in dry conditions).

[+niraD]

5 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

There's a multi in a preserve area near me. I think there are six stages. If you placed a traditional at the final finders would mostly drive on one of the shellrock roads in the preserve, park at the nearest trailhead, and make a short hike. Instead, the intermediate stages start at the parking and are spaced out along the trail to try to force people to make the whole hike (probably 6 hours roundtrip in dry conditions).

Yeah, that style of multi-cache, where the stages loop you back to a final located near the trailhead, used to be appreciated. Now, it's an invitation for people to drive to the trailhead, grab the final, and check off another space in their Jasmer/Fizzy/whatever grid.

[+cerberus1]

6 hours ago, niraD said:

Yeah, that style of multi-cache, where the stages loop you back to a final located near the trailhead, used to be appreciated. Now, it's an invitation for people to drive to the trailhead, grab the final, and check off another space in their Jasmer/Fizzy/whatever grid.

 

We have a couple folks here who just can't claim a DNF, and now some aren't even "bothering" to try a multi in it's entirety.

 - Many of them lonely caches too.

PAF where a friend found it, park the car up front, and maybe walk in 200'.

Forgot about that earlier (in another thread).  May be why a few who used to direct you back to the car don't do that anymore.

 - I always appreciated that...

 

[+thebruce0]

18 hours ago, niraD said:

19 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If there's an issue with one stage, the entire cache is not able to be completed - later waypoints can't be located.

Not necessarily.

Yes, yes, I know there exceptions and variations to construction of basic cache concepts. Clearly I don't believe that every single multicache is a linear progression through physical waypoints. (yeesh, this is why I almost always throw in 'typically', 'generally', 'most' and the like, which obviously I failed to do here, because the forum is notorious for taking generalizations literally). My point remains though.  In a multicache, the whole intent is that it's not one single traditional 'task' - it's a progression through 2 or more tasks, however it's constructed, and if at any point a task required to progress is not able to be completed (that means redundancies as well), the entire experience comes to a halt and the final cannot be found. This is not so with a traditional, which only requires one waypoint to be maintained and available for finding.

 

And yes of course people can "cheat" (YMMV) and simply go to the final of a multi. So I agree - a 1000-stage multi, especially if it's discovered that any stage (or any task one must complete in order to continue) regularly requires maintenance, is likely to encourage people to just give up and find ways around it in order to skip to and locate the final cache.  A well-constructed multi would hopefully have added value at parts in the journey and not have the extra waypoints as just a technicality to get to the final.
 

15 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I can't imagine a Multi with 1000 stages that would be worth finding.

 

"worth" finding would be quite subjective. I mean, if someone does want to put the effort into creating one where every stage is of some value, then there may well be people who put value in finding it, even if they're the only one to do so   But yeah, most people likely wouldn't find value in finding that other than to say "we found a 1000 stage multi!" (much like the 103-stage multi in my region that lasted 3 group finds over multiple days each, with constant CO contact due to stage issues, before being archived)

 

15 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Now if the theoretical ET Highway Multi was 2 stages (posted & final) with one at either end of the highway that would be memorable. Even a 5 or 10 stage multi the length of the highway might be memorable, with the intermediate stages located at points of interest (the best views perhaps).

 

Yeah it would likely be more the latter if anything - it's not just noe series along a straight highway; the series spans many multiple side roads in an interweaving pattern. So if anything, it might be a few vastly spread stages at interesting locations. This much I know - those styles of travel-caches do exist, and are found fairly regularly. So that would actually be a feasible variant of the ET highway.

 

But... the difference now is that you're not finding caches along the way any more. So the experience is still quite different, regardless of number of smilies. I think more people would be willing to do that ET travel-cache than the entire series because they don't have to find 3000+ little containers. But at the same time, I think those who would like to do the traditional ET series wouldn't find as much value in doing that travel-cache multi.

 

From personal experience, I know that there is also the factor of marathon mentality - it's not just the smiley count, it can also a personal challenge and accomplishment like running a marathon. Like, do you have what it takes to find thousands of little containers along desert roads to complete a series? Some might ask "why", others might ask "why not"?  One person's challenge is another's wasted time

 

15 hours ago, niraD said:

Yeah, that style of multi-cache, where the stages loop you back to a final located near the trailhead, used to be appreciated. Now, it's an invitation for people to drive to the trailhead, grab the final, and check off another space in their Jasmer/Fizzy/whatever grid.

 

They've turned more into having the final at the farthest distance of the loop, after all you still need to follow it back to parking. I like that more anyway, and it's no more or less effort to complete the round trip.

[+JL_HSTRE]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think more people would be willing to do that ET travel-cache than the entire series because they don't have to find 3000+ little containers. But at the same time, I think those who would like to do the traditional ET series wouldn't find as much value in doing that travel-cache multi

 

The ET travel cache would probably have a high percentage of favorites, but it would have far fewer finds. Certainly people wouldn't make big trips to find it like they do the powertrail.

 

 

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

On the question of multi versus power trail, IMO, it depends on the location, theme, and the cache description.

 

The long straight highways around the ET trail don't offer much in the way of different scenery. To me, a multi at this location would be boring, and a power trail would be a challenge to see just how long I could put up with being a mindless robot. But, a well done multi-cache or power trail in a very diverse area could get me to stop every 528 feet. (Unfortunately, most areas like that are off limits to caches, like National Parks.)

 

A good theme helps with a multi-cache. I can't think of any really compelling themes around the ET highway that would get me to stop every 528 feet. A five or six stage multi on the highway may be all that the theme can handle. However, other areas may be able to come up with something that would could handle a stop every 528 feet. Say a tour of some areas of Yellowstone National Park (ignoring the fact that caches are not allowed there).

 

My main issue with multi-caches is with cache descriptions that don't let me know a general area of where I'm going to end up. If I know that up-front, I can better plan my trips. There is one fantastic (by my standards) multi-cache that starts out of Lewiston, called Spyder Caves. From the description and attributes, I know that there is a hike involved. What it doesn't tell me is that the cache is about 60km outside of Lewiston. A couple of WP's in the Lewiston area, then quite a ways down the highway to the next WP. From there, a hike following abandoned railroad tracks through tunnels, and across trestles. And, if you choose to continue to follow the tracks after finding the cache, in a short distance you come to a trailhead. The cache description does not mention the lengthy drive or bike trip, nor does it list any possible staging areas for parking for the return trip. (Also, the attributes don't mention the rattlesnakes either.)

[+The Snowdog]

I will usually pass by a ten stage multi, much less a two thousand stage one.

 

The lure of ET is, I think, threefold. It's a famous series, so people want to do it. Stat and challenge hounds will want the numbers, and I want to do enough of them in one day to satisfy some challenges. And I will look forward to a day of fun with my friends - no way would I want to grind through any part of that alone. And I also want to stay in the famous "Alien" Inn, so that's four reasons to me to make the trek to Utah one day. My personal goal is to do 300+ in a day (pretty modest, compared to most others who will get well into four figures), and sure enough the run from the Alien Inn to Utah's oldest cache is about that many ETs. 

[+TerraViators]

Agreed, Snowdog.  My reasons were as you described - to find 1,000 in a day (we accomplished this with a four-man team in ONE van taking 22.5 hours), to stay at Little A'Le'Inn in Rachel and to enjoy the camaraderie with my friends in Las Vegas.

[+The Snowdog]

On 7/19/2018 at 4:15 PM, TerraViators said:

Agreed, Snowdog.  My reasons were as you described - to find 1,000 in a day (we accomplished this with a four-man team in ONE van taking 22.5 hours), to stay at Little A'Le'Inn in Rachel and to enjoy the camaraderie with my friends in Las Vegas.

 

I read a newspaper article about the ET Highway (should it stay or should it go, that sort of thing) some years ago and recall that the proprietor of the Little A'Le'Inn said that a good half of her clients are geocachers. I first learned about it myself on a video that I've been showing my Astronomy classes for about twenty years

[+fizzymagic]

The answer to this is completely obvious, and the fact that someone would even ask the question (never mind the condescending moral tone) illustrates a serious problem of comprehension.

 

It's like Christmas tree lights.  They can be connected in series (cheaper) or in parallel (more expensive).

 

In the series string of lights, if any single bulb is bad then the entire string goes dark.

 

In the parallel string, only those bulbs that are bad don't light up.

 

Now I am never going to do the ET trail since that kind of thing doesn't appeal to me.  But the notion that anybody would ever ask the question about a multi completely blows my mind.

[+lee737]

I just noted a multi cache here in Perth, Australia yesterday - it only involves finding a dozen or windmills as waypoints between Perth and Canberra, in my estimates about 2000mi. One finder in 3 years.....

[+hzoi]

I would not.

 

At least one person would do it for bragging rights.  Assuming of course that the CO kept up maintenance enough for all stages to be findable.

 

(That part alone would make it highly unlikely that there would be one multi with thousands of physical stages - virtual ones would be difficult enough to ensure the stages are preserved.)

[+SPSF700]

Here in eastern Washington State, we have lots of very scenic areas that are very remote.  I have single caches that see very little (once every other year) action.  However, I have found that a short (<40 trad) power trail makes all the difference.  Then I get lots of compliments and "thanks for bringing me out here" logs.  It must have something to do with >$3.00/gal fuel costs.

I like doing multi's, however, I doubt I would drive a long distance to find it.