Incentives for cache owners?

[+Barnyard Dawg]

Currently the game evolves around finding caches.  The real MVPs are however the cache owners without whom the game would not exist.  However, while finding caches is rewarded with souvenirs and whatnot, there is nothing in place for cache owners.  Now, I live in a low cache density country in Asia, even travel would not get me the points required for the latest souvenir challenges, which btw are increasingly aimed toward power players.  So I find myself forced to cache with brakes on, I can't collect all caches because I might need them when the next souvenir comes around.  However, I do own plenty caches and I realized that my efforts as a cache owner enables others to collect their souvenirs, while at the same time I struggle to get by.  And it dawned on me... as a perk to stimulate cache placement in low density areas, why can a CO not be rewarded a point every time one of their caches is found during a souvenir challenge?  I am sure other CO's has similar thoughts, I would love to read about the ideas that float around.

[+Team Microdot]

I find it sad that finding caches seems to be becoming about acquiring a bunch of worthless pixels.

 

If cache placement becomes about that also then I reckon geocaching will have morphed irreparably.

 

 

[+hzoi]

1 hour ago, Barnyard Dawg said:

However, while finding caches is rewarded with souvenirs and whatnot, there is nothing in place for cache owners.

 

Well, there was a souvenir for active cache owners awarded in April 2017.

 

 

Which was nice to get, but wasn't why we hide caches.  We hide them to pay back (or pay forward) other cachers who hide things for us to find.

 

At the end of the day, my reward is the logs we get on our caches.  Sometimes they are even accompanied by a favorite point, which is a nice thing to see as well.

[+hzoi]

2 hours ago, Barnyard Dawg said:

... as a perk to stimulate cache placement in low density areas, why can a CO not be rewarded a point every time one of their caches is found during a souvenir challenge?

 

Not sure what you mean by point.  A point toward the souvenir challenge?  (I'd be OK with that.)  Favorite point?  (I don't see a need to change the FP system, but there's another thread with a similar thesis right now.)

 

If you mean award you with a bonus find, then I would vote no, absolutely not.

[BillyGeeee]

2 hours ago, Barnyard Dawg said:

The real MVPs are however the cache owners without whom the game would not exist.

The real MVPs for Groundspeak are a bunch of US founding fathers and presidents. While the cache "owners"* and reviewers work for no compensation they are a negligible minority when it comes to revenue.

(*) You don't own something that someone else profits from and the same someone else can obliterate (i.e. archive) on a whim. The correct designation is cache responsibles, IMHO.

[+speakers-corner]

Sorry, but I dont think this would be a good idea. There would probably be a big jump in trash Caches being placed if points are awarded for placing caches.

[+Team Microdot]

43 minutes ago, speakers-corner said:

Sorry, but I dont think this would be a good idea. There would probably be a big jump in trash Caches being placed if points are awarded for placing caches.

 

I'm not sure there would.

 

Culture, fuelled by an any-cache-is-a-smiley attitude, already drives the placing of trash caches anyway.

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by Team Microdot
stupid typo

[+speakers-corner]

but it would still more than likely explode.

[+hzoi]

21 minutes ago, BillyGee said:

(*) You don't own something that someone else profits from and the same someone else can obliterate (i.e. archive) on a whim. The correct designation is cache responsibles, IMHO.

 

I disagree.  I own my geocaches.  They are my ammo cans, PET preforms, decon containers, or what have you.  I also arguably have some intellectual property rights in the descriptions, especially earthcaches, which have no physical container.

 

What Groundspeak controls is the geocache listing on geocaching.com.  If one of our listings gets archived, it doesn't mean I give up ownership of the cache.

Edited October 23, 2018 by hzoi

[+Barnyard Dawg]

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

Well, there was a souvenir for active cache owners awarded in April 2017.

 

 

Which was nice to get, but wasn't why we hide caches.  We hide them to pay back (or pay forward) other cachers who hide things for us to find.

 

At the end of the day, my reward is the logs we get on our caches.  Sometimes they are even accompanied by a favorite point, which is a nice thing to see as well.

Where I live, caches are aimed 100% at tourist, I need not pay anyone back.  I do it to support the handful of players here, and in the hope it attracts new players.  New players, of course horrible handicapped when they use the official app, and they tend to walk away because everything is locked behind a paywall.

 

Re: Souvenir.  Yes, you are right, how spoiled we are!

Re: FP.  These days FP serves finders more because they tend to get more points for a cache above 10FP which makes it easier to collect their souvenir.

 

Re: Nice logs.  HQ has gone out of their way to make logging a cache as meaningless as possible... lots and lots of TFTC, one-liners or standard logs, the latter being very rewarding when someone logs 20-30 of your caches.

[+Barnyard Dawg]

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

Not sure what you mean by point.  A point toward the souvenir challenge?  (I'd be OK with that.)  Favorite point?  (I don't see a need to change the FP system, but there's another thread with a similar thesis right now.)

 

If you mean award you with a bonus find, then I would vote no, absolutely not.

 

Yes, a point toward the souvenir challenge.  Because there are only a handful of players where I am at, and we can only put out so many caches, so eventually we hit a wall.  We do have plenty tourists finding them, so this solution would help us stay in the (souvenir) game.  The souvenir side-game is one of the few things we can look forward too (provided the requirements are not too high), given that the game is self-limiting, and we lack several aspects of it.

[BillyGeeee]

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

I disagree.  I own my geocaches.  They are my ammo cans, PET preforms, decon containers, or what have you.  I also arguably have some intellectual property rights in the descriptions, especially earthcaches, which have no physical container.

 

What Groundspeak controls is the geocache listing on geocaching.com.  If one of our listings gets archived, it doesn't mean I give up ownership of the cache.

Nope. It is abandoned property. You don't own it any more. Finders-keepers. Unless you happen to find and keep it, it is not yours. Ask any muggle if you don't believe me.

On the other hand, only Groundspeak profits from your cache. So it is effectively theirs until it gets destroyed by a muggle.

Whenever somebody at Groundspeak decides that your cache breaks some stupid guideline or that your eyes are the wrong color or whatever, your cache is gone. Like, disappeared. The work you did for them with good intentions, the money you spent - thrown at the junk-heap. If they don't want to profit from "your" cache any more it will effectively disappear.

[+IceColdUK]

55 minutes ago, BillyGee said:

Nope. It is abandoned property. You don't own it any more. Finders-keepers. Unless you happen to find and keep it, it is not yours. Ask any muggle if you don't believe me.

On the other hand, only Groundspeak profits from your cache. So it is effectively theirs until it gets destroyed by a muggle.

Whenever somebody at Groundspeak decides that your cache breaks some stupid guideline or that your eyes are the wrong color or whatever, your cache is gone. Like, disappeared. The work you did for them with good intentions, the money you spent - thrown at the junk-heap. If they don't want to profit from "your" cache any more it will effectively disappear.

 

I think it’s for these very reasons Groundspeak has decided it wants nothing to with the ownership of the physical cache - no liability.

 

And you forget, there are caches (maybe not many) that are listed on competitors’ sites too.  The Groundspeak listing may be archived, but the cache lives on, and is still very much the property of the CO.

[+Touchstone]

2 hours ago, Barnyard Dawg said:

Re: Nice logs.  HQ has gone out of their way to make logging a cache as meaningless as possible... lots and lots of TFTC, one-liners or standard logs, the latter being very rewarding when someone logs 20-30 of your caches.

 

Related thread on a limited roll out of a new feature that it sounds like you are unaware of:

 

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/350149-great-story-and-helpful-log-options/

[+Crow-T-Robot]

54 minutes ago, BillyGee said:

Nope. It is abandoned property. You don't own it any more. Finders-keepers. Unless you happen to find and keep it, it is not yours. Ask any muggle if you don't believe me.

On the other hand, only Groundspeak profits from your cache. So it is effectively theirs until it gets destroyed by a muggle.

Whenever somebody at Groundspeak decides that your cache breaks some stupid guideline or that your eyes are the wrong color or whatever, your cache is gone. Like, disappeared. The work you did for them with good intentions, the money you spent - thrown at the junk-heap. If they don't want to profit from "your" cache any more it will effectively disappear.

I...I don't think you understand the difference between a cache listing on geocaching.com and an actual geocache.

 

Groundspeak can archive the listing but the actual geocache isn't going to magically disappear if they do. It may lose out on the millions of eyeballs that Groundspeak provides through their user base, but it's still there and it's still yours.

You yourself can walk out the door and place a cache on your porch and then never create a listing for it on geocaching.com and yet, the cache will still exist. If you figure out a way to get people to come look for it without having it published, you can bypass having it listed anywhere. But, the actual, physical container will still be there in the flesh.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, BillyGee said:

On the other hand, only Groundspeak profits from your cache. So it is effectively theirs until it gets destroyed by a muggle.

How is it I can pick up my cache and archive the listing any time I want to if GS owns it?

 

1 hour ago, BillyGee said:

Whenever somebody at Groundspeak decides that your cache breaks some stupid guideline or that your eyes are the wrong color or whatever, your cache is gone.

Their listing site, their rules.    When you click that submit button your agreeing to all those guidelines,  regardless how stupid you may think they are.    If new guidelines are implemented and you don't agree with them,  your free to archive your cache or move it to another listing site.   

 

28 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

I think it’s for these very reasons Groundspeak has decided it wants nothing to with the ownership of the physical cache - no liability.

 Bingo!   The guidelines are known.   Your willingness to follow them are not.   Because of this ownership & Liability has to remain with the individual.   

[+thebruce0]

Groundspeak doesn't profit from your geocache. They profit from people who wish to use the services they provide to list your geocache in a location that will guarantee people will see and may be interested in finding it (presumably why you placed it in the first place; or maybe the 2nd or 3rd place)

 

I don't place and list geocaches to give Groundspeak money. I can do that because Groundspeak is able to support the work needed to let me do that; and for free.  If I want additional perks and functional benefits, I can choose to give Groundspeak money for those benefits in a premium membership.

 

Groundspeak earns nothing from my geocache.  They can earn pennies from me choosing to list my geocache on their website by plopping a couple of ads on the page. But they earn the most from people who choose to pay them membership fees to access greater features and services.

Edited October 23, 2018 by thebruce0

[+thebruce0]

That said, I think incentivizing good cache owners is a great idea. But I can't see a way to do it that wouldn't be abused for competitive behaviour and actually a detriment to joy of finding them.

Most COs will say they get their joy from people enjoying their hides. That typically comes from feedback... and yep, the influx of "TFTC" logs was a problem. But Touchstone linked to evidence that Groundspeak recognizes this.

 

The experiment of upvoting good logs is, ultimately, a way of pushing for an improved ownership experience - better feedback - and more positive feedback is gained by providing better geocache experiences. As long as the voting doesn't get abused, it can theoretically lead to a win all around.

[Keystone]

This thread is for discussing the idea of giving out favorite points based on cache ownership.  Let's stick to that topic.  Off topic posts are subject to removal.  Thanks!

[+niraD]

16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That said, I think incentivizing good cache owners is a great idea. But I can't see a way to do it that wouldn't be abused for competitive behaviour and actually a detriment to joy of finding them.

"Aye, there's the rub!"

 

One of the things I respect about Groundspeak is that they avoid creating incentive to hide geocaches other than the desire to own and maintain a geocache for the long term. They don't allow challenge caches that require cache ownership. They don't allow seed caches. They don't allow "Curse of the FTF" caches. And so on. I think creating incentive for people to hide caches is a step in the wrong direction.

 

It would be nice to create incentive for people to hide good caches. But I can't see a way to reward the many different concepts of what a good cache is, without also rewarding bulk caches placed purely for numbers, and without encouraging people who can't (or won't) maintain their caches from hiding them anyway just to get the reward.

[+dprovan]

41 minutes ago, Keystone said:

This thread is for discussing the idea of giving out favorite points based on cache ownership.  Let's stick to that topic.  Off topic posts are subject to removal.  Thanks!

Thanks for trying to get the thread back on track. But I don't think the proposal has anything to do with favorite points. I read the proposal as being that these activity based souvenir let COs earn points towards the souvenir through their caches being found.

 

Edited to add: Well, my clarification is still valid and useful, but I just read the other thread, so now I understand that Keystone just got confused about which derailed thread he was posting to. Since both got derailed the same way, I can understand the mistake.

Edited October 23, 2018 by dprovan

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Thanks for trying to get the thread back on track. But I don't think the proposal has anything to do with favorite points. I read the proposal as being that these activity based souvenir let COs earn points towards the souvenir through their caches being found.

 

Correct.

 

It's clear from the OP that this thread isn't about Favourite Points at all.

[+colleda]

To me, souvenirs are incidental. I would geocache regardless. I don't know your, or your local geocachers', financial situation but a trip down to Singapore would certainly supply fodder for souvenirs. I have used busses between KL and Singapore and it was not expensive.

[+cerberus1]

10 hours ago, Barnyard Dawg said:

I am sure other CO's has similar thoughts, I would love to read about the ideas that float around.

 

My "thoughts" are this is a hobby... 

If I ever get to the point where I need an incentive to participate in a hobby, I'll quit it and try another.

Kinda surprised this isn't merged yet with the "other" thread, as both are asking to be rewarded for participating in a hobby.

[+Barnyard Dawg]

39 minutes ago, colleda said:

To me, souvenirs are incidental. I would geocache regardless. I don't know your, or your local geocachers', financial situation but a trip down to Singapore would certainly supply fodder for souvenirs. I have used busses between KL and Singapore and it was not expensive.

 

Stay with me with my rant, I will swing back to my original topic...

Yes, true, Singapore is an option, but how many caches do they have in Singapore?  And how many times could you go there with recent requirements asking for 100 caches at a time?  The one excuse you read a lot is that one has to travel to find caches... but what distance would be reasonable for a virtual souvenir?  Are you seriously expecting someone to collect every cache in their country and the next?  Not realistic for you, not for me either!

It is difficult to understand for those neck-deep in caches, but on average, a city in the US/EU has more caches within a half hour radius than we have in entire Southeast Asia, and likely without seas and mountain ranges in between!  Not all caches sit in an urban setting!  We have 500 caches in Malaysia, but many sit on islands, mountains, all the way in Borneo (well past Singapore), and the effort is certainly not in proportion to the reward, especially when compared to our counterparts in the US/EU.  The excuse of travel doesn't hold up for long, and whereas someone neck-deep in caches would easily be able to find 100 caches over a weekend, to meet that same requirement you would ask people elsewhere to travel to other countries.  How is this even fair and sustainable?

For the last souvenirs, the requirements were seriously high, Hidden Creatures required 100 caches, Planetary Pursuit 500 individual points, and even the current campaign, you can tell it was designed to accommodate higher numbers!  The number of souvenirs to collect has exploded this year, and with it the demands!  Now, power players would always be asking for bigger challenges, and they will hardly stop caching after reaching set goals, however, that takes the fun out of the game for many people who do not have the time, means, or hunger for numbers.  It excludes players at grassroot level.  It excludes players in far flung places who try hard but struggle with a limited amount of caches and struggle to attract new players because everything is on lock.  For those who have been playing for a few years the problem is aggravated by the fact that most caches within reasonable distance or the higher valued FP would have been found a long time ago.  Souvenirs for International Geocaching Day, EarthCache Day, ...we love those, because they have a realistic requirement and you know about them well in advance!  If HQ insists on making it more difficult... go Mary Hyde and slap a puzzle on it, but don't up the numbers!

 

...swinging back...

Because there is no way to offset the lack of players and caches, again, because the app limitations (it's a GPS game, drive growth by unlocking it for countries that lack players and cache density), the suggestion I have is simple: to offset the lack of caches, allow cache owners to collect points through finds on their caches and give them a leg up!  This does not have to result on a flood of throwdowns!  Terms and conditions could include that a eligible caches have a specific amount of FP or age, meaning that any CO would be forced to make it a good one and keep it out there for a while!

So the questions were, what is your opinion on this, and in extension, what other possible ideas are floating about that might make it more interesting for players to hide a cache?

I know some will argue the virtual rewards were meant for that, but the algorithm made sure players in entire continents were skillfully excluded.  But that's a different story all together.

[+Barnyard Dawg]

14 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

My "thoughts" are this is a hobby... 

If I ever get to the point where I need an incentive to participate in a hobby, I'll quit it and try another.

Kinda surprised this isn't merged yet with the "other" thread, as both are asking to be rewarded for participating in a hobby.

 

You are right!  But this would not be asking for a reward to place a cache!

 

You get +1 and multiple points for finding a cache, so why would a cache owner not be rewarded at least 1 point (not FP!) for providing you with that cache, at least during challenges?  The suggestion, as I am trying to point out, would help cache owners in low density areas to collect a few extra points and stay in (in this case) the souvenir side-game.  And to be frank, it's about time HQ would introduce an aspect to the game that specifically benefits cache owners instead of always focusing on finding caches, as mentioned before, without cache owners, no geocaching!

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Groundspeak doesn't profit from your geocache. They profit from people who wish to use the services they provide to list your geocache in a location that will guarantee people will see and may be interested in finding it (presumably why you placed it in the first place; or maybe the 2nd or 3rd place)

 

I don't place and list geocaches to give Groundspeak money. I can do that because Groundspeak is able to support the work needed to let me do that; and for free.  If I want additional perks and functional benefits, I can choose to give Groundspeak money for those benefits in a premium membership.

 

Groundspeak earns nothing from my geocache.  They can earn pennies from me choosing to list my geocache on their website by plopping a couple of ads on the page. But they earn the most from people who choose to pay them membership fees to access greater features and services.

Each and every cache is part of the whole that is Geocaching.  This whole is what causes people to become members as well as premium only caches and various features,  so indirectly GS makes money on your cache and mine.     And I'm fine with that.

[+niraD]

12 minutes ago, Barnyard Dawg said:

So the questions were, what is your opinion on this, and in extension, what other possible ideas are floating about that might make it more interesting for players to hide a cache?

I think the idea of making it "more interesting for players to hide a cache" will ultimately prove counter-productive. No one should hide a cache for some external reward. One should hide a cache because one wants to own and maintain a cache for the long term. If people start hiding caches for some external reward, then that will ultimately hurt the game.

[+Barnyard Dawg]

Just now, niraD said:

I think the idea of making it "more interesting for players to hide a cache" will ultimately prove counter-productive. No one should hide a cache for some external reward. One should hide a cache because one wants to own and maintain a cache for the long term. If people start hiding caches for some external reward, then that will ultimately hurt the game.

 

Isn't this exactly what is being done for those finding the caches?  Are finders not being rewarded with external rewards?  The phenomenon of power trails, chasing numbers, and so on?  And as an indirect result, because of the sheer numbers they collect, many can't be bothered to leave proper logs anymore, TFTC or at best a generic log for the day.  Would you claim this is a positive development?  How many cache owners complained about the incentives for cache hunters?  Try none!

 

The game is not just about finding, throw cache owners a bone, because y'all would not be playing your game without us!

[+Barnyard Dawg]

Let's be honest here, HQ doesn't always get it right, we know it, they know it, but if they are about to make another mistake, let it favor the cache owners for once!

[+L0ne.R]

Just now, Barnyard Dawg said:

Are finders not being rewarded with external rewards?

 

Yes. And I think that's a downfall. When find counts became commodities/rewards the pastime tipped, and now we have millions of caches placed for numbers. 

[+L0ne.R]

Just now, Barnyard Dawg said:

Let's be honest here, HQ doesn't always get it right, we know it, they know it, but if they are about to make another mistake, let it favor the cache owners for once!

 

Adding more reward will encourage addicted hiders who saturate with set-and-forget caches and discourage those who hide a handful of well-maintained caches they've invested time, effort and money into. I'd like to give incentive to the latter cache hider. 

[+Barnyard Dawg]

4 hours ago, Touchstone said:

 

Related thread on a limited roll out of a new feature that it sounds like you are unaware of:

 

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/350149-great-story-and-helpful-log-options/

 

Indeed, I did not know about this... interesting, and I hope the evaluation of this feature will be positive!

[+justintim1999]

2 minutes ago, BillyGee said:

Hope you are fine when they decide to archive your cache because it looks a bit out of the guidelines (which, they say, are not rules). Today. It was OK yesterday but today, well... it is their site, right? You will be able to publish it somewhere else. Now that is an incentive for cache "owners" (in order to stay on topic ).

If they come to the conclusion that my caches are no longer of any value I'll archive them myself.  That being said I'm not to worried about it.   It's been my experience that as long as you're up front and honest about following the rules and maintaining your caches there's not going to be a problem.    As of today I haven't seen any changes to the guidelines that make me want to move on. 

[+Barnyard Dawg]

1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Adding more reward will encourage addicted hiders who saturate with set-and-forget caches and discourage those who hide a handful of well-maintained caches they've invested time, effort and money into. I'd like to give incentive to the latter cache hider. 

 

They upped the number of souvenirs dramatically, HQ has clearly been pushing power play!  There are actually no rules for those who find the caches, all they have to do is sign the logs and post a TFTC.  This is not and should not have to be the case for cache owners.  As for my idea to favour cache owners, I do not believe it is a bad one, and it would be up to Groundspeak to set terms and conditions, as mentioned, cache age and minimum FP requirement would already force a CO to take care of a cache long term, and exclude throwdowns.  Abuse is only possible if there are no rules and if reviewers fail as watchdog.

[+thebruce0]

23 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Each and every cache is part of the whole that is Geocaching.  This whole is what causes people to become members as well as premium only caches and various features,  so indirectly GS makes money on your cache and mine.     And I'm fine with that.

Yes, of course money is made indirectly. There's no point refuting that. Every cache listed is another draw for a geocacher to use the site. My point was that the geocache is not their property; they provide the resources to let us list them. They don't make money off our containers. They make money off people who pay for additional benefits provided by the website they maintain for us to us. The hobby is free. They are technically giving away use of their website (other than running ads on listing pages), and incentivizing additional features to encourage membership and support revenue for the entire branded property.

They don't make money of caches. They make piddly money off cache listings (so the more the better). And they make most of their money (educated guess) from memberships of people who want and will pay for more perks.

 

The incentive for people to hide caches would entirely depend on what is being provided. If what's being provided goes right back into hiding caches, then it can work. But if there's any value outside the joy of hiding caches as a hobby, then people will game it for personal gain. And when the activity gamed is placing caches, that necessarily affects the experience of people who find them.  Moreso than finding affects people who place them.

 

But we see the effect as mentioned above of what incentivizing finding geocaches has done. Whether it's souvenirs or stats or FTF competitions... those can and do have some negative effects on those who love hiding caches.

 

Which is one of the biggest reasons I'm in strong support of the upvoting feature of the logs, as long as they don't become another metric to be (easily) gamed.

(I wouldn't be surprised if some 3rd party app that already scrapes the website incorporates some level of statistical analysis of people's logs by picking up those votes; but I truly hope they don't)

 

The upvoting gives value to geocache finders, while at the same time pumps that reward back into the system for geocache owners. That cycle can be sustainable if it's hard for people to abuse.

[+justintim1999]

2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

They don't make money of caches. They make piddly money off cache listings (so the more the better)

Why dose it cost a bazillion dollars to run a commercial during the Super Bowl?    Because there are a bazillion people watching it and will see that commercial.    I'm sure GS makes money on adds but the amount of money depends on the number of people who will potentially see it.    The more members they have the bigger the advertising dollars will be.  

 

As usual I've found a way to get off topic so this is my attempt to get back on.

 

There should be some incentive  given to good cache owners who place quality caches.   What that incentive(s) could be I'm not sure but with this push for better cache maintenance I'd think that some sort of incentive would play well with that push.     Giving favorite points to cachers who don't have any because they spend most of their time developing new caches or maintaining existing ones makes sense to me because I'm in that very position.   What other ideas could be used?    

[+cerberus1]

25 minutes ago, Barnyard Dawg said:

You get +1 and multiple points for finding a cache, so why would a cache owner not be rewarded at least 1 point (not FP!) for providing you with that cache, at least during challenges?  The suggestion, as I am trying to point out, would help cache owners in low density areas to collect a few extra points and stay in (in this case) the souvenir side-game.  And to be frank, it's about time HQ would introduce an aspect to the game that specifically benefits cache owners instead of always focusing on finding caches, as mentioned before, without cache owners, no geocaching!

 

I realize you're talking about this hobby as a game, but you seem to assume that everyone is keeping score...     

 

I get "1 point" for finding a cache only because there currently isn't a way to mark it found from the system without a total. 

I'd be happy removing the "find count" entirely, and I know I'm not alone.  

When the hobby first started there were few caches, and benchmarks were added to "fill in the gap" until numbers got better.

There hasn't been a lack of COs in some time.  Most we know haven't expressed any needed incentives for their contribution to the hobby. 

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, Barnyard Dawg said:

Isn't this exactly what is being done for those finding the caches?  Are finders not being rewarded with external rewards? 

This is apples and oranges. We don't want to provide an incentive for COs to hide mundane caches and then forget about them. We want them to hide good caches and maintain the cache quality over time. In other words, I don't want COs motivated by hiding the cache; I'm only interested in COs that are motivated by the cache itself.

 

Seekers aren't making any kind of long term commitment. There's no downside to encouraging them to find more than they would otherwise want to.

[+Barnyard Dawg]

58 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

There hasn't been a lack of COs in some time.

 

You are assuming the situation is the same across the globe.  I can count the number of cache owners on my two hands and would have fingers to spare.  We have a chronic lack of players in general, and the app, the lack of local reviewers, all that is not helping!  We have reached our limits and can't make the game grow standing on one leg and our hands tied behind our backs.  The only way to offset the rising demand for points would be to award them in different ways.

[+Barnyard Dawg]

20 minutes ago, dprovan said:

This is apples and oranges. We don't want to provide an incentive for COs to hide mundane caches and then forget about them. We want them to hide good caches and maintain the cache quality over time. In other words, I don't want COs motivated by hiding the cache; I'm only interested in COs that are motivated by the cache itself.

 

Seekers aren't making any kind of long term commitment. There's no downside to encouraging them to find more than they would otherwise want to.

 

I did mention the downsides, but you're not willing to recognize them.

As a CO I can say the exact same thing about seekers, I am not motivated by the current batch of power cachers who gladly take but give nothing back.  Power play, chasing numbers, is what created the demand for trails and easy grabs, and is imho responsible for the bulk of lame TFTC logs.  The one thing I can agree on is that seekers are not committed to anything, they are however responsible for many of the woes we witness today.  You want good caches?  Motivate the COs in way or another.

 

And I will happily repeat, I'm not asking for a reward to place a cache!  I am asking for a reward for having it found!

 

You get +1 and multiple points for finding a cache, so why would a cache owner not be rewarded at least 1 point (not FP!) for providing you with that cache, at least during challenges?  The suggestion, as I am trying to point out, would help cache owners in low density areas to collect a few extra points.  And again, a cache age and minimum FP requirement would already force a CO to take care of a cache long term, and exclude and discourage throwdowns.  Abuse is only possible if there are no rules and if reviewers fail as watchdog.

[+The A-Team]

2 hours ago, Barnyard Dawg said:

They upped the number of souvenirs dramatically, HQ has clearly been pushing power play!

Actually, the number of finds required to participate in recent souvenir promotions has been pretty low. For example:

• Planetary Pursuit - As little as one find
• Hidden Creatures - As little as one find
• You might be a geocacher if... - At most, six finds (so far)

When compared with some of the earlier promotions where specific (and sometimes regionally-rare) cache types were required or there were complicated and confusing "friend" requirements, the more recent promotions are much more accessible to those who don't have many local caches available to find.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Some scheme for souvenirs for cache ownership would have no effect at all on me ... I just now went to look at my souvenirs for maybe the third time ever, just because of this thread. I couldn't care less about them!

 

Now if you could make it mandatory for finders to actually write logs on found caches, I'd be all for that and would consider that a great incentive to hide caches!

[+thebruce0]

Initially, I thought some kind of reward for finds on your caches would be intriguing, but even that could be games. There would be COs would not manage the logs on their caches. Problem with the cache? Don't worry, log it found anyway. A CO wanting that ownership reward would want to deter people recording they couldn't log it found. They'd encourage group caching; say it's perfectly fine if one person finds and the other 40 log it found, not a care in the world. If that wouldn't affect other people, I wouldn't have an issue. But illegitimate find logs do affect other geocachers, and that's why COs are prompted to watch and maintain their listing and log history and attempt to keep it accurate. I don't see how rewarding finds on a cache's CO encourages them to have a reasonably critical eye on Find logs.

[+funkymunkyzone]

@Barnyard Dawg I get what you are saying and I agree with you.

 

It's NOT about rewarding people for placing caches because there is a lack of caches somewhere.  It's NOT about scoring points for hiding caches.

 

It's simply that there's a souvenir where finding caches (with certain properties, and certain value placed on those properties) is the criteria for earning the souvenir.  And your suggestion is that you'd like to see finds on a CO's cache also contributing towards that CO earning the souvenir - so that it opens up that souvenir as being able to be earned even by geocachers in cache/cacher poor locations.

 

Those people who are not interested in souvenirs could really just look the other way as this would completely not affect them in any way.  Likewise, anyone thinking the OP is suggesting there needs to be rewards for hiding caches or think that "points" means anything to do with your find count, has missed the point.

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by funkymunkyzone

[+Barnyard Dawg]

3 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Actually, the number of finds required to participate in recent souvenir promotions has been pretty low. For example:

• Planetary Pursuit - As little as one find
• Hidden Creatures - As little as one find
• You might be a geocacher if... - At most, six finds (so far)

When compared with some of the earlier promotions where specific (and sometimes regionally-rare) cache types were required or there were complicated and confusing "friend" requirements, the more recent promotions are much more accessible to those who don't have many local caches available to find.

 

I'm forced off-topic here...

I have heard that argument before, alongside with "you can place more" and "you can travel".  Wow, what a cool challenge, I can get 1 from 12 souvenirs?  Awesome!  Thanks for throwing us that bone!  Let's make one thing clear, it's souvenir number 12 that would tell me if the challenge is achievable!

 

Let's look at the rules for a moment, because any challenge thrown must follow some basic ones (LINK)

 

Acceptable:

4.4 Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are plenty of qualifying caches to meet the challenge at the time of publication.

5.3 A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers.

 

Not acceptable

8.1 Challenges specifically excluding any segment of cachers.

9.x Time-limited caching.

12 Finding all or any percentage of the caches.

14 Competition rather than achievement.

 

Oh dear!  Looks like HQ messed up!  Oops!

 

Not everyone has enough caches, there will always be players who lose out. HOWEVER, HQ can include as many players as possible by reducing the requirements to 1 (EarthCache Day, International geocaching Day, and so on).  Sounds lame perhaps, but not as lame as requiring someone to find 20% of all caches in their country within 30 days.  Oh and don't worry, the next challenge will be easy, you only need to find another 20%!  At current pace they would have asked me to find 100% of all caches!  Let me ask you if you would find it reasonable if the next challenge would require everyone to find 20% of all caches in your country in 30 days, you love to travel, right?  What about 100%, you've got time, no?  You can place more, but oops you can't log your own, but no big deal to ask your friends to make a 100 cache favor, right?

 

My point being that those in low-density cache areas can't possibly keep up with that pace, and HQ would be excluding (ignoring) so many of them, it would hurt the game for sure!  Instead they should accommodate as many players as possible!  Keep the game family friendly, it should not be a competition, those into power play would not stop at 100 anyway!  Keep it real!

...as said, drifting off-topic, but it is difficult to argue in favor of something when the other party is unable to grasp the concept of having little to no caches available.  We have to play with the brakes on, going out and finding all of them is not an option, because the game stops right there.  To stay in the game, we become cache owners, we have no jasmers or fizzy grids to complete because we do not have the numbers, the souvenir side-game is one of the few things we can enjoy (until recently), ...is it then too much to ask for a few extra points?  I do not think so!

 

_end rant.

[+funkymunkyzone]

6 minutes ago, Barnyard Dawg said:

Let's look at the rules for a moment, because any challenge thrown must follow some basic ones (LINK)

 

Acceptable:

4.4 Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are plenty of qualifying caches to meet the challenge at the time of publication.

5.3 A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers.

 

Not acceptable

8.1 Challenges specifically excluding any segment of cachers.

9.x Time-limited caching.

12 Finding all or any percentage of the caches.

14 Competition rather than achievement.

 

Oh dear!  Looks like HQ messed up!  Oops!

 

I agree with you on the topic of the souvenir requirements, but here you are mixing up souvenir qualification with challenge geocache guidelines.  The two really have nothing to do with each other.

 

I get the comparison, that here is A (souvenir) and it has these requirements, and here is B (challenge cache) that has a set of requirements that have rules around how they can be created, but I think the two things are too far apart on the spectrum to actually say there is inconsistency between HQ's approach to the two.  First off, the souvenirs requirements are worldwide for anyone anywhere, whereas challenge caches, particularly in reference to 5.3 have a local component and are not necessarily judged by worldwide criteria - "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" can mean very different things in different places.

 

Edited October 24, 2018 by funkymunkyzone

[+Barnyard Dawg]

1 minute ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

I agree with you on the topic of the souvenir requirements, but here you are mixing up souvenir qualification with challenge geocache guidelines.  The two really have nothing to do with each other.

 

I get the comparison, that here is A (souvenir) and it has these requirements, and here is B (challenge cache) that has a set of requirements that have rules around how they can be created, but I think the two things are too far apart on the spectrum to actually say there is inconsistency between HQ's approach to the two.  First off, the souvenirs requirements are worldwide for anyone anywhere, whereas challenge caches, particularly in reference to 5.3 have a local component and are not necessarily judged by worldwide criteria.

 

 

No, the souvenir is just a reward for what is essentially a challenge.  The scale is different, the principle very much the same!  Geocaching is touted over and over as a global game, so by default they should include as many of their members as possible, and this can only done by keeping the requirements low.  This does not mean it has to be easy, Mary Hydes, Mission GC, Haunted Hides, ...yes, good fun!

[+Barnyard Dawg]

2 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

@Barnyard Dawg I get what you are saying and I agree with you.

 

It's NOT about rewarding people for placing caches because there is a lack of caches somewhere.  It's NOT about scoring points for hiding caches.

 

It's simply that there's a souvenir where finding caches (with certain properties, and certain value placed on those properties) is the criteria for earning the souvenir.  And your suggestion is that you'd like to see finds on a CO's cache also contributing towards that CO earning the souvenir - so that it opens up that souvenir as being able to be earned even by geocachers in cache/cacher poor locations.

 

Those people who are not interested in souvenirs could really just look the other way as this would completely not affect them in any way.  Likewise, anyone thinking the OP is suggesting there needs to be rewards for hiding caches or think that "points" means anything to do with your find count, has missed the point.

 

 

Spot on! +1

[+funkymunkyzone]

18 minutes ago, Barnyard Dawg said:

To stay in the game, we become cache owners, we have no jasmers or fizzy grids to complete because we do not have the numbers, the souvenir side-game is one of the few things we can enjoy (until recently)

 

I understand.  There are certain things you just accept as a fact of life in a cache poor area.  But souvenirs are arbitrarily created by HQ with arbitrary requirements, so maybe HQ could arbitrarily set those requirements a little bit differently so that people in cache poor areas don't miss out on them too