Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
rragan

GA experiment on inactive owners analysis

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, kunarion said:

Yet when you place a cache, you cannot know in advance that it's gonna last. OK, it's great cave.  But you must check it regularly anyway. 

If that's the way you think, you want to put it all on the CO. Alas, GS agrees with your attitude. You're talking as if seekers should never encounter problems because COs should go check on their caches frequently enough to catch all problems before any seeker does. That doesn't really make sense logically, but, moreover, accepting that idea moves us further away from a community of geocachers playing a game together towards being consumers of the product "geocaching". I understand why GS wants to do that. I'm not so clear why any geocachers are attracted by it.

 

The original plan, though, was that sometimes seekers will run into problems. And there were mechanisms, NMs and NAs, to allow seekers to report problems. Then the CO would know to spring into action. Those mechanisms are rarely used now.

 

47 minutes ago, kunarion said:

But in practice, we don't got them magic caves in Georgia.  What CO's do around here is get prodded enough to eventually go fix the totally messed up broken or missing container, and the log is all about how annoyed they are because "OK, waste of my time, I checked and it's still perfect as always!"  So this is a suitable place to Experiment on. 

Dunno why those COs were given so much leeway. I'd complain about that, too. But that's unrelated to this thread since those COs are active.

 

Not that your comment is off topic: I think most of the people heralding this as a good plan overlook the fact that it doesn't actually do anything about the problems they complain about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But that's unrelated to this thread since those COs are active.

 

When you clip what I said way out of context like that, it sure does look off-topic like I said like they're active!  That's some prime trolling right there!

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I'm not sure where you found old caches "standing the test of time" as fact, unless you have no concern for their condition.

Even most of the ones that are "pioneer" or "legacy" are on their second or third containers by now....

 

Looking back through my list of finds on very old caches, most are the original container with the original logbook, like this one from 2001:

 

f5af2499-fddd-4950-89bc-ed4b958f1cc9_l.j

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Looking back through my list of finds on very old caches, most are the original container with the original logbook, like this one from 2001:

 

Sure, like I said in the post to you, … location-specific.      :)  

 

But we can't say as "fact" , the blanket-statement "the really old ones have generally withstood the test of time" elsewhere though.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I'm not sure where you found old caches "standing the test of time" as fact, unless you have no concern for their condition.

I'm not sure why this is so difficulty to understand. They've been in the field for many years. By definition, that's standing the test of time.

 

2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Even most of the ones that are "pioneer" or "legacy" are on their second or third containers by now....

Not sure why that's important. They're still there. They're still working. Who cares which iteration of their container we're on?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, kunarion said:

When you clip what I said way out of context like that, it sure does look off-topic like I said like they're active!  That's some prime trolling right there!

I don't know why you're calling me names. Even in light of your response, by comment seems like a reasonable response to your point.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/1/2020 at 6:54 PM, dprovan said:
On 2/1/2020 at 4:03 PM, cerberus1 said:

I'm not sure where you found old caches "standing the test of time" as fact, unless you have no concern for their condition.

I'm not sure why this is so difficulty to understand. They've been in the field for many years. By definition, that's standing the test of time.

 

I think you did take the quote in the wrong context. What I read was that "old caches [in general] standing the test of time" is not a fact, it's an opinion based on a localized experience. You seem to have latched on to the specific examples as, correctly and factually, having stood the test of time.  I wouldn't think Cerberus would be arguing that those old caches, which are active, and old, did not stand the test of time... that's denying reality. I'd think cerberus is far above that.

 

On 2/1/2020 at 12:10 PM, dprovan said:
On 2/1/2020 at 9:46 AM, cerberus1 said:
On 2/1/2020 at 2:30 AM, barefootjeff said:

If you want to clean up the game, you'd do better targeting the newer caches rather than the really old ones as the latter have generally withstood the test of time.

You're last sentence (I feel) is only your opinion (and maybe location specific)…     

No, it's not an opinion. They have stood the test of time. That's just a fact.

See the miscommunication? What is "they"? Every single old cache? Obviously not, as many have been archived. Every single active old cache? Well of course, they're still active and are standing the test of time. What's being called an opinion is the claim that it would be better "targeting the newer caches rather than the really old ones as the latter have generally withstood the test of time."

 

All that said, this post is not in support of an opinion either way, just a look at the grammar that launched this odd disagreement :P

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/1/2020 at 6:54 PM, dprovan said:

I'm not sure why this is so difficulty to understand. They've been in the field for many years. By definition, that's standing the test of time.

 

Not sure why that's important. They're still there. They're still working. Who cares which iteration of their container we're on?

 

Some do.  A 20 year old container may count the same, and function the same, as the sixth iteration of a container for the same GC number, but that doesn't mean that finding something really old produces the same feelings as finding something new.  

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/3/2020 at 8:58 AM, thebruce0 said:

 

I think you did take the quote in the wrong context. What I read was that "old caches [in general] standing the test of time" is not a fact, it's an opinion based on a localized experience. You seem to have latched on to the specific examples as, correctly and factually, having stood the test of time.  I wouldn't think Cerberus would be arguing that those old caches, which are active, and old, did not stand the test of time... that's denying reality. I'd think cerberus is far above that.

 

See the miscommunication? What is "they"? Every single old cache? Obviously not, as many have been archived. Every single active old cache? Well of course, they're still active and are standing the test of time. What's being called an opinion is the claim that it would be better "targeting the newer caches rather than the really old ones as the latter have generally withstood the test of time."

 

All that said, this post is not in support of an opinion either way, just a look at the grammar that launched this odd disagreement :P

 

Shhhh...it's more fun just watching. I've noticed that most statements of substantial SOLUTION get ignored in the Forums, while oldies battle like (bleep) any opinions that don't agree with their own. It's the best fun there is next to finding or setting caches 👍

 

When all's said and done, GS owns the 'bat, ball, ballfield,  radiostation, concession stand' and makes the guidelines. Anyone else is just bleeding CO2 into the atmosphere. 😁

Edited by Jimrky
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/4/2020 at 8:26 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

Some do.  A 20 year old container may count the same, and function the same, as the sixth iteration of a container for the same GC number, but that doesn't mean that finding something really old produces the same feelings as finding something new.

Nor is it always the same for a 2 year old container. Could be better, could be worse. Still not seeing why that's relevant.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Listen in on the GeoGearHeads podcast this coming Thursday. Refreshing the Game Board will be the topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/10/2020 at 1:41 AM, rragan said:

Refreshing the Game Board will be the topic.

Unfortunately in some places, archiving old (still often in good condition) caches won't refresh the 'board'. They won't be replaced.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I wish that i had kept track of my LTF's in GSAK.

I've been LTF on a number of caches:

At least twice I've picked up a bunch of caches at owner's request because they wanted to archive them.

At least once I dropped a match box through a hole in some rocks and the owner didn't want to replace it.

At least once I was confronted by security in a parking lot and the cache was missing the next day.

At least twice I've trashed out broken, soggy messes with absentee owners and suggested archiving (in my early years)

Several others I've just noticed that I was LTF and don't know what happened.

 

As I read through this thread, I realized that I'm in favor of just about anything that thins the herd a bit. I wouldn't shed a tear if all powertrails disappeared. I would just yawn and go back to sleep if I woke up and all the parking lot skirtlifters had met their demise. And I've always thought that when  a cacher leaves the game and there is a problem with his/her cache, just let it die and let someone else have the space if it's worthy.

I do like finding old caches. I've logged a few replacements as finds. But it can get ridiculous. Traveling through New Mexico I looked for the oldest active cache and was excited to see that it was very near Albuquerque. But then I started reading the logs and saw that it had disappeared many years earlier but not archived. People were still reverently posting pictures of a pile of rocks where it had been and claiming a find on the OLDEST ACTIVE CACHE IN NEW MEXICO! Eventually someone did put a replacement container there but to my mind this was a travesty and I didn't bother to go look.

 

I've been thinking lately that nature is trying to tell us we've just gone way too far in a lot of areas.

Too many people

Too many cars

Too many Starbucks

And maybe, too many geocaches

 

Edited by hukilaulau
spelling
  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, hukilaulau said:

As I read through this thread, I realized that I'm in favor of just about anything that thins the herd a bit. I wouldn't shed a tear if all powertrails disappeared. I would just yawn and go back to sleep if I woke up and all the parking lot skirtlifters had met their demise. And I've always thought that when  a cacher leaves the game and there is a problem with his/her cache, just let it die and let someone else have the space if it's worthy.

--SNIP--

And maybe, too many geocaches

 

Maybe there are too many caches where you live, but that's not true everywhere. The left map below shows all the caches I've found in my local area since starting in 2013 and the right map shows what's here now.

 

DiminishingCaches.jpg.fa70282636ebe28a99e5acb852ab4415.jpg

 

Two things to notice. The number of caches on the right is far fewer than the number on the left, and a good proportion of the caches on the right are mine. If the herd gets any thinner here there won't be anything left for newbies to find.

 

I should also add that none of these caches, old or new, are "parking lot skirt lifters", as none are in parking lots and the lamp posts in this country don't have liftable skirts. There are also no power trails anywhere near here - the nearest would be 100km away by road in western Sydney. Many of the bushland caches here are more than ten years old and still in good condition, whether their owners are active or not. Sure, if a cache is decrepit it should be archived, but don't expect a new one to magically appear in its place because that's pretty unlikely.

 

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Covid-19 blew away most of the conclusions a person might have drawn from this. What should have been the high season hunting placing of spring summer 2020 has been severely distorted. 

 

I think the experiment did show that 5 years of no logs  and not logging onto the site is a pretty good check of whether there's an owner monitoring their caches.  The response number in that first month was tiny in both states.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Maybe there are too many caches where you live, but that's not true everywhere. The left map below shows all the caches I've found in my local area since starting in 2013 and the right map shows what's here now.

 

DiminishingCaches.jpg.fa70282636ebe28a99e5acb852ab4415.jpg

 

Two things to notice. The number of caches on the right is far fewer than the number on the left, and a good proportion of the caches on the right are mine. If the herd gets any thinner here there won't be anything left for newbies to find.

 

I should also add that none of these caches, old or new, are "parking lot skirt lifters", as none are in parking lots and the lamp posts in this country don't have liftable skirts. There are also no power trails anywhere near here - the nearest would be 100km away by road in western Sydney. Many of the bushland caches here are more than ten years old and still in good condition, whether their owners are active or not. Sure, if a cache is decrepit it should be archived, but don't expect a new one to magically appear in its place because that's pretty unlikely.

 

point taken. I would love to go caching around where you live!

Edited by hukilaulau
spelling

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×
×
  • Create New...