Re-finding Caches

[+Bush_Doc]

This may be a good idea or a bad idea. Only half baked. Just throwing it out there for discussion.  

 

Everybody loves a new cache; FTF s etc.  But as a cache owner a placed cache gets a flurry of finds soon after placement, mostly from local 

cachers and then the find rate settles to a more or less constant rate depending on where it is.  The main reason (as I see it) is that once you find a cache there is no on-line incentive to go find it again. What if Groundspeak would provide a reason for re-finding caches?   What if we could get credit for a second, third, four, etc find on an obviously older cache.  This gives more incentive to keeping old caches going.  There  would have to be rules such as a time span between re-finds (perhaps 1 year). It might include stats for the cache on how many re-finds the cache has or how often one cacher has re-found it.  Also incentive to revisit a TB hotel other than just picking up a tb. I think it might bring a whole new aspect to the game.  As I said -just a half baked idea. All comments welcome but please try to be constructive.  

[+Max and 99]

7 minutes ago, Bushman002 said:

This may be a good idea or a bad idea. Only half baked. Just throwing it out there for discussion.  

 

Everybody loves a new cache; FTF s etc.  But as a cache owner a placed cache gets a flurry of finds soon after placement, mostly from local 

cachers and then the find rate settles to a more or less constant rate depending on where it is.  The main reason (as I see it) is that once you find a cache there is no on-line incentive to go find it again. What if Groundspeak would provide a reason for re-finding caches?   What if we could get credit for a second, third, four, etc find on an obviously older cache.  This gives more incentive to keeping old caches going.  There  would have to be rules such as a time span between re-finds (perhaps 1 year). It might include stats for the cache on how many re-finds the cache has or how often one cacher has re-found it.  Also incentive to revisit a TB hotel other than just picking up a tb. I think it might bring a whole new aspect to the game.  As I said -just a half baked idea. All comments welcome but please try to be constructive.  

This has been discussed before. It won't happen.

 

You're right that it would add incentive: numbers, numbers, numbers!

 

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Max and 99

[+on4bam]

10 minutes ago, Bushman002 said:

 As I said -just a half baked idea.

 

Yes it is.

There was a time you could log a cache more than once but no more. Good thing.

There was a time you could "find" your own cache but no more. Good thing.

Now why would you re-log a cache? You don't have to find it but merely so to GZ and write your name in the log again. What's the challenge for that?

If it's a multi, would you go and "find" all stages again or just go to the final coordinates? If directly to the cache, why re-log a multi?

If it's a Mystery, do you re-solve it?

If you "found them all" ( (c) some other game) why not travel further from home? If that's not possible why not place one or more caches?

 

Our count is getting close to 10000 and we still have 1800+ unfound caches in a 20Km radius, 120+ within 5Km. No need to re-visit anything.

 

[+Michaelcycle]

I bike and hike past many caches I have already logged and I do that routinely. My principle objective is not to get a +1 but to enjoy the outdoors and get some exercise. If a new cache brings me to a nice place I did not know about or have never visited, great! But I am not going to stop visiting such a place if there are no more unfound caches there. 

 

[+captnemo]

I can think of at least 4 caches I have visited more then once.  I did so for a variety of reasons.  One was because it was a book exchange and I wanted new reading material.  One because it was a TB hotel and I wanted to drop and grab.  One because it has the most awesome geodes in the area and one because it was the very first cache I found and I wanted to find again it on my 10th anniversary.   

.

Always log with a note. These reasons make more sense then a smiley.

Edited February 24, 2020 by captnemo
clairfiy

[+niraD]

Yep. I've revisited a number of caches, often when taking newbies on a geocaching hike. I post a Note when I do that.

 

I don't need a Revisited log, or any other sort of "credit".

[+colleda]

If you want a record of subsequent "finds" you can log a Write Note.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, on4bam said:

Our count is getting close to 10000 and we still have 1800+ unfound caches in a 20Km radius, 120+ within 5Km. No need to re-visit anything.

 

With my count just over 1100, I have 73 unfound caches within a 20km radius and just 2 within 5km, but I have no desire to get any sort of credit for revisiting the caches I've found. I do sometimes revisit previously found caches, usually to drop a TB or if I'm out caching with friends who haven't found them, or sometimes just because it's a nice place to go for a walk, but the WN log is perfectly adequate to record those visits.

 

3 hours ago, Bushman002 said:

But as a cache owner a placed cache gets a flurry of finds soon after placement, mostly from local 

cachers and then the find rate settles to a more or less constant rate depending on where it is.

 

For some of my hides, that initial flurry is one or two finds and the more or less constant rate is near enough to zero, but no matter, I'll keep them active and visit them as needed as I put my caches in places I like to visit, and, just maybe, someone new will come along and enjoy the experience of finding them.

[+cerberus1]

When we used to see COs "finding" (and getting a smiley for ...) their own cache every time they did maintenance, I don't think it's a smart idea to go back to that silliness.

Similar to Michaelcycle,  we've often visited the areas of  caches we've found,  in most cases, the cache was found years ago.  

Of course many don't really get that "wow !" feeling pulling nondescript pill bottles 20' from roadside hides these days...

 - So maybe asking folks to place caches in more interesting places would be a good bet.  

We know of a few who "revisit" caches that safely house trackables, time showing that they held up better than most "hotels" we hear of.

People do that for that side-hobby, with no expectation of getting anything more than a smile by it's owner, happy it's still in play.  

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yes.  That was no longer permitted many years ago.  Though, someday, when I need a good hike, there is a cache that was archived for not having a state park permit, shortly after a TB was left in that cache.  Good reason to go back and visit.  But only log a find once.

[+MNTA]

Archive your caches and either rehide or let someone else have the area.

[+Ragnemalm]

16 hours ago, on4bam said:

 

Yes it is.

There was a time you could log a cache more than once but no more. Good thing.

There was a time you could "find" your own cache but no more. Good thing.

Now why would you re-log a cache? You don't have to find it but merely so to GZ and write your name in the log again. What's the challenge for that?

If it's a multi, would you go and "find" all stages again or just go to the final coordinates? If directly to the cache, why re-log a multi?

If it's a Mystery, do you re-solve it?

If you "found them all" ( (c) some other game) why not travel further from home? If that's not possible why not place one or more caches?

 

Our count is getting close to 10000 and we still have 1800+ unfound caches in a 20Km radius, 120+ within 5Km. No need to re-visit anything.

 

 

As was noted above, I started a similar thread. I insist that rewarding "re-visits" would be beneficial. My idea was to have a special "re-visit" log type, which must happen at least one year (or maybe even more) after your first visit and only once per cache or once per X years. It is very likely that something has changed during that time which makes the re-visit interesting.

 

Why would this be interesting and a good thing?

• Caches would get visited more often. When a cache isn't visited in years, the CO loses interest in it and won't check it out any more - nobody seems to care.
• Re-visiting a good cache is in my experience something nice. I logged it three years ago, let's see if it is still there, and how well I remember it! I am already doing it, logging as "note", but few others do.
• Cachers have something to do without travelling far. Driving 100km for finding a few petlings because you can't find anything nearby, that is not something I want to do too often. When I have another reason to travel, fine, but burning fuel for a few caches and spending time in a car instead of walking... no, not every day. Not everyone has many unfound nearby.

Give me a reason to go out in the forest, that's the important thing. Much of my caching today is about maintaining my own caches. That's also revisiting. Why should a cacher who is not a cache owner not have that reason for exercise? Give them a cache type for that to encourage this beneficial behaviour.

 

As with all geocaching, you could ignore the option if you want to, if it is not relevant for you. But for me it is.

[+hzoi]

17 hours ago, Bushman002 said:

But as a cache owner a placed cache gets a flurry of finds soon after placement, mostly from local cachers and then the find rate settles to a more or less constant rate depending on where it is.  The main reason (as I see it) is that once you find a cache there is no on-line incentive to go find it again.

 

Yup.  This naturally happens after a while.  But I don't think we need a new log, just a new approach.

 

An alternate solution would be, rather than Groundspeak creating a new log type or re-allowing multiple finds, for cache owners to archive old hides that aren't getting found anymore, remove those caches, and then come up with something new in a different location and/or encourage fellow cache owners to place something in the area recently vacated.  

 

At present, I tend to move around every couple years or so.  So far, I have usually managed to find places where others didn't already have hides to place our new caches.  (The one location we didn't was El Paso, Texas - and that was more because I was pretty busy with my job and knew we'd only be staying a year and a half, and so I just never got around to hiding anything.)  When my job inevitably moved us again, I picked up all the caches we'd placed and took those ideas to a new area.

[+on4bam]

39 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

Why would this be interesting and a good thing?

• Caches would get visited more often. When a cache isn't visited in years, the CO loses interest in it and won't check it out any more - nobody seems to care.
• Re-visiting a good cache is in my experience something nice. I logged it three years ago, let's see if it is still there, and how well I remember it! I am already doing it, logging as "note", but few others do.
• Cachers have something to do without travelling far. Driving 100km for finding a few petlings because you can't find anything nearby, that is not something I want to do too often. When I have another reason to travel, fine, but burning fuel for a few caches and spending time in a car instead of walking... no, not every day. Not everyone has many unfound nearby.

Give me a reason to go out in the forest, that's the important thing. Much of my caching today is about maintaining my own caches. That's also revisiting. Why should a cacher who is not a cache owner not have that reason for exercise? Give them a cache type for that to encourage this beneficial behaviour.

 

There's no reason not to re-visit for you then. Please do so, log a write note. The only difference is you won't get a +1 and since that is not important why add a new logtype

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

Caches would get visited more often. When a cache isn't visited in years, the CO loses interest in it and won't check it out any more - nobody seems to care.

 

Three of my caches have had no finders since the third quarter of 2018 but I still occasionally check on them to make sure they're in tip-top condition should anyone break the drought. Actually none of those three (one placed in 2015 and the other two in 2017) have ever needed any maintenance and would be my least likely ones to archive if I were to feel the need to do some pruning. The the cache that's causing me the most grief is a popular one that I adopted which is constantly being damaged or not rehidden properly by careless finders who just want their +1 at a tourist attraction. Lesson learnt.

Edited February 24, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+CAVinoGal]

6 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Caches would get visited more often. When a cache isn't visited in years, the CO loses interest in it and won't check it out any more - nobody seems to care.

Then it might follow the normal path of NM, NA, and archival and someone who IS interested can place a new cache in the location.  If the interest is not there to do that, then why is there a cache there in the first place?  

 

6 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Re-visiting a good cache is in my experience something nice. I logged it three years ago, let's see if it is still there, and how well I remember it! I am already doing it, logging as "note", but few others do.

That works for you - if few others are doing so NOW, would a new log type encourage them to do so?  I doubt it.  Continue leaving a note for your own records if you want that record of the revisit.

 

6 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

• Cachers have something to do without travelling far. Driving 100km for finding a few petlings because you can't find anything nearby, that is not something I want to do too often. When I have another reason to travel, fine, but burning fuel for a few caches and spending time in a car instead of walking... no, not every day. Not everyone has many unfound nearby.

We've found most of the caches within a 10 mile radius of our home - those we haven't are either not there, unsolved puzzles, one particularly challenging multi we are determined to get someday, or unmet challenges, though we've signed those logs and are just working on the challenges.  I don't need unfound caches to encourage me to walk - I walk for the exercise.  Unless you are trying to maintain a streak, (and would a "revisit" count for that, or only a new find?) then "burning fuel and spending time in a car" just to find caches doesn't happen.

 

6 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Give me a reason to go out in the forest, that's the important thing. Much of my caching today is about maintaining my own caches. That's also revisiting. Why should a cacher who is not a cache owner not have that reason for exercise? Give them a cache type for that to encourage this beneficial behaviour.

My reason for exercise is independent of my reason for geocaching; I would exercise (and I do) and walk regardless if there are caches along the way or not.  They add to the walk, yes, but I don't need the cache to encourage me to exercise.  You are saying there are people who would not walk, or visit places UNLESS they get a +1 in their stats?  Sad.

 

Caching is not the priority activity for us - it's a side note, a hobby - and if we can work it in with whatever else we are doing, we do.  If we make a run into town and all around us are caches we've already found, we aren't going to drive further to find one.  That's the beauty of geocaching for me - I don't HAVE to find one every day and I'm not always looking for caches.  Yes, we do events, and sometimes those days are pretty much devoted to caching, we meet up with others and cache our way to and from the events.  Most days we will simply see if there are new (to us) caches near wherever we are, and if we have time we will seek them out.  It's especially fun when traveling, but around home, we now get our satisfaction in the hobby by HIDING and maintaining caches for others to find.

 

 

[+thebruce0]

If you really want some kind of incentive, which I think is your key point here, since it won't happen in geocaching proper, build a site that will track keywords in Notes for revisits, and 'reward' people for 2+ revisits.  Project-GC does this with FTF counts.  Do something similar with a Revisit count, and you can parse all the stats of people worldwide who are 'playing' and provide badges people can share and plop into the profile HTM if they wish - you can track number of caches revisited, revisits per cache, limit revisits however you wish.  That's about the only sort of incentive mechanic you'd be able to build, really, which is somewhat feasible and seamlessly integrates with the existing system. There's no reason why not to post a note if a geocacher were to revisit and report on the cache's state, and include a tracking keyword for this external 'statistic'(as per PGC's FTFs).

(this is not my endorsement of the idea, just posing one idea of how it might work if one were to truly want to implement such an idea )

[+barefootjeff]

On 2/24/2020 at 9:19 PM, Ragnemalm said:

Cachers have something to do without travelling far. Driving 100km for finding a few petlings because you can't find anything nearby, that is not something I want to do too often. When I have another reason to travel, fine, but burning fuel for a few caches and spending time in a car instead of walking... no, not every day. Not everyone has many unfound nearby.

 

Nearly all my finds in the last six months have required an hour or more of travelling, either by car or public transport. They're either in the Sydney region south of the Hawkesbury River (just getting to the river bridge is 40km by road from here) or up north towards Newcastle or beyond.

 

 

But the solution to that isn't relogging the caches I've already found; for many of those, getting there once was an adventure but getting there again would be a chore. It's a mix of accepting that an increasing percentage of my caching activity will be just doing checks on my own hides and planning new ones, with occasional day trips away when I feel like doing some finding, and trying to encourage more new hides by others in this region.

Edited February 26, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+HunterandSamuel]

On 2/23/2020 at 12:24 PM, Bushman002 said:

This may be a good idea or a bad idea. Only half baked. Just throwing it out there for discussion.  

 

Everybody loves a new cache; FTF s etc.  But as a cache owner a placed cache gets a flurry of finds soon after placement, mostly from local 

cachers and then the find rate settles to a more or less constant rate depending on where it is.  The main reason (as I see it) is that once you find a cache there is no on-line incentive to go find it again. What if Groundspeak would provide a reason for re-finding caches?   What if we could get credit for a second, third, four, etc find on an obviously older cache.  This gives more incentive to keeping old caches going.  There  would have to be rules such as a time span between re-finds (perhaps 1 year). It might include stats for the cache on how many re-finds the cache has or how often one cacher has re-found it.  Also incentive to revisit a TB hotel other than just picking up a tb. I think it might bring a whole new aspect to the game.  As I said -just a half baked idea. All comments welcome but please try to be constructive.  

I love your idea. A "refind" souvenir would be cool too!