A little tale that contains a reflection about Geocaching, Adventure Labs, and the relations between them

[+L0ne.R]

9 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm not seeing any trend towards minimal effort or quality in the containers for caches I'm finding. And I, for one, appreciate a physical container for caches that require them. So I reject your assertion that there's any widespread movement towards not requiring containers. I don't mean I have a vague feeling you're probably wrong; I mean what you're saying is completely inconsistent with geocaching in my area. I'm sorry you're seeing something different, but I think you've made a mistake by thinking it's anything but a local phenomenon.

 

As a hider would you put yourself in the category of hiders that consider the cache container and log essential important parts of the pastime? Do you hide good quality caches, with logbooks instead of  a little scroll or bit of paper? Then monitor and maintain those caches? Have you ignored rows of DNF reports and allowed reviewers to archive your caches? 

Edited November 2, 2020 by L0ne.R

[+lee737]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

The depersonalised and almost anonymous way ALs are played is taking that away, making it just a bunch of individuals wandering around while staring at their phones.

[+Mausebiber]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The depersonalised and almost anonymous way ALs are played is taking that away, making it just a bunch of individuals wandering around while staring at their phones.

 

Doesn't this looks familiar to you?  This is not a bunch of individuals wandering around, this is the next generation.

.

.

.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by Mausebiber

[+L0ne.R]

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

TLDR

 

Adventure Labs are just a string of virtual caches. Sure there are some differences, for now, about how they are logged, and that you can't see them on the main geocaching map, but that's it.

 

Seems to me the OP is most concerned about someone else's "score" beating their "score". And the solution there is obvious: Stop caring about the "score" because it's meaningless, go caching for yourself instead of competing with others.

[+thebruce0]

9 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Sure there are some differences, for now, about how they are logged, and that you can't see them on the main geocaching map, but that's it.

 

"Some" differences - much more than the 2 you just mentioned, and well documented in the numerous threads discussing Adventure Labs. Can't wave a hand and pretend they don't exist The only they they have that's similar is that there's no physical container, you travel to a location to gather information, and.. you log it online. Everything else (including what you log, how, and even the nature of the "log" online and how it's viewed) is different.  It's the very, very basic experience that's similar, that's about it.

[+funkymunkyzone]

1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

 

"Some" differences - much more than the 2 you just mentioned, and well documented in the numerous threads discussing Adventure Labs. Can't wave a hand and pretend they don't exist The only they they have that's similar is that there's no physical container, you travel to a location to gather information, and.. you log it online. Everything else (including what you log, how, and even the nature of the "log" online and how it's viewed) is different.  It's the very, very basic experience that's similar, that's about it.

 

I guess it all depends on how much weight you put on those other things.

 

If you want to dig right down to the core, geocaching is a physical game - go to this physical location and find something (physical). All the online stuff, logging, maps, all came later as evolution of the game over time.

 

Seems like what we have here is a curious aspect of human nature which is to accept all the evolution up until some arbitrary date, let's say the date someone starts geocaching, and pretend that's how it has always been, and shun any new evolution as somehow ruining everything.

 

Just about everything about the current game of geocaching didnt exist in the beginnings of the game, including the "score", logging on the website, etc.

[+thebruce0]

2 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

shun any new evolution as somehow ruining everything.

 

Again, I don't see anyone shunning or saying ALs should go away entirely (I can't say no one has said that though).  But the primary and very significant concern being raised is about users' find counts being adjusted with +1 for every stage, among suggestions for improving the game or fixing bugs (as would be typical of any new/test game).

ALs, in and of themselves, are fine. But they are a unique platform, with the only tie in being the +1 smiley per stage, and being shown in stats as its own count like cache types. All else on the technical level is different. And on the experience level, they are most like a cross between Virtuals, Wherigos, and perhaps Geotours.

Again, this is not bad in and of itself, but the implementation is a subjectively grey area because it's neither here nor there. (and it's technically still in a test/beta/experimental phase)

[+funkymunkyzone]

4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But the primary and very significant concern being raised is about users' find counts being adjusted with +1 for every stage,

 

This is really too subjective to even respond to. "Very significant" in your opinion and a handful of others. Personally, I've only witnessed this expressed here on the forum by a vocal minority. Out in the real world, and I've spoken with many in our geocommunity about ALs, I haven't come across a single person who has this concern. In my experience it has 100% been me that raised it like "some people are concerned about..." to which so far the unanimous response has been effectively "yeah I can see that, but I like it how it is". Of course YMMV.

[+IceColdUK]

8 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

In my experience it has 100% been me that raised it like "some people are concerned about..." to which so far the unanimous response has been effectively "yeah I can see that, but I like it how it is".

My little unscientific Facebook survey (scroll up a page or two), had just over 2 to 1 liking it as it is.  Still a majority but  certainly not unanimous.

 

9 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Seems to me the OP is most concerned about someone else's "score" beating their "score".

I can’t speak for the OP, but I don’t care about others stats in the slightest.  I just think it’s illogical, and I’d have been happier to see fewer finds in my own stats.

 

(Besides, the scoring works the same for us all, so I don’t see why the OP would feel in any way disadvantaged.)

Edited November 7, 2020 by IceColdUK
Typo

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

But the primary and very significant concern being raised is about users' find counts being adjusted with +1 for every stage,

 

This is really too subjective to even respond to. "Very significant" in your opinion and a handful of others.

 

It wasn't in relation to people who are fine with the status quo. It's my observation of complaints - whether in the forum, on social media, or in person. The primary, and very significant concern, relative to other 'complaints' or 'suggestions' is about that +1 smiley for every stage. Sure, it's subjective, but it's not a wild, limited, echo chamber type guess on my part. It's a whole lot of observation in multiple contexts since Adventure Labs were a thing (since entering a keyword gave you +1 smiley). Even in mega events, people would do them because whoah that's a whole lot of finds at the event just for answering a question at a table.  Believe me, the excitement was there, and plenty of people commented about it. I don't dispute that you, perhaps, haven't seen nearly the same response, but that's the definition of subjective - it's not the same observation for everyone.

 

3 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

response has been effectively "yeah I can see that, but I like it how it is"

 

That's the 'status quo' gang, who typically would be pleased either way, and whichever side is 'current' typically counts them for their own side. But let's say it always began as +1 for the set of stages, that 'status quo' gang would likely (yes an assumption) likely say the same thing - they like it the way it is (because the point of contention isn't relevant to them).

 

And ya, generally speaking, people would be happier and less angsty if it didn't matter to anyone

 

2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I just think it’s illogical, and I’d have been happier to see fewer finds in my own stats.

 

Likewise, and it's one of the main reasons I'm not so gung-ho about doing them all, as some people in my own region are.

 

Many have stated they wouldn't be as excited to do them if they only awarded 1 find instead of 5 or 10.  Just as more would be more likely to do them (myself included) if they counted as 1 just like multis, virtuals, earthcaches, etc.  And as has been expressed in these forums, it's not always about competing and comparing with others. Numbers have meaning, and to some it's a personal meaning, a record of something, for reference or whatever value. But the inflation of numbers based on an exception to the standard is throwing people off.  That's the 'primary and very significant concern' as I put it amongst those who remain at least somewhat critical of the system in place.

[+bflentje]

Good God, some of you need to actually spend more time geocaching.. or Adventure Labbing.

[+dprovan]

8 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Out in the real world, and I've spoken with many in our geocommunity about ALs, I haven't come across a single person who has this concern.

Is that because they didn't notice? I don't pay any attention to my numbers, so I doubt I would have noticed the one-per-stage find count if I hadn't read about it in the forums.

 

7 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I can’t speak for the OP, but I don’t care about others stats in the slightest.  I just think it’s illogical, and I’d have been happier to see fewer finds in my own stats.

Yeah, that's my feeling about it. Well, actually, I can even see the logic behind it, so I wouldn't call it illogical, I just find one find per lab more obvious and intuitive.

 

By the way, it didn't changed my mind or preference, but I did find it a little more logical when I got more credit for doing a longer, seven stage AL.

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, bflentje said:

Good God, some of you need to actually spend more time geocaching.. or Adventure Labbing.

Funny! Nothing could be more pointless than a post pointing out that a conversation is pointless.

[+funkymunkyzone]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

Is that because they didn't notice? I don't pay any attention to my numbers, so I doubt I would have noticed the one-per-stage find count if I hadn't read about it in the forums.

Again, just my personal experience, but yeah they notice - most people it seems do actually like "scoring smileys" as quickly as they can.  Myself, I don't really care and I've done relatively few ALs - nothing to do with the find count but I'm just not massively into all of the ones that are around me.

[+funkymunkyzone]

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

That's the 'status quo' gang, who typically would be pleased either way

That's a little dismissive of a whole bunch of people's opinions.

 

Tbh I think you are completely writing off the fact that the original lab caches you did at mega events were one smiley per lab cache find, even when they were grouped into a themed series.  That kinda creates an expectation.

[+MartyBartfast]

12 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Adventure Labs are just a string of virtual caches.

I don't see it like that, I see 1 Adventure lab as just one virtual with a string of stages.

 

e.g. https://coord.info/GC88ZRR is 1 virtual with 7 locations to visit, 7 answers to provide, and 1 find at the end of it.

if someone placed a multi there with exactly the same stages and questions that would still be 1 find at the end,  similarly an EarthCache there (if appropriate) with 7 questions to answer would still be 1 find; but if someone placed an AL there with exactly the same stages and questions that would be 7 finds at the end (excepting that the maximum number of stages for an AL is 5).

 

And it's that inconsistency that's my main problem with them.

 

Edited November 7, 2020 by MartyBartfast

[+bflentje]

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

Funny! Nothing could be more pointless than a post pointing out that a conversation is pointless.

 

What's even funnier is that you felt compelled to reply. You might need to geocache (or Adventure Lab) more often.

[+dprovan]

5 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

17 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Adventure Labs are just a string of virtual caches.

I don't see it like that, I see 1 Adventure lab as just one virtual with a string of stages.

However you see them, they are currently implemented as if they were a series of virtual caches.

 

GS made an arbitrary but logical decision. I agree with you: it makes more sense to me for them being treated numerically as a single cache. But there are logical reasons for treating them as a series of caches. For example, there are a couple ALs now where I've only done a few of the stages, and it might take me a while to do more of them. I might never complete them. While I don't care about such things, I can understand someone feeling disappointed to have completed some of the stages -- which you have to concede are mechanically independent -- and not gotten any credit for it. I agree that one way to look at it is like a multicache, so I shouldn't get credit until I complete them, but another perfectly logical way to look at it is I've done 2 caches in a tightly coupled series of caches.

 

(Just for the record: I still doubt this was a carefully considered conscious decision by GS. I suspect it was just a quirk of the implementation. But there's no reason to not treat it as if it were an explicit decision, although I wish GS would own up to it and defend it for themselves instead of leaving it to people like me who don't particularly agree with the choice to reconstruct and explain the hypothetical logic.)

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, bflentje said:

9 hours ago, dprovan said:

Funny! Nothing could be more pointless than a post pointing out that a conversation is pointless.

What's even funnier is that you felt compelled to reply. You might need to geocache (or Adventure Lab) more often.

I was already in the pointless conversation, so wasting time responding to your criticism made perfect sense and was deathly serious even though we all knew it would be pointless.

 

It was funny enough when you took the time to dismiss the conversation as a waste of time, but what's super funny is arguing about whether it was funny for you to waste time pointing out that the conversation was a waste of time. Stop! My sides are aching!!

[+dprovan]

 

On 11/1/2020 at 2:42 PM, L0ne.R said:

As a hider would you put yourself in the category of hiders that consider the cache container and log essential important parts of the pastime? Do you hide good quality caches, with logbooks instead of  a little scroll or bit of paper? Then monitor and maintain those caches? Have you ignored rows of DNF reports and allowed reviewers to archive your caches? 

Sorry, I missed this comment last weekend when it was directed at me.

 

First, I don't understand why you're interested in my behavior. We're discussing trends. Having said that, I don't know why you wouldn't expect me to follow the prevailing behavior I'm reporting. But since you ask: yes, I maintain my caches to the same high level I see other COs maintaining theirs. Should I be insulted that you considered otherwise?

 

Second, you've mistaken your preferences for an objective standard of quality. You can dislike bison tubes as much as you want, but using a bison tube is not evidence that a CO didn't carefully consider the cache or the container and its quality.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

GS made an arbitrary but logical decision. I agree with you: it makes more sense to me for them being treated numerically as a single cache. But there are logical reasons for treating them as a series of caches. For example, there are a couple ALs now where I've only done a few of the stages, and it might take me a while to do more of them. I might never complete them. While I don't care about such things, I can understand someone feeling disappointed to have completed some of the stages -- which you have to concede are mechanically independent -- and not gotten any credit for it. I agree that one way to look at it is like a multicache, so I shouldn't get credit until I complete them, but another perfectly logical way to look at it is I've done 2 caches in a tightly coupled series of caches.

 

If you only complete some of the stages of an AL, how do you record that anywhere in a log? Or even let the CO see that you've done it (unless you're in the first three)? At least for a partially completed multi you can post a WN with an account of your progress to date.

[+thebruce0]

14 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

21 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

That's the 'status quo' gang, who typically would be pleased either way

That's a little dismissive of a whole bunch of people's opinions.

 

Nope, that's from a lifetime of observation and understanding that most people in the middle of any 'controversy' aren't nearly as vocal and make a ruckus either way, and thus tend to favour non-change over all the effort and work and controversy of change.

 

14 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

I think you are completely writing off the fact that the original lab caches you did at mega events were one smiley per lab cache find

 

Nope that was addressed.

 

 

6 hours ago, dprovan said:

I agree with you: it makes more sense to me for them being treated numerically as a single cache. But there are logical reasons for treating them as a series of caches.

 

Yeah, the best logical argument I've seen, or the best parallel explanation, would be treating them like a geotour. An "Adventure Lab" is essentially a geotour of virtual caches.

 

The reason I think why it's a bigger issue is because they're not Virtual Geocaches, but more often tend to be enter-a-word-in-a-box-in-the-app-for-a-smiley.  Sure, each stage/location can absolutely be much more than that - and I I prefer to see that in a creative AL - but the vast majority are go-here-and-enter-a-word. Because of the prevalence of those, the 'bar' standard is a little lower than a full-out (and paid) geotour of actual geocaches (which more often tend to be really great well-maintained and produced experiences.

 

But technically speaking, yeah, they seem most similar to a geotour of virtual caches.

 

 

6 hours ago, dprovan said:

Just for the record: I still doubt this was a carefully considered conscious decision by GS. I suspect it was just a quirk of the implementation.

 

Agreed!  And it's still arguably in experimental phase.

[+Lynx Humble]

43 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Agreed!  And it's still arguably in experimental phase.

Since March 2019.... 

[+The Jester]

12 hours ago, bflentje said:

 

What's even funnier is that you felt compelled to reply. You might need to geocache (or Adventure Lab) more often.

And what are you doing in here, shouldn't you be out geocaching (or Adventure Labbing) yourself, instead of joining in?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 11/7/2020 at 6:41 AM, MartyBartfast said:

I don't see it like that, I see 1 Adventure lab as just one virtual with a string of stages.

 

e.g. https://coord.info/GC88ZRR is 1 virtual with 7 locations to visit, 7 answers to provide, and 1 find at the end of it.

if someone placed a multi there with exactly the same stages and questions that would still be 1 find at the end,  similarly an EarthCache there (if appropriate) with 7 questions to answer would still be 1 find; but if someone placed an AL there with exactly the same stages and questions that would be 7 finds at the end (excepting that the maximum number of stages for an AL is 5).

 

And it's that inconsistency that's my main problem with them.

 

 

I've also done an Intercache (listed as a puzzle) cache that had about 7 virtual stages and a final physical cache that resulted in one found it log.  Each of the virtual stages was  a question that had to be answered in the Intercache web app.   An Intercache could be essentially identical to an Adventure labs cache (plus a bonus), but because it a AL app instead of a web application, one can get 5 found it logs instead of one.

[+barefootjeff]

On 11/8/2020 at 11:19 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

If you only complete some of the stages of an AL, how do you record that anywhere in a log? Or even let the CO see that you've done it (unless you're in the first three)? At least for a partially completed multi you can post a WN with an account of your progress to date.

 

A bit more on this, I've now had quite a few people who've answered some but not all of the locations on my two adventures, but I have no idea who they were or why they didn't complete it. Was the terrain too tough? Did they get to the headland at high tide and couldn't reach the final location? Did it start raining? Are my questions ambiguous? Are they armchair loggers? I have no idea.

[+thebruce0]

38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

A bit more on this, I've now had quite a few people who've answered some but not all of the locations on my two adventures, but I have no idea who they were or why they didn't complete it. Was the terrain too tough? Did they get to the headland at high tide and couldn't reach the final location? Did it start raining? Are my questions ambiguous? Are they armchair loggers? I have no idea.

 

Yes! I concur. I'm trying to tweak my AL to be better for people to complete, but I can't tell who/how/why the stage completions are different past the first 3 to complete them. No idea who to contact about why they may have stopped after stage 3 or 4; why is there a bottleneck there for completions? No idea... And unless they contact me, they may never complete it... We've got to get a full list of users. =/

[+fizzymagic]

46 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Yes! I concur. I'm trying to tweak my AL to be better for people to complete, but I can't tell who/how/why the stage completions are different past the first 3 to complete them. No idea who to contact about why they may have stopped after stage 3 or 4; why is there a bottleneck there for completions? No idea... And unless they contact me, they may never complete it... We've got to get a full list of users. =/

 

For me, I never finished my second one because the app was so broken it was not worth the trouble.  But I've heard that they fixed some of the issues so that may not be the case any more.

 

I do a lot of my caching when I have around 15 - 20 minutes of free time.  If your Al takes a lot longer than that to complete, I would expect to get a significant number of people who start but never finish it.  When you talked about stopping after stage 4, I thought, "Wow, sounds like quite an involved task!"  Spending an hour on a single AL does not sound very appealing to me.

 

Do you make it clear before the seekers start on the AL how long and involved it will be?  It might be that people do not know what to expect.

 

But by no means should you take me as a good example.  My Al experiences have been pretty uniformly poor, so I have mainly avoided them.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by fizzymagic

[+thebruce0]

9 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

If your Al takes a lot longer than that to complete, I would expect to get a significant number of people who start but never finish it.

 

Hopefully (since there are no ratings or indications beyond the description) enough disclaimer in the front-facing text will shape people's "expectation." =/

 

4 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

Spending an hour on a single AL does not sound very appealing to me.

 

Well that's the thing, it's a mentality, an unwarranted (imo) expectation. Plenty of geocaches (for one smiley) can take much longer. The DT and disclaimer 'warns' people that it's not a quick/simple/typical AL+bonus. So, hopefully people heed that and don't expect it to be. 

But then, this likely plays into why user ratings beyond a Favourite point have been avoided. No matter how much an experience describes what to expect, for some people it may not matter and it could pile up 1* ratings merely because they don't like its style. *shrug*  At least it can only be rated once it's complete, so if someone gets fed up and moves on, they can't "downvote" it.

Nonetheless, I certainly don't want to have a creative experience that people don't like, so any feedback to help improve it is always welcome (and hopefully all owners think like that). I feel the pain if you come to the point of having to log a DNF or give up on a smiley, especially after a lot of work. 

 

Ultimately it's a tradeoff for what kind of experience you want to provide, and how 'accessible' you want it to be. Get loads of positive feedback with a quick and simple experience (which doesn't mean uncreative of course), or a deeper experience that might put some people off and give low ratings... *deepsigh*

[+thebruce0]

Fun note, in no part of the adventure lab is someone finding a geocache

At least the bonus is a geocache. 

[+barefootjeff]

22 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

I do a lot of my caching when I have around 15 - 20 minutes of free time.  If your Al takes a lot longer than that to complete, I would expect to get a significant number of people who start but never finish it.  When you talked about stopping after stage 4, I thought, "Wow, sounds like quite an involved task!"  Spending an hour on a single AL does not sound very appealing to me.

 

Do you make it clear before the seekers start on the AL how long and involved it will be?  It might be that people do not know what to expect.

 

But by no means should you take me as a good example.  My Al experiences have been pretty uniformly poor, so I have mainly avoided them.

 

Apart from the local active cachers (whom I could count on the fingers of one hand), anyone else doing either of my ALs would have to travel a reasonable distance just to get to the area so I doubt there'd be anyone doing it during their lunch break or whatever, expecially for the one who did all but stage two on both. In the overall description I've stated the distance that needs to be traversed and, for the first one, the elevation change along the way since that's fairly significant. The second one is along the beach so there's essentially no elevation change at all. There are a couple who did all but the final stage of that one but they might have come at high tide when access to that stage requires a fair bit of rock-hopping (it's an easy level walk at low tide). Then there's someone who did the first two stages of the first one and gave up. That was two months ago so I'll doubt they'll be back now, whoever they were.

 

But how is a CO supposed to learn and improve things when there's no mechanism for feedback on unsuccessful attempts, other than direct contact? Perhaps I'll get some face-to-face feedback if we ever get to have events again here.

[+dprovan]

On 11/7/2020 at 4:19 PM, barefootjeff said:

If you only complete some of the stages of an AL, how do you record that anywhere in a log? Or even let the CO see that you've done it (unless you're in the first three)? At least for a partially completed multi you can post a WN with an account of your progress to date.

What you're pointing out is that logging for ALs are non-existent. I don't think the completed AL's logging is significantly better than no long at all. But that's a problem with ALs, completed or not, so I don't really see it has much relevance to the question of whether each stage should count for a find.

[+barefootjeff]

8 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But that's a problem with ALs, completed or not, so I don't really see it has much relevance to the question of whether each stage should count for a find.

 

I guess it's just that they get four smileys with no way to write any sort of log for an outcome that, on any other multi-stage cache type, would have been a DNF or at least a WN. It's almost as if COs are being intentionally kept out of the picture once the AL goes live and the first few finders go through.

[+GeoElmo6000]

On 10/30/2020 at 9:43 PM, thebruce0 said:

The overwhelming criticism seems to be (and I'd wager this is the tipping point) that every stage of an Adventure Lab counts as a single find each. I won't reiterate the details of that as they've been outlined a few times above.

 

You've seen my video.  My biggest criticism is that geocaching HQ took everything they took as sacred to geocaching, including the 528 foot rule, reviews, and many other things, and broke all their own rules, and then combined it into the main game.

 

In case anyone is interested: 

 

[+mustakorppi]

13 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

No idea who to contact about why they may have stopped

On the other hand, I have no desire to be asked by a CO to explain my goings.

[+thebruce0]

4 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

On the other hand, I have no desire to be asked by a CO to explain my goings.

Well, you don't have to answer

If the intent is to make something better for everyone, I don't see why everyone should be blocked from attempting to find a way to do so.  Personally, I wouldn't ask everyone who attempted it, necessarily, but certainly friends who make an attempt and don't complete it. Why? How can I help and make it better? I want you feel good and have a fun time, and you know, find geocaches.

[+MNTA]

On 11/7/2020 at 10:35 AM, dprovan said:

HGS made an arbitrary but logical decision. I agree with you: it makes more sense to me for them being treated numerically as a single cache. But there are logical reasons for treating them as a series of caches. For example, there are a couple ALs now where I've only done a few of the stages, and it might take me a while to do more of them. I might never complete them. While I don't care about such things, I can understand someone feeling disappointed to have completed some of the stages -- which you have to concede are mechanically independent -- and not gotten any credit for it. I agree that one way to look at it is like a multicache, so I shouldn't get credit until I complete them, but another perfectly logical way to look at it is I've done 2 caches in a tightly coupled series of caches.

 

 

 

Your argument here could easily apply to multi caches. I've found several with over 500 miles of travel in different directions, you do not do all those stages in one day. I remember hearing about some multis in Australia that cross the continent.  

 

Would love a smiley for each completed stage. But the rules says one. AL in my opinion should be treated the same all or nothing motivate you to complete them. The multis did for me. My 5 AL were all in the same room and unlocked the location of a mystery cache within the same room. So I actually got 6 should have just been 1.

 

But that is my opinion and don't care if GS changes the rules again or not. They probably won't. I also won't say I'll never do another AL but at this time I'll stick with traditionals and the random mystery and multi.  

[+OneEighth]

I'm not exactly a fan of Adventure Labs but I also don't see how it affects anyone who wishes to not participate.

Adventure Labs do not appear on the Geocaching map so you can completely ignore it if you choose.

[+MartyBartfast]

1 hour ago, OneEighth said:

Adventure Labs do not appear on the Geocaching map so you can completely ignore it if you choose.

The new trend is to place Adventure Lab bonus caches, which do appear on the regular Geocaching map and while they can still be ignored it's irritating to see them crop up and then have to ignore them dotted around your home location.

[+IceColdUK]

1 hour ago, OneEighth said:

I'm not exactly a fan of Adventure Labs but I also don't see how it affects anyone who wishes to not participate.

Adventure Labs do not appear on the Geocaching map so you can completely ignore it if you choose.

I’ve enjoyed the ALs that I’ve done - I don’t want to ignore them, but that doesn’t mean I like the way they’ve been integrated into the main website.

 

And we’re promised (I think) further integration.  I’ll be interested to see what’s to come...

[+thebruce0]

I don't see "having to ignore" as a unique issue - there are plenty of caches I can't do (without aid, such as beacons, climbing gear, scuba, etc), and I can ignore those as well, so AL bonus caches just fit in that class.  That doesn't give them a pass, it still means ignoring is a recommended option, but it's not a new annoyance, it's just another cache type to add to the ignore list if you choose.

 

As for multis, that actually be a good argument for making ALs a great distance. Multis that are that distance, you only get one smiley. But if you make an AL with 100 mile gaps, it's almost like each stage IS a different "cache" and could earn its own smiley.  So I'd say large-scale adventure labs and smiley-per-stage could actually be arguments for each other

[+igator210]

2 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

The new trend is to place Adventure Lab bonus caches, which do appear on the regular Geocaching map and while they can still be ignored it's irritating to see them crop up and then have to ignore them dotted around your home location.

 

Same thing could be said about paddle caches. There are over 100 such caches near me and there are people that won't be able to get them.

 

Currently there are only about a dozen bonus caches near me. 

[+dprovan]

9 hours ago, MNTA said:

Your argument here could easily apply to multi caches. I've found several with over 500 miles of travel in different directions, you do not do all those stages in one day. I remember hearing about some multis in Australia that cross the continent.

But I'm not arguing for a change in multicaches. I'm not making an argument for anything. I'm just explaining why the way ALs work might appeal to some people.

 

 

[+dennistubaplayer]

Time to watch the fur fly 

[+OneEighth]

19 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

The new trend is to place Adventure Lab bonus caches, which do appear on the regular Geocaching map and while they can still be ignored it's irritating to see them crop up and then have to ignore them dotted around your home location.

Yes, that is correct but there are thousands of puzzle caches that require you to do things that are not "typical" of geocaching. So I still don't see where the problem is. 

[+coachstahly]

6 hours ago, OneEighth said:

Yes, that is correct but there are thousands of puzzle caches that require you to do things that are not "typical" of geocaching.

 

At which point in time, assuming you did those things correctly, you go out and find a "typical" geocache and get credit for a find on the site.  Part of the issue with these bonus caches, at least as I see it, is that the thing you do before being able to go look for it (playing the AL) allows you to claim multiple finds (5 or perhaps more) for things that aren't visible on the standard site and then you get another find once you find the AL bonus.  6 finds for the 1 cache that appears on the map.

 

There are a few on here that claim that we're attempting to spoil everyone else's fun but all we're actually pointing out is the irregularity that exists between ALs and all other cache types.  It doesn't sit right with me (or others apparently) but that doesn't mean we want them removed.  There's been enough interest in the community that they appear to be popular and enjoyed.  Perhaps it's the find count that makes them popular or perhaps it's the newness that makes them popular.  Most likely it's a combination of a variety of factors and not just one singular reason.  I don't think they're going away anytime soon but the implementation of them just doesn't have the same allure for me that all the other cache types do.

 

Personally, I would prefer they follow one of two paths.  1 - they get integrated into the site as a new cache type and also follow the standard 1 cache, 1 find set up. 2 - If they can't get integrated into the site, they should be put onto their own platform (as they already are) and the find count shouldn't be included in the find count maintained on the site for all other geocaching types.  That's just how I see it and hope that it might be updated.  I'm not holding my breath and yes, I've chosen to ignore them by not downloading the app to see what they're about.

[+RocTheCacheBox]

On 11/11/2020 at 11:07 AM, igator210 said:

Same thing could be said about paddle caches. There are over 100 such caches near me and there are people that won't be able to get them.

And some paddle caches get 5 terrain rating!

The fact that that I can float down a river in 80 degree weather in my shorts, in an canoe, drunk. Row up to an island in the river and grab a T5 cache from a branch hanging over said river without getting out and earn the same as terrain rating as someone at over 15,000 feet, climbing towards the summit of Mont Blanc (GC2BVRY) is ridiculous.   

But that's the way it is because "special equipment"

Edited November 12, 2020 by RocTheCacheBox

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

But that's the way it is because "special equipment"

Exactly. Terrain that requires special equipment (which includes scuba gear, a boat, or rock climbing gear) is by definition five-star terrain.

 

9 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

The fact that that I can [...] earn the same as terrain rating

There's the source of your confusion. The terrain rating is not something you earn when you find the cache. The terrain rating is a tool for the cache owner to communicate the general nature of the "Physical effort needed to arrive at coordinates" to potential seekers.

[+cerberus1]

27 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

The fact that that I can float down a river in 80 degree weather in my shorts, in an canoe, drunk. Row up to an island in the river and grab a T5 cache from a branch hanging over said river without getting out and earn the same as terrain rating as someone at over 15,000 feet, climbing towards the summit of Mont Blanc (GC2BVRY) is ridiculous. 

But that's the way it is because "special equipment" 

 

Many of us have walked a mile out on ice, 10 degrees in Winter, instead of paddling on a warm, spring day to find a 5T cache too.    

We have a couple 5Ts, and all we did simply showed with the gear needed for that day.  The one above, it was just crampons and ice axes.

In this hobby, a cacher doesn't "earn" anything from D or T ratings.  They just sorta let you know what you're in for.  

There is another location hobby site that does that...