Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
barefootjeff

Archive your lonely or unfavourited caches

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

If this or any other blog post doesn't fit your idea of a good time, then you can just ignore it, instead of wailing and gnashing your teeth about how Groundspeak has once again failed to come up with the perfect geocaching solution for poor old Jeff. You're not the Son of Sam, and the geocaching blog is not the demonic dog next door that commands you to do things against your better judgment.

 

How many times do I have to say that my concern is NOT about me or my caches, it's about the impact such suggestions will have on those communities where there are few existing caches and even fewer new ones? It wouldn't affect me if all the old caches in my area were archived tomorrow as I've already found them, but it would most certainly negatively impact newcomers to the game and visitors to the area. The same goes for any place where caches are a limited commodity, where all these suggestions to archive existing less popular caches and to discourage placement of new ones that aren't going to get lots of FPs are counter-productive.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

To me that seems backwards. The advice they gave seems to have the intent of reducing "mundane" caches - those that generally don't earn FPs or generate 'buzz' by people aiming to seek them out for their rewarding geocaching experience.

 

Except that this advice to archive caches and allow for new ones, is simply that - new caches, not necessarily great or even better caches, just archive ones that for whatever reason don't get visited often, or haven't been winning the flawed popularity contest that is FPs.  Ironically, given that many highly favourited caches (in my experience anyway) are blatant rule breakers (I know, a totally different debate), this could be a case of encouraging leading by the wrong examples altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

They have encouraged cache owners to create FP worthy caches and caches that more people will want to find

 

 

Only 1 in 10 finds can be awarded a FP... so it stands that 9 out of 10 cache finds are inherently being nudged towards HQ's "archive and make way for a better cache" advice, even if they are actually good caches.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Only 1 in 10 finds can be awarded a FP... so it stands that 9 out of 10 cache finds are inherently being nudged towards HQ's "archive and make way for a better cache" advice, even if they are actually good caches.

 

No. The blog article was only intended to make people look at their hides and decide whether it made sense to archive the lowest quality among them. A couple of possible ways of assessing that were presented. There's no need to read more into the article than that.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

No. The blog article was only intended to make people look at their hides and decide whether it made sense to archive the lowest quality among them. A couple of possible ways of assessing that were presented. There's no need to read more into the article than that.

 

I get that, M10B, but I disagree with the two methods presented because I don't believe they correlate very well with "lowest quality".  In my personal experience they have no reliable relation to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:
1 hour ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

No. The blog article was only intended to make people look at their hides and decide whether it made sense to archive the lowest quality among them. A couple of possible ways of assessing that were presented. There's no need to read more into the article than that.

 

I get that, M10B, but I disagree with the two methods presented because I don't believe they correlate very well with "lowest quality".  In my personal experience they have no reliable relation to each other.

 

Yep.

 

"High quality" cache (micro-sized magnetic key holder on guard rail): 2341 finds (52 this year) and 160 FPs...

 

HighQualityCache.jpg.ce41334e20868e40636a431da9ffbad9.jpg

 

"Low quality" cache (regular-sized fishing tackle box on cliff top): 5 finds (0 this year) and 2 FPs...

 

LowQualityCache.jpg.d2b74d07633f1a049c3f1f78e5bf321b.jpg

 

For hzoi's benefit, neither of these are mine nor do I have any personal stake in whether they're archived or not. Both these caches provide an enjoyable experience to those who find them and there ought to be room in the game for both styles regardless of their statistics.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

"Low quality" cache (regular-sized fishing tackle box on cliff top): 5 finds (0 this year) and 2 FPs...

 


‘Lonely’, certainly but I don’t see 40% FPs an indication of ‘low quality’!

 

34 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Both these caches provide an enjoyable experience to those who find them and there ought to be room in the game for both styles regardless of their statistics.


I don’t think anybody would argue with that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

‘Lonely’, certainly but I don’t see 40% FPs an indication of ‘low quality’!

 

It's probably the CO's lowest-ranked cache using the criterion for quality suggested in the blog, namely the number of recent finds and the number (not percentage) of FPs. The Cache Owner's Dashboard, which is what the blog was initially about, doesn't show percentage FPs.

 

I'm not questioning which of these caches is better quality, because quality is in the eye of the beholder and we all have different eyes, rather what I'm questioning is why the question is being asked at all, and why any caches that aren't missing or broken should be even vaguely suggested for archival.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
 On 12/7/2020 at 2:43 PM, thebruce0 said:

 

Please stop reading into their advice. They did not say it's a good idea to archive older caches that are still in good condition. They said consider if a cache should be archived (age isn't a factor) if it's not receiving FPs (perhaps found a lot but not getting FPs may be an indication it could be better - entirely subjective) or is rarely found (also entirely subjective). Nor did they say hide a new one in their place; which of course is an option if said cache owner may want to place a new cache.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 12/3/2020 at 3:47 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

My reading of the suggestion was to allow a second find after five years, not nullify existing finds. Not that I'd want to do either, as for me caching is mostly about discovering new and interesting places and, well, they're not new and not as interesting the second time around. There are some T4 and T4.5 caches that really pushed me out of my comfort zone and, while I'm glad I plucked up the courage to do them, they're not the sort of places I'd want to keep going back to. That's probably why I don't own any T4.5s as even just doing routine visits to my T4s leaves me scratched and sore and needing a day or two to recover.

 

I have no problem with their suggestion to players to archive moribund caches that they can't really commit to anymore. It's sound advice. 

If I have a problem it would only be the idea of tying it to "favourite" points in some way.

 

Partly for this reason, I think the "moderators" (or whatever) at Groundspeak would probably want to not set anything to auto-disable or auto-archive. Maybe give the bosses a notification, if a cache has been inactive for 2+ years, then they can investigate by looking it up, then by contacting the CO, and so on. I imagine that for the extremely remote and hard-terrain caches, there has to be some leeway given - and quite frankly I can't imagine a computer program doing it automatically would have the necessary amount of common sense. 

 

The same could go for trackables - a way to "flag" trackables that have not moved / logged any activity for 1 or 2 years (and are not in the hands of the TO). Then someone can contact a CO to check if the flagged TB is in their cache, and/or message the TO to declare their TB officially missing in action.

 

Basically, IMHO the only automatic thing should be flagging long-term inactive caches or TB's for "follow-up". There has to be some gradient of accessibility considered too, a sort of pent-up "excess demand" in an area; you wouldn't want to create a system that auto-deletes lonely wilderness caches - which would basically turn them into either archaeological artifacts or litter.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:
10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

To me that seems backwards. The advice they gave seems to have the intent of reducing "mundane" caches - those that generally don't earn FPs or generate 'buzz' by people aiming to seek them out for their rewarding geocaching experience.

 

Except that this advice to archive caches and allow for new ones, is simply that

 

No, it's advice to consider archiving once you've discerned the impact that making FP-worthy caches and experiences people desire to find can have on your cache creation and hiding strategies and on your geocaching community. It is NOT "advice to archive caches".

 

 

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Yep.

"High quality" cache (micro-sized magnetic key holder on guard rail): 2341 finds (52 this year) and 160 FPs...

 

So? If that's what that community likes, then go for it. It may not be what you like or consider 'quality', but clearly others do. This whole thing has to do with shaping your local geocaching landscape. If you don't want to see what you think are bad caches, then encourage caches you think are good - typically that's done by placing them. The ones no one wants or likes will slowly fade away (especially if advice such as HQ's is heeded).  So when it comes to HQ, who has to deal with the worldwide general landscape and feedback received, this is how they chose to encourage what is generally considered, worldwide, to indicate a quality geocache or experience: FP-worthy and desirable to find.

 

I still can't fathom how people think this advice to consider FP-worthy and desirability - however that's interpreted -  is a "bad thing".  (and no need to parrot the 'because they are suggesting archiving' soundbite - that is not a universally bad thing, and is ultimately up to the CO consider anyway, as repeatedly explained)

 

 

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

"Low quality" cache (regular-sized fishing tackle box on cliff top): 5 finds (0 this year) and 2 FPs...

 

Who said that's "low quality"?? (or that the prior one was "high quality"?)   Only if you assume that quality is based solely on the stats (which is not what the advice said).

I'd guess the COs of both would not decide to archive either of them, because as you said:

 

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

these caches provide an enjoyable experience to those who find them and there ought to be room in the game for both styles regardless of their statistics.

 

Yep, so it's up to the CO decide whether they're "worth" keeping or not. Especially once they've considered the impact of those two factors in the general context.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, mysterion604 said:

The same could go for trackables - a way to "flag" trackables that have not moved / logged any activity for 1 or 2 years (and are not in the hands of the TO). Then someone can contact a CO to check if the flagged TB is in their cache, and/or message the TO to declare their TB officially missing in action.

Oh, good. That way I can release a trackable with a mission to visit extremely remote/lonely caches. When someone drops my trackable into such a cache, the CO will start getting nagged about the trackable before the next person visits the remote/lonely cache.

 

Be careful what you wish for. I already know geocachers who avoid placing caches large enough for trackables because they're tired of being nagged about trackables that someone logged into their caches.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Who said that's "low quality"?? (or that the prior one was "high quality"?)   Only if you assume that quality is based solely on the stats (which is not what the advice said).

 

The blog article suggested a declining number of finds and lack of FPs as a way of assessing a cache's quality. I didn't say that's the only way and I just gave those two as examples to show what you get when you apply that method to real-world caches, which is why I put "high quality" and "low qualilty" in inverted commas. I also said "quality is in the eye of the beholder and we all have different eyes" and my argument isn't about which method of ranking caches by quality is better, it's about the need to be ranking caches at all, especially when the purpose of the ranking is to suggest consideration for archival.

 

My concern is that a CO taking that suggestion to heart might end up archiving caches that are still quite servicable and enjoyable but just not "up there" in the finds/FP stakes, and that concern isn't about me or my community, it's a broad concern for the whole caching community, particularly those outside the cache-saturated big cities, who are likely to end up worse off as a result.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, IceColdUK said:


‘Lonely’, certainly but I don’t see 40% FPs an indication of ‘low quality’!

 


I don’t think anybody would argue with that.

...Depends. I don't wish to start this argument again here, but I think the context of the surrounding cache landscape matters more than high FP percentage. E.g. it's worth considering if the "room" for a very limited audience cache should be in a central location, especially if there are multiple other such caches in the same vicinity.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

No, it's advice to consider archiving once you've discerned the impact that making FP-worthy caches and experiences people desire to find can have on your cache creation and hiding strategies and on your geocaching community. It is NOT "advice to archive caches".

 

 

Not sure why you cut off the actual point of the sentence you quoted...?

 

10 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Except that this advice to archive caches and allow for new ones, is simply that - new caches, not necessarily great or even better caches,

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, niraD said:

Oh, good. That way I can release a trackable with a mission to visit extremely remote/lonely caches. When someone drops my trackable into such a cache, the CO will start getting nagged about the trackable before the next person visits the remote/lonely cache.

 

Be careful what you wish for. I already know geocachers who avoid placing caches large enough for trackables because they're tired of being nagged about trackables that someone logged into their caches.

 

 

Yeah, that might be one downside of such an idea. But there are so many phantom-zone TB's, it did seem like a a way to perhaps reduce that problem. 

 

Personally it did not strike me like a good idea to place a TB into some remote hard-to-visit cache, aside from placing one as a prize for a FTF.

 

I guess if a person wants their TB to visit the hardest-to-reach places, that is up to them. I've got a notion to set a goal for a TB of mine to visit caches in the uttermost north (GC60BX6 and its close neighbours), but at the same time if someone actually drops the TB there, that could very well mean it goes to the TB gulag never to return. 

 

However, I think far more trackables end up in limbo in more ordinary (and easy to check) caches, just scooped up by people who never bother logging them at all, or something like that. I have no proof of this, but I imagine the people who go to T5 mountain tops and deep wilderness caches are probably hardcore & diligent enough to scoop and log any TB's they find there. 

 

If the main issue at hand is over-saturation of neglected caches in certain areas, then some system of flagging truly neglected caches can help start the process, not end it. I do not consider a deep wilderness cache "neglected" just because it gets few visits - in a way, it is designed to get just a few visits.

 

But on the issue of the over-saturation of missing TB's in cache inventories, what can one do but implement something similar to flag the lack of activity in a TB ?  Maybe a CO doesn't need to be bothered continuously over every TB, but just a simple note to check for missing TB's the next time they do cache maintenance might suffice. Once confirmed a TB is not in its listed cache, it can be declared MIA and not appear in the inventory anymore, and this can be tied to logging cache maintenance specifically. It doesn't have to force a CO to do maintenance, just be a "since you're already there..." thing.

 

Besides, a CO who doesn't want to deal with TB issues can just state "PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE ANY TRACKABLES HERE" on their cache description. Some already state conditions for leaving or not leaving certain kinds of swag.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

Except that this advice to archive caches and allow for new ones, is simply that - new caches, not necessarily great or even better caches,

 

From the blog:

Quote

Is there something about your most Favorited cache(s) that could be incorporated into a new cache?

 

Surely that suggests a desire for 'better' caches?  And the new cache submission process has been updated to put an emphasis on hiding 'better' caches too.  (I get that the relationship between FPs and good caches is tenuous, but in I'm prepared to give HQ the benefit of the doubt: when they say "FP-worthy" I read "good quality".)

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

My concern is that a CO taking that suggestion to heart might end up archiving caches that are still quite servicable and enjoyable but just not "up there" in the finds/FP stakes, and that concern isn't about me or my community, it's a broad concern for the whole caching community, particularly those outside the cache-saturated big cities, who are likely to end up worse off as a result.

 

I'm going to quote from the blog again (and make the same point I made two pages ago!):

Quote

The cache owner dashboard may also help you decide if it’s time to make room for a new cache on the geocaching gameboard.

 

If cache saturation is not a problem, then surely room is not needed for new caches.  Why read further?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The blog article suggested a declining number of finds and lack of FPs as a way of assessing a cache's quality.

 

A way. Not the way.

 

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I didn't say that's the only way and I just gave those two as examples to show what you get when you apply that method to real-world caches, which is why I put "high quality" and "low qualilty" in inverted commas. I also said "quality is in the eye of the beholder and we all have different eyes" and my argument isn't about which method of ranking caches by quality is better, it's about the need to be ranking caches at all, especially when the purpose of the ranking is to suggest consideration for archival.

 

But by labeling them high and low you are effectively saying that is what they are being considered by HQ. But you don't seem to consider them that. So why would you assume that the cache owners would as well? And why would you assume that every cache owner in the world would interpret HQ's advice in that same way?  If you believe quality is in the eye of the beholder, then so can all those cache owners who, just as you did, read HQ's advice and decide for themselves whether their caches are "high quality" or "low quality".

 

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

My concern is that a CO taking that suggestion to heart might end up archiving caches that are still quite servicable and enjoyable but just not "up there" in the finds/FP stakes, and that concern isn't about me or my community, it's a broad concern for the whole caching community, particularly those outside the cache-saturated big cities, who are likely to end up worse off as a result.

 

So if a cache owner decides to archive their cache which they have chosen to archive - by their own choice, not a mandate - you would rather force them to keep it active? Okay...

You seem to be assuming that cache owners who have caches that merely have fewer FPs and aren't still visited often will take away a cache that you think (not they) would be fun to visit, and you don't like that. I get that, but there's a whole lot of assumptions and projecting going on.  Can you not trust a cache owner to make that ownership decision for themselves - knowing that HQ is encouraging cache owners to create FP-worthy caches and desirable experiences?  I mean, if that's what the cache owner want to do now, why can't you trust that they'll continue to do so? Or that someone else will?  If you think that way about "quality" (at least per your region), why do you assume they do not?

 

I can't count how many awesome caches I would love to visit out there everywhere around the world. I can't possibly fathom being upset that any cache owner have decided - for whatever reason - to archive any of them before I got to visit them. I'm not worried about HQ's general, worldwide, advice to cache owners to consider making generally better geocaches and experiences, especially since that doesn't by definition classify for archival all the geocaches that I want to find, even though some may be caught in the mix.

 

Again, the advice being given is absolutely interpreted regionally and individually, and is universally an encouragement towards a positive. This is a good thing.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

How many times do I have to say that my concern is NOT about me or my caches

 

I don't know, how many times are you going to dive into threads like this "wondering" why Groundspeak wants you to archive your caches?

  

20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

it's about the impact such suggestions will have on those communities where there are few existing caches and even fewer new ones

 

So you're one of a few who can distinguish a suggestion to consider something in a blog from a command, and most geocachers are just too feeble minded to draw that distinction. I see. Clearly we need to do away with the blog, posthaste.

 

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 4
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, hzoi said:
20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

How many times do I have to say that my concern is NOT about me or my caches

 

I don't know, how many times are you going to start threads like this "wondering" why Groundspeak wants you to archive your caches?

 

To be fair, the thread is titled "Archive your lonely or unfavourited caches:ninja:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hzoi said:

I don't know, how many times are you going to dive into threads like this "wondering" why Groundspeak wants you to archive your caches?

 

Where did I say Groundspeak wants ME to archive MY caches? This was my OP in this thread:

 

Quote

So caching is now a popularity competition with no room in the game for losers. I'm curious, though, if all the unfavourited caches should be archived, how are you supposed to find those other 9 caches in order to give the 10th one an FP? Don't there have to be unfavourited caches for the favourite point system to work?

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

Any photos or GC codes from my own caches I posted in this thread were intended only as examples of the type of cache that the suggested criterion (few recent finds or no FPs) would catch. I did NOT say that I intended to archive them or felt pressured to archive them.

 

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

So you're one of a few who can distinguish a suggestion to consider something in a blog from a command, and most geocachers are just too feeble minded to draw that distinction. I see. Clearly we need to do away with the blog, posthaste.

 

Nowhere have I said anything about COMMANDS or anyone being forced to do anything. They posted a blog suggesting caches that have few recent finds or no FPs be "considered for retirement" and I thought that was a bad suggestion as it could be detrimental to communities where caches aren't in plentiful supply or to COs who just want to hide simple caches to give their community a bit of fun. Sorry if I was wrong to draw that conclusion and sorry for stepping out of line to express my concerns about possible negative impacts this suggestion might have.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

They posted a blog suggesting caches that have few recent finds or no FPs be "considered for retirement" and I thought that was a bad suggestion as it could be detrimental to communities where caches aren't in plentiful supply or to COs who just want to hide simple caches to give their community a bit of fun.

 

Only if you assume that such cache owners think differently than you do. We're saying that, like you, if you don't assume "low FPs" or "not found often" relative to some (unstated) worldwide universal standard (rather than local trends) means a cache must be archived, then all of those caches you think might get archived*, which you feel would still be great experiences, have no risk of being archived anyway, because the COs think (like you) the cache is worth having around. Additionally, a CO who chooses to archive a cache for whatever reason should not be disallowed to do so. Additionally, I would want a CO who keeps a cache active to understand their maintenance responsibilities* and desire to provide a cache and experience that's positive at the very least to their local/regional community. Additionally, the advice is overall to consider generally better geocaches and experiences when publishing and owning. I'm still struggling to understand how someone can't think it's good advice.

 

* whether it's a block away found daily, or 2 days away in the wilderness found twice a year

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Only if you assume that such cache owners think differently than you do. We're saying that, like you, if you don't assume "low FPs" or "not found often" relative to some (unstated) worldwide universal standard (rather than local trends) means a cache must be archived, then all of those caches you think might get archived*, which you feel would still be great experiences, have no risk of being archived anyway, because the COs think (like you) the cache is worth having around. Additionally, a CO who chooses to archive a cache for whatever reason should not be disallowed to do so. Additionally, I would want a CO who keeps a cache active to understand their maintenance responsibilities* and desire to provide a cache and experience that's positive at the very least to their local/regional community. Additionally, the advice is overall to consider generally better geocaches and experiences when publishing and owning. I'm still struggling to understand how someone can't think it's good advice.

 

* whether it's a block away found daily, or 2 days away in the wilderness found twice a year

 

I'd thought there was room in the game for non-FP-worthy caches, just basic sound containers appropriately hidden with a dry log that has ample room for the expected number of finds between maintenance visits. Almost all of the 90% of caches I don't give FPs to are like that, just enjoyable caches that get me out exploring new places and challenging my Blind Freddy cache-spotting skills. But I'll concede that my experience is almost certainly atypical; I guess most cachers give FPs to a tenth (or less) of the caches they find and really wish they hadn't bothered with the rest. If having no cache to bother with is generally a better outcome than a non-FP-worthy cache, then fine, I'll pull my head in.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I'd thought there was room in the game for non-FP-worthy caches, just basic sound containers appropriately hidden with a dry log that has ample room for the expected number of finds between maintenance visits.

 

*sigh* Yes, there is. That's why no one has told people TO archive such caches, only to consider what makes generally accepted more positive geocaching experiences. <_<

 

7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Almost all of the 90% of caches I don't give FPs to are like that, just enjoyable caches that get me out exploring new places and challenging my Blind Freddy cache-spotting skills.

 

But wait, then they are enjoyable, and maybe the CO won't archive it because they know and feel that it's enjoyable to people. That's not what you just classified above.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/10/2020 at 5:57 PM, barefootjeff said:

"High quality" cache (micro-sized magnetic key holder on guard rail): 2341 finds (52 this year) and 160 FPs...

 

HighQualityCache.jpg.ce41334e20868e40636a431da9ffbad9.jpg

 

I'm perplexed why a magkey GRIM at this location would get lots of Favorites. Yes, it's found a lot, but that's almost 7%. Is there a good view of something interesting out of frame?

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/10/2020 at 2:57 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

Yep.

 

"High quality" cache (micro-sized magnetic key holder on guard rail): 2341 finds (52 this year) and 160 FPs...

 

HighQualityCache.jpg.ce41334e20868e40636a431da9ffbad9.jpg

 

"Low quality" cache (regular-sized fishing tackle box on cliff top): 5 finds (0 this year) and 2 FPs...

 

LowQualityCache.jpg.d2b74d07633f1a049c3f1f78e5bf321b.jpg

 

For hzoi's benefit, neither of these are mine nor do I have any personal stake in whether they're archived or not. Both these caches provide an enjoyable experience to those who find them and there ought to be room in the game for both styles regardless of their statistics.

Are you still beating on the dead horse? If you don't like GS new suggestions, please archived all your caches and stop geocaching.  No hard feelings.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 4

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, SwineFlew said:

If you don't like GS new suggestions, please archived all your caches and stop geocaching.

Non sequitur much?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/1/2020 at 9:39 PM, barefootjeff said:

The cache owner dashboard may also help you decide if it’s time to make room for a new cache on the geocaching gameboard. 

  • Sort by “Last found” date to see which caches haven’t been found in awhile. If the cache isn’t found as much as it used to be, maybe it’s time to consider archival so something new can be placed.
  • Sort by “Favorites” to learn which of your hides are most popular. Is there something about your most Favorited cache(s) that could be incorporated into a new cache? Do you own some caches that have never received Favorite points? Maybe it’s time to consider retiring those caches.

 

The dashboard only shows me the "Latest activity on your hides" but there's no sorting algorithm here, is there? Ah, okay, I have to use the link "published hides" to be able to do so. That's not very self-explanatory. That's much easier using my geocache list (public profile -> geocaches -> geocache hides).

 

So even if I don't see any reason to archive any of my caches I have learned something today. Thank you, blog authors. ;-)

 

By the way I am surprised that each of my active caches has been found this year. There seem to be some very lonely ones very often (my caches do not get too many attention as they are no quick statistic points) but that's not a reason to archive them. Groundspeak should encourage the cachers to go hunt the rarely found caches instead of the quick boring finds instead of encouraging owners to archive there caches if they don't get found regularly.

 

By the way: I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know exactly what you are argueing about. Thank you, Jeff, for the informations, I haven't read this blog article before - and I am sure 99 % of the other cachers haven't done either so I don't think too many of these "bad and not interesting" caches will be archived because of it. ;-)

 

Jochen

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/10/2020 at 4:31 PM, funkymunkyzone said:

Except that this advice to archive caches and allow for new ones, is simply that - new caches, not necessarily great or even better caches

 

If your new isn't as good, if not better, than the old you're doing it wrong. Where it is literally anything.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

If your new isn't as good, if not better, than the old you're doing it wrong. Where it is literally anything.

 

Please note that advice was not necessarily for the CO to replace their own cache, but perhaps to free up the area for someone else.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/11/2020 at 7:14 AM, Moun10Bike said:

There's no need to read more into the article than that.

 

Where's the fun in that? If we don't read more into the article or superimpose our own worldview and extrapolate that to extreme degrees, what will we endlessly bicker about on the forum? :lol:

 

Intended in jest, hopefully nobody takes offense.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 7
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Unit473L said:

If we don't read more into the article or superimpose our own worldview and extrapolate that to extreme degrees, what will we endlessly bicker about on the forum?

 

Modern politics in a nutshell.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/1/2020 at 9:39 PM, barefootjeff said:

From today's blog article that was linked from the newsletter:

 

So caching is now a popularity competition with no room in the game for losers. I'm curious, though, if all the unfavourited caches should be archived, how are you supposed to find those other 9 caches in order to give the 10th one an FP? Don't there have to be unfavourited caches for the favourite point system to work?

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

I just found this thread, so let me comment on the start. (Yes, I have read several follow-ups.)

 

Encouraging using FPs doesn't make ordinary ones "losing", it just gives us another measure than number of finds. Many COs aim totally for getting many finds, which gives us long trails of 1.5/1.5's. That's their goal. If some of us instead aim for getting nice logs and FPs, it will give the game some more variation. This is especially true when measuring FP% or Wilson (which, unfortunately, Groundspeak has not provided as a tool, but Project-GC does).  Face it, quality caches drown in power trails, but if people start looking for them they have a chance.

 

So who is the loser? The one who gets 1000 finds but no FPs, or the one who gets 10 finds and 100% FPs? I say: both! We all decide on our goals. The FPs just help the variation to stay alive in the flood of petlings and film canisters in uninteresting places.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/3/2021 at 2:56 PM, Ragnemalm said:

 

I just found this thread, so let me comment on the start. (Yes, I have read several follow-ups.)

 

Encouraging using FPs doesn't make ordinary ones "losing", it just gives us another measure than number of finds. Many COs aim totally for getting many finds, which gives us long trails of 1.5/1.5's. That's their goal. If some of us instead aim for getting nice logs and FPs, it will give the game some more variation. This is especially true when measuring FP% or Wilson (which, unfortunately, Groundspeak has not provided as a tool, but Project-GC does).  Face it, quality caches drown in power trails, but if people start looking for them they have a chance.

 

So who is the loser? The one who gets 1000 finds but no FPs, or the one who gets 10 finds and 100% FPs? I say: both! We all decide on our goals. The FPs just help the variation to stay alive in the flood of petlings and film canisters in uninteresting places.

 

 

Looking at the OP again, I think they were aiming for people to just use a bit of common courtesy and common sense (which is a tough ask in this world). Basically, if a cache is can't be maintained, or is just not up to snuff, I guess they're hoping CO's will remove them to make room for others to give it a shot in that area. Makes sense to me: in my area, one of the more popular local caches got archived, because the CO was moving away, [rather than get someone else to take it over] they retired it. It was a well-liked cache, and a popular place for TB's, but I think it was diligent to pull it rather than abandon it until one day its maintenance issues caught up with it, and nice of them to ensure someone else has a gap on the map to play with.

 

The issue with GS's suggestion is  how people would measure the "quality" of a cache - is it the metric of "finds" or "favourites"? Neither of those is really perfect for measuring a subjective judgement of a cache's worthiness, or whether it has become quantitatively moribund and/or qualitatively unpopular.

 

There are no easy answers, hence the suggestion from HQ needing to be a suggestion only. I'm just wary of the idea of measuring clicked "favourites", since the world of online popularity is often capricious, and I think it could lead to some arbitrary outcomes. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Can't say I'm in favor of archiving perfectly good, well maintained caches due to lack of finds or favorite points.

 

 I will say I've considered doing just that with some of my own caches.   

 

Look to create something new and in the process give previous visitors a reason to come back and enjoy the area again.

 

Something to think about. 

 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Can't say I'm in favor of archiving perfectly good, well maintained caches due to lack of finds or favorite points.

Thankfully that's not what's happening. (assuming you mean by HQ)

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I will say I've considered doing just that with some of my own caches.   

Look to create something new and in the process give previous visitors a reason to come back and enjoy the area again.

Something to think about. 

That is, I think, what HQ is encouraging people to think about. :antenna:

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I will say I've considered doing just that with some of my own caches.   

Look to create something new and in the process give previous visitors a reason to come back and enjoy the area again.

Something to think about. 

That is, I think, what HQ is encouraging people to think about. 

 

A couple of months ago I did that, well the archived cache wasn't mine, it was an old one (2009) whose owner archived it because it had fallen into disrepair and he no longer lived in the area. It was at a nice waterfall in a public reserve which I thought would make a good addition to my Chasing Waterfalls series, so I created GC92WV1 which was published on the 21st of November. Three cachers from Sydney who were in the area doing other caches claimed a joint FTF the following day but since then, nothing. Even in this cache-poor region where anyone who's been in the game more than a few months will need to start doing a lot of travelling to keep their find count ticking along, there's been no interest from those previous visitors.

 

Granted it's only been there for two months (although it's the summer holidays here when caching should be at its peak) and this region is a bit of an oddball one where smalls and regulars outnumber micros and the locals seem to be more interested in discovering new places rather than revisiting old ones, but I can't help wondering if replacing old caches with new ones at the same location really does lead to a boost in caching activity.

 

Or maybe it's because this one is principally about the waterfall, which hasn't changed, rather than the cache itself. Perhaps a new fancy container at a nondescript location would do better in achieving that revitalisation goal. Maybe briansnat needs to update his advice to "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the spot, then build a better cache."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Granted it's only been there for two months (although it's the summer holidays here when caching should be at its peak) and this region is a bit of an oddball one where smalls and regulars outnumber micros and the locals seem to be more interested in discovering new places rather than revisiting old ones, but I can't help wondering if replacing old caches with new ones at the same location really does lead to a boost in caching activity.

(My bolding).

It seems to have had that effect with my reworked Two Beaches series which included a final bonus. The first incarnation had been out for 6.5 years getting a bit tired, and I found a couple of new hides. Proving popular (if the fav points are anything to go by) during school breaks with easy terrain caches that can be accessed by beach goers with kiddies and other caches involving more walking over rougher terrain for the more energetic seeker.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/13/2021 at 5:09 PM, thebruce0 said:

Thankfully that's not what's happening. (assuming you mean by HQ)

 

That is, I think, what HQ is encouraging people to think about. :antenna:

I guess the decision to archive and replace (or not) comes down  to what's most important to you.   keeping long standing hides for new cachers to experience or replacing them with  new hides for existing cachers to find.   All long time cachers  eventually get cached out of their local area.   Finds and favorite points aside,  it seems like a good idea to archive some hides and replace them with something new to keep the game fresh and new for everyone.   

 

Something to consider.            

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I guess the decision to archive and replace (or not) comes down  to what's most important to you.   keeping long standing hides for new cachers to experience or replacing them with  new hides for existing cachers to find.   All long time cachers  eventually get cached out of their local area.   Finds and favorite points aside,  it seems like a good idea to archive some hides and replace them with something new to keep the game fresh and new for everyone.   

 

Something to consider.            

If you're talking about an area with no room for new caches, then archiving less interesting caches to "make room" might make sense. I haven't run into an area that it that densely packed, so I claim the much more common case is where there's room, in which case whether you archive an old cache is beside the point: the solution is to plant a new cache regardless of whether you've archived an old one. To me, the two actions are completely independent: there are reasons to archive caches: density, the CO getting bored with the cache, for example. And there are reasons to plant new caches. The GS page's reference to favorite points that we're discussing deals with them independently: look at caches that are favorited to see if they give you ideas for new caches, and as something else entirely, look at caches without favorite points and consider whether they're really worth maintaining.

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 7

×
×
  • Create New...