Jump to content

Geocaching HQ needs your feedback


N.o.e.
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Hi

In the last survey and many older, there are mostly questions about quantity geocaches, but the period is usually not specified. 

Question 4 in the last survey could be asked more precisely (this year or total number, etc.)
N.o.e.
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, N.o.e. said:

quantity geocaches

 

What are "quantity geocaches"? I have never heard of this and neither does google know this term.

 

Are you referring to the questions of how many caches you have found? It's always about the absolute number, I think.

Those given numbers usually don't seem to be useful for us very active cachers (<5, 5 to 10, 11 to 20, ... with the maximum being > 100) but I am sure that the main part of the many (many!) geocachers with an geocaching.com account are in this area. But they are not as active - in the community, let's say these forums - so we don't always think of them. So for us these numbers may be strange as overall find numbers but they are useful for the most geocachers out there.

 

Jochen

Link to comment

To give some context to this question/topic, HQ sends out a quarterly survey to a randomly selected group of Geocaching members (who have opted in to marketing emails). This quarter's survey was sent today.

 

One of the questions is "How many geocaches have you found?", with answer options of 0-99, 100-499, and 500+.

 

We'll take your feedback into consideration, @N.o.e.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Rock Chalk said:

One of the questions is "How many geocaches have you found?", with answer options of 0-99, 100-499, and 500+.

 

In my eyes the question is absolutely clear. For N.o.e. and me it would be "500+". The "+" is very big in our part and for many others it is even bigger and so we don't identify with this number. That is the problem.

I am sure there are many geocachers who think "500+" found caches is very much (and in fact: it is!). Those who ask if this is the number of finds in a week, month or year are just crazy geocachers (as I am ;-)).

 

I do not see a reason to change the question but perhaps give that small group (?) of crazy cachers a number to identify with. Make something like "500-1999", "2000-9999" and "10000+" instead of "500+". Still, some cachers like Alamogul still won't find themselves here. ;-)

 

Jochen

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, frostengel said:

I do not see a reason to change the question but perhaps give that small group (?) of crazy cachers a number to identify with. Make something like "500-1999", "2000-9999" and "10000+" instead of "500+". Still, some cachers like Alamogul still won't find themselves here. ;-)

 

On one level, I agree; but on another level, you're supplying one data point. You are not collecting and analyzing all data points. Groundspeak wants to differentiate between brand new cachers, new but somewhat experienced cachers, and veteran cachers. Further fragmenting the veteran cachers category into "kind of a veteran," "definitely a veteran," and "borderline obsessive" may not be helpful for data analysis.

 

(I'm in the last category, so I'm not throwing stones from my glass house, just self-diagnosing.)

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
11 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

On one level, I agree; but on another level, you're supplying one data point. You are not collecting and analyzing all data points. Groundspeak wants to differentiate between brand new cachers, new but somewhat experienced cachers, and veteran cachers. Further fragmenting the veteran cachers category into "kind of a veteran," "definitely a veteran," and "borderline obsessive" may not be helpful for data analysis.

 

(I'm in the last category, so I'm not throwing stones from my glass house, just self-diagnosing.)

I've got a bit over 1300 finds, something a brand new cacher could achieve in a weekend in Nevada.   I've also been geocaching for 14 years.   Does that make me a new cacher, a somewhat experienced, or veteran cache.  

 

when I visited HQ several years ago, the very first thing I was asked by a lackey was "how many finds do you have?"  

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 3/17/2021 at 7:28 PM, Rock Chalk said:

One of the questions is "How many geocaches have you found?", with answer options of 0-99, 100-499, and 500+.

 

Yes, but I found 0-99 every day, 100-499 mostly a month and 500+ every year.

I'm missing a period of time in this question, but maybe someone else understands it differently.

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, N.o.e. said:

 

Yes, but I found 0-99 every day, 100-499 mostly a month and 500+ every year.

I'm missing a period of time in this question, but maybe someone else understands it differently.

 

There is no period; simply how many caches have you found in total?  A blunt tool, for sure, but they’re simply trying to sort out the absolute beginners from more experienced cachers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, N.o.e. said:

Yes, but I found 0-99 every day, 100-499 mostly a month and 500+ every year.

I'm missing a period of time in this question, but maybe someone else understands it differently.

 

Seeing the header:  "Geocaching HQ needs your feedback" seems like it's a message from HQ...   odd...

 

There's no "period of time", the question is just "how many geocaches have you found?"

it's simply asking how many caches have you found during your entire time in the hobby.  

 - By your find count, you'd be listed as 500+...

   

It may be hard to believe for some, but there are long-time players that don't have 500+ total found caches. :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 3/17/2021 at 5:25 PM, frostengel said:

 

but perhaps give that small group (?) of crazy cachers a number to identify with. Make something like "500-1999", "2000-9999" and "10000+" instead of "500+". 

 

 

Inventing things so "we all fit in". For God's sake don't do this for my sake. at 18,000+ finds I am not offended, but embarrassed by the notion that a category other than 500+ needs to be created so that egos get some stroking.

 

Edited by bflentje
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, bflentje said:

but embarrassed by the notion that a category other than 500+ needs to be created so that egos get some stroking

 

I don't know why this should be an ego thing? Someone with many finds isn't better than someone else and - we all know - numbers aren't everything.

It would be the same if they asked how long are you caching: less than a 1 month, 1 month, half a year, one year, more than one year? Everybody would fit in any section but an old veteran from the beginnings wouldn't feel as if he fit in.

 

The problem is - or I correct: my problem is - that in these cases I don't have the feeling that I am target person of this survey. And if I have the feeling that this is a survey for others (beginners, people with not so many finds, young people, whatever) but not for me I might not take part in it. And therefore - just my opinion - they might lose a(n important??) group of cachers.

 

Just saying - I don't care too much about Groundspeak's surveys. I usually answer them to do my part but that's it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

I don't know why this should be an ego thing? Someone with many finds isn't better than someone else and - we all know - numbers aren't everything.

It would be the same if they asked how long are you caching: less than a 1 month, 1 month, half a year, one year, more than one year? Everybody would fit in any section but an old veteran from the beginnings wouldn't feel as if he fit in.

 

The problem is - or I correct: my problem is - that in these cases I don't have the feeling that I am target person of this survey. And if I have the feeling that this is a survey for others (beginners, people with not so many finds, young people, whatever) but not for me I might not take part in it. And therefore - just my opinion - they might lose a(n important??) group of cachers.

 

Just saying - I don't care too much about Groundspeak's surveys. I usually answer them to do my part but that's it.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak already knows that the information they're trying to derive isn't going to improve by adding higher find categories.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
6 hours ago, bflentje said:

Perhaps Groundspeak already knows that the information they're trying to derive isn't going to improve by adding higher find categories.

 

Quite likely. But at the same time, if they shape their rules and interfaces by which we all interact and participate in the hobby, then providing a survey that encourages all users to participate is probably a good thing.  ... (or we end up with things like a website that causes oodles of forum angst yet lots of love and/or apathy from the general audience, lol)

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Quite likely. But at the same time, if they shape their rules and interfaces by which we all interact and participate in the hobby, then providing a survey that encourages all users to participate is probably a good thing.  ... (or we end up with things like a website that causes oodles of forum angst yet lots of love and/or apathy from the general audience, lol)

 

Yes. Perhaps an example of that is the default log type on the website. The newbies seem to love it since all they ever log are finds and it saves them a mouse click (and perhaps having to think?) but more experienced players, and especially COs, start getting stung by it with DNFs and WNs accidently logged as finds and just about everything owner-related logged as OMs. I try to be fairly meticulous with my logging but have been caught a few times when my thoughts were on what I was writing in the log and I forgot to change it from the default.

Link to comment

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...