drat19

LOL! When I saw your thread subtitle, I thought you were dedicating to Phil Connors, Bill Murray's character...not the rat. Seems to me if you wanted to dedicate a cache to the movie Groundhog Day, just make it a cache that one could log over and over and over. Crim, any suggstions? (That's me with big wooden spoon in hand, stirring the ol' pot! )

Your counterpoints are valid...that's why the way GC.COM is currently listing the game, the only hope is either via peer pressure or use of another site/org. And apparently the peer pressure of competition for higher and higher stats is trumping the competition for better and better caches/locations...so, so much for that.

Sad but true, Ed. As I've pointed out, I still comment on it, but I've come to the realization that I can't fight it anymore. The masses, apparently, want Spew...it's all about the numbers. In order to find enjoyment in this game, looks like I'm just going to have to continue to work harder to search out the better-quality caches and locations.

Thanks for the kind words, STB. While I'm terribly vocal about this issue here on the Forums, I've learned the hard way that there are constructive ways to preach the message. Several years ago, I publicly called out, on our local forums and in my logs, a new (at the time) hider of seemingly-thoughtlessly-placed caches in Central Mississippi, and I was (correctly) called out in return for being less than constructive. I took my lumps (also publicly on our local forums), apologized sincerely (because I was indeed wrong to do that), and since that time that cacher and I have become good friends. He's also become one of our state's BEST hiders, with quality caches in well-chosen locations. I applied those lessons to another new (at the time) cacher in the Mobile area who was flooding the town with Spew. He was a major catalyst for the articles on my web site, in fact. I exchanged several Emails with him, politely (really!), and his response was that he was "playing a different game" with his hides, just trying to get as many caches as possible out there with little regard to location quality. We agreed to disagree, and I adopted the tactic of simply signing a two-letter entry on my on-line logs of any of his caches (which I subsequently stopped searching, of course): "SL." No comments, and no offense either. Interestingly, a year or so later, he received so many complaints about his caches/locations from other cachers that he ended up archiving all his caches with the post on each of them, "Too many complaints, I'm archiving my caches now." Obviously I wasn't alone in my displeasure with his hides/locations. I've since published my articles and have been crusading ever since. Some people agree, some people don't, and THAT'S FINE WITH ME...because the plonk option exists for anyone who doesn't care to read about it anymore.

Apparently my decision not to honor this poster's bait with my original point-by-point debunk was the correct decision after all. Say hello to my little friend: PLONK. Now there are 2 members on my exclusive list.

I appreciate the post and support, Ed. Everything you said is true, except for this slight tuning: I liked the OCCASIONAL micro (and still do, if well-placed). When micros (especially of the Spew variety) became the vast majority in many places, I broke...and so began the crusade. As to your "at every opportunity" point: You'll note I don't start these threads anymore (gave up on that when my "The New Numbers Game" thread spiraled out of control back in June'06), but I jump in from time to time because it's clear that I'm not alone on this crusade...others have been making the same observations more and more. Sure, plenty of others disagree, and that's fine, but agree or disagree, the issue is out there and it's real. You may have already stated this previously (so please forgive me if I have missed it), but what do you suggest be done to remedy this issue? Do you think it should be left to the community to establish the standard or should the Groundspeak and the reviewers do something? I am not advocating either point, I just want to get your feedback since you feel so pationate about the subject. Are you more concerned about the number of them or just the quality of them? I am assuming the latter to be the case. I personally prefer a good hike and the well placed prefer ammo can or decon kit hides (GCQVW1), but I don't mind most urban micros. I find that with three kids and a career, urban caches are about all the time I have for a weekday diversion. Those just happen to be mostly micros. That being said I have seen a couple of bad micros (hidden in a drain pipe, in a crushed lamp skirt, and under a trash can). I don't see how Groundspeak/reviewers could possibly resolve the issue, since they can't visit every listed cache. So, it's up to the community. Not-so-subtle peer pressure goes a long way (we kept cache quality high in my home turf of the Miss. Gulf Coast for a long time (but less so now since Katrina) because there was a group of active cachers who set the bar high on our choices of cache hides and locations...including micros - and we preached the quality issue at every Event cache we held and via our local forums), but obviously not far enough in an increasing number of areas. The "community" has spoken and it wants to crank stats. In the absence of Crim's various definitions of cheating, the easiest "honest" way to do that is by hiding and finding massive numbers of quickly-and-cheaply-placed caches...Micro Spew. The way the game is currently defined on Geocaching.com, I think the damage (my term...others would call it "the fun") is too widespread now. The alternative would have to be to play under the auspices of another site or organization, whose rules might include different quality standards.

I appreciate the post and support, Ed. Everything you said is true, except for this slight tuning: I liked the OCCASIONAL micro (and still do, if well-placed). When micros (especially of the Spew variety) became the vast majority in many places, I broke...and so began the crusade. As to your "at every opportunity" point: You'll note I don't start these threads anymore (gave up on that when my "The New Numbers Game" thread spiraled out of control back in June'06), but I jump in from time to time because it's clear that I'm not alone on this crusade...others have been making the same observations more and more. Sure, plenty of others disagree, and that's fine, but agree or disagree, the issue is out there and it's real.

Well the obvious answer for anyone in this thread who has had a British Columbia Sock puppet troll spend hours stalking them through their profile would be that of course they've found a handful of such caches years ago. Geez, you don't think I didn't run out in 2004 and find the first "keyholder on a guardrail for no other reason than being a keyholder on a guardrail" in my area? By the way, I saved you some trouble, Here it is. Opinions were formed as spew began to run rampant, eventually becoming the dominant cache type in some urban areas. Thanks, TWU. I actually had my debunk response broken down point-by-point that he made, but as I said, I elected not to bother. Bottom line remains: I think Spew (i.e., NOT ALL MICROS, just thoughtless numbers-oriented hides placed in large quantity to the point of overrunning an area) sucks, but I can't fight it anymore, because obviously lots of other people either a. don't think it sucks and love to see those numbers increment, and/or b. don't know any better because that's the dominant hide type that they've seen in their areas since they started in the game recently. However, while I can't fight it, I will continue to feel free to comment on it as the situation/thread warrants it. Folks sick of reading my comments may similarly feel free to PLONK me, just as I have done to one argument-monger on these Forums in particular, whose posts I got sick of reading.

You also affect the "caching reputation" of your area. Click me. Note the date of the article; things have changed in some of those regions I cited since then, but my sentiments regarding the subject have not. You post a letter saying what kind of cache you like to find (or that you think ALL geocacher like) and procede to complain about areas of the country where the caches you happened to find on your trips weren't the kind of caches you like. If I hid my caches with an eye toward what ALL cachers might think of my cache, not just in terms of "hiding them like I might like to find 'em" I wouldn't have hidden any of my caches. They all require significant hikes, several require solving a difficult puzzle, and some are even micros in the woods. These are the kinds of caches I like to find. My caches get very few visitors. Yet, I notice that a parking lot micro will get lots of visitors and very few of them complain. You gave Orlando as an example of an area that as a place with EXCELLENT caches. I found a 35mm in a Wal*Mart lamp post there and my first "Off Your Rocker" cache there. Both were memorable hides for me. (The Wal*Mart hide said "it's just standing there with no magnets or velcro". Yet several people noted that they had found the velcro where the cache was attached and some even claimed this as a find. ) I also spent one afternoon in Orlando finding a series of caches hidden along a bike trail that included several ammo cans as well as various smaller cantainers some of which were cleverly camouflaged. My point is that every area has a variety of cache types and depending on the time you have to research you can find the kinds of caches you like. If you want to judge areas based on your limited experience caching in an area feel free. You are entitled to an opinion. It isn't going to convince me that the people who hid those caches are somehow having less fun. You make some interesting counterpoints (as always). First of all, I did caveat in my post that things in some of those areas have changed since I first published that letter back in '04 (and you'll also note that I've documented ad nauseum in these forums that I believe that mid'04 was when Micro Spew became unofficially "out of hand" in more than just a few regions). Second of all, I've also documented in these forums that I've largely admitted defeat to fighting The New Numbers Game...evidently a fair number of people do find it fun to run up their numbers on what *I* (and YMMV!) consider to be less-than-high-quality caches/locations. I will feel free to comment on it, though. My letter basically asks the question: What reputation do you want your area to have in the caching community? I made the point very clearly that in every one of the areas I cited, there are/were high-quality caches to be found. But that doesn't diminish the fact that the word gets out in the community that "You can go to <name your metro area here> and run up your numbers on Micro Spew." Since '04, the number of "name your metro areas" has grown...all it takes it one or two determined cache hiders to flood an area. (Recent cases in point: Ask the cachers in Rochester, MN, or Erie, PA, certainly not major metros, what their "caching reputations" are among those who have visited and cached them lately.) As you said, I am entitled to an opinion (as are you). Some folks will agree with it, some folks won't. I can live with that. And that doesnt stop you from Caching them...Why is that? -Honey I have to go to Home Depot (GCGZQF) -Independence Day "Quick Cache and Go" and you had to make sure you got it because "After being unable to approach the ArdenCache cache due to high water, I drove over here for a quick park-n-grab in order to add Delaware to my "states cached" list, which nowstands at 37." A quick Park and grab..isnt that the same thing you Dislike so much? -WHITE CASTLE (GCHNYJ) "Quick grab once I figured out where to park." You talk about "Micro Spew" in 04...Yet you cached WELL over 5 dozen Micros that year...if that was the year your letter was "published" why did you do so many Micros?Did you do them even tho you knew you didnt like them?were you caching micros in between drafting your letter? Also Could it be that you too were responsible for the Micro-Spew? With 21 of your 46 cachings Being Micro sized?(Only 4 remain) Your Letter really doesnt mean much when you dont practice what you preach. Its the thrill of the hunt, if it takes you to a great spot, even better. Thanks for the analysis of my logs...glad you had some time on your hands for that. I had a much longer response written debunking most of your points, but I've elected not to bother. You just continue to have fun researching my logs and chasing Spew.

You shouldn't be drilling holes in wooden support beams regardless of what you are doing. As for fake electrical equipment vs. real. Putting a cache on real equipment isn't a good idea. As for being able to open a real box...sorry but that equipment should be locked and not accessable to the general public who the equipment always seems to be placed near. I agree with RK's points, but with a couple of caveats: 1. Can we depend on all cachers to use the proper common sense not to drill those holes? Not so sure about that. 2. Can we depend on public utilities to make sure that ALL their electrical boxes and other dangerous items in proximity to the general public are all always locked? Not so sure about that either. My point is (and this is where I think the OP makes an interesting/valid point): All it will take will be one news story about a fatal accident such at such a venue, where it is revealed that the victim was a geocacher playing a game of hide n' seek, and the negative press about our "collective lack of common sense" and "we must now protect our children", etc etc, could be overwhelming.

You also affect the "caching reputation" of your area. Click me. Note the date of the article; things have changed in some of those regions I cited since then, but my sentiments regarding the subject have not. You post a letter saying what kind of cache you like to find (or that you think ALL geocacher like) and procede to complain about areas of the country where the caches you happened to find on your trips weren't the kind of caches you like. If I hid my caches with an eye toward what ALL cachers might think of my cache, not just in terms of "hiding them like I might like to find 'em" I wouldn't have hidden any of my caches. They all require significant hikes, several require solving a difficult puzzle, and some are even micros in the woods. These are the kinds of caches I like to find. My caches get very few visitors. Yet, I notice that a parking lot micro will get lots of visitors and very few of them complain. You gave Orlando as an example of an area that as a place with EXCELLENT caches. I found a 35mm in a Wal*Mart lamp post there and my first "Off Your Rocker" cache there. Both were memorable hides for me. (The Wal*Mart hide said "it's just standing there with no magnets or velcro". Yet several people noted that they had found the velcro where the cache was attached and some even claimed this as a find. ) I also spent one afternoon in Orlando finding a series of caches hidden along a bike trail that included several ammo cans as well as various smaller cantainers some of which were cleverly camouflaged. My point is that every area has a variety of cache types and depending on the time you have to research you can find the kinds of caches you like. If you want to judge areas based on your limited experience caching in an area feel free. You are entitled to an opinion. It isn't going to convince me that the people who hid those caches are somehow having less fun. You make some interesting counterpoints (as always). First of all, I did caveat in my post that things in some of those areas have changed since I first published that letter back in '04 (and you'll also note that I've documented ad nauseum in these forums that I believe that mid'04 was when Micro Spew became unofficially "out of hand" in more than just a few regions). Second of all, I've also documented in these forums that I've largely admitted defeat to fighting The New Numbers Game...evidently a fair number of people do find it fun to run up their numbers on what *I* (and YMMV!) consider to be less-than-high-quality caches/locations. I will feel free to comment on it, though. My letter basically asks the question: What reputation do you want your area to have in the caching community? I made the point very clearly that in every one of the areas I cited, there are/were high-quality caches to be found. But that doesn't diminish the fact that the word gets out in the community that "You can go to <name your metro area here> and run up your numbers on Micro Spew." Since '04, the number of "name your metro areas" has grown...all it takes it one or two determined cache hiders to flood an area. (Recent cases in point: Ask the cachers in Rochester, MN, or Erie, PA, certainly not major metros, what their "caching reputations" are among those who have visited and cached them lately.) As you said, I am entitled to an opinion (as are you). Some folks will agree with it, some folks won't. I can live with that.

You also affect the "caching reputation" of your area. Click me. Note the date of the article; things have changed in some of those regions I cited since then, but my sentiments regarding the subject have not.

"I'm not here to talk about the past..."

I've started my countdown for when the inevitable response on this comment comes in. 10...9...8.... What? The cc word? That's the one I was waiting for, yep.

I've started my countdown for when the inevitable response on this comment comes in. 10...9...8....

That's me! I've witnessed the sport straying much from too far from it's basic point, which is using a GPS to find things. Most of this is fuled by what Drat19 calls "the new numbers game", which is the pursuit of the almighty smiley at any cost. This has spawned pocket caches, armchair virtual caching, retirement cards and other practices which have nothing to do with finding things with a GPS. These practices might be fun, they might be educational, but they ain't geocaching. The New Numbers Game also includes the Micro Spew explosion. In this case (and in contrast to BS's examples above), it IS Geocaching, and the find counts are honest (caches found, log sheets signed, 1 per cache listing), but the explosion and decrease in overall quality is still all about Worshipping at the Altar of the Church of the Almighty Stat. Yep, it's part of the evolution...Darwin may be weeding me out on that one.

I'm firmly on the side of the fence where it is believed that Geocaching has strayed from the original (intended?) path. I had much more fun playing between '02-'04 than I have had since. My various reasons/agendae are well-documented throughout these Forums, so I won't re-state them in great detail here. Suffice it to say, they are all related to changes in the game that have occurred as a result of The New Numbers Game, whose growth directly coincides with the timing of the beginning of my decrease in enjoyment.

How about folks that move from area to area? Are we expected to learn and apply a new standard in each area? Who is going to keep track of these 'local' rules? Do I need to apply for a rulebook when I visit a new region? If so maybe we all need to register with the local 'authorties' so they will know that we will be "playing the game 'their' way." No, the answer is: One game/sport. One set of guidelines. As someone who currently splits time between 2 regions, and as a "traveling cacher" to many regions in general, I wholeheartedly agree with Totem Clan: One game/sport/set of guidelines.

You weren't a marketing major, were you? Actually it was Criminal Law. The irony of your response, given the similar/related/but different discussion going on in the Pocket Caches thread, is humorous to me.

I must admit I respect VK for coming in here and admitting that this is his preference, and why. Seriously. I know several other Numbers Ho's who also readily admit what they are (and as I've stated here numerous times, I *was* one until Micro Spew finally broke me); it's a shame that in order to sustain that level of cache-find volume, overall cache quality has had to deteriorate, but it is what it is and there doesn't seem to be any stopping it now. I think that note on the cache page is GREAT. Do you include a similar note on your less-strenuous hides, along the lines of: In the time it takes to find this cache, you could easily find 25 to 50 parking lot micros. It might take you an hour or more to complete this cache hunt, but if you enjoy a relatively flat terrain hike (or "a bit of bushwhacking" or whatever the case may be), it will be worthwhile to you. Might drive some more traffic to your caches, I would think.

Oh, I'm so on Cornerstone4's side on this one...just to see the havoc in the forums caused by one little programming change could be WAY too entertaining Oh, and I don't think Jeremy has ever stated he will "never" make this change. Every post I've seen of his states that he does reserve that right to make that change. So that is a question for everyone who thinks these logs are valid: what happens when/if Jeremy ever does get fed up with this monthly argument and just makes the change to one log counts per GC number? Celticwulf I'm definitely also on board with my MN geo-buddy CW, as well as CS4 who originated the line of thought of course. "Honest" loggers would see no effect; the hubbub would only be among those who have engaged in the "questionable" practice.

That's CERTAINLY what *I'M* after! (Act surprised.)

I'm not sure about "the majority", but certainly to a fair number of folks, that's for sure.

THANK YOU! Totally agree.

It looks like the event was a blast. Hopefully none of the cachers (many of whom are geo-friends of mine) who multi-logged it will try to compare their find stats with anyone else. Here's one of the multi-logs posted on that page; don't tell me The Numbers Don't Matter to some people: - - - begin paste-in - - - found coke can fiftieth find hope to get one hundred in less then a week - - - end paste-in - - - Again, if they're having fun, great, but if they want to compare with anyone...