Jump to content

TrailGators

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    14282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TrailGators

  1. I have too. It's called not venturing into the light pole forest. Here is another perspective on "clever." Do you remember playing Hide&Seek when you were a kid? What do you think you and all the other kids would do if one of the kids always hid in the front hall closet? Would they get bored with it? Would they call him "clever?" I'll admit that some kids would get bored quicker than others. It's also hard to imagine that eventually all of the kids would get bored with it (even if they won't admit it). All I know is that I'm not going to open that darn front hall closet door ever again!
  2. This is a direct quote from the guidelines...
  3. "Don't come around here no more..." would not be a good song to play when Santa comes down the chimney... Merry Christmas!
  4. Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.
  5. the way i see it is if i cant reach it even if its on a sidewalk from a sitting position, its a 1.5 not every wheelchair bound person carries a grabber. Which is exactly correct and is why so many 1.0's ought to be rated 1.5. My personal observation, of course. I always comment in my log if I run across one that's rated improperly just to educate the hider and hopefully get the rating changed.
  6. I just had a couple of cold 12oz mental lubricants last night! Anyhow, good advice MM.
  7. "Cleverly Placed" would account for roughly 1% of the micros I've located. That's the sad part because the small size lends itself to so many more hiding options than a regular container...
  8. Yes, they sure would!!! Probably similar to if you asked, do you prefer ammo boxes or a sharp stick in the eye? Well, it depends on whose eye... Anyway, why is it assumed that it is only a prefer or detest response to micros? Some people are just so... binary. It really depends on the micro, but I'm more like base 4: Great, decent, did nothing for me and are you kidding me?
  9. There is a good reason they are called "travel" bugs. Just be sure to log them out ASAP when you take them to let others know!
  10. There are VERY few caches that should be rated a 1 terrain. I have two caching friends that have had to use a wheelchair for a period of time, and boy, could they fill your ears with tales of "1 star" caches that were impossible to do from a wheelchair. What harm does it do to you or your cache to honor this convention and raise your 1T caches to a 1.5T compared to the inconvenience of a wheelchair bound cacher going to your 1T cache, only to find that they can't quite reach it? I agree. If a wheelchair can't get to it, then it must not be the easiest to get to...
  11. As long as you can sign it somewhere that is all that matters. Just wait until you find a nano and try to sign that...
  12. I particularily enjoyed the quotes around "scientific"! LOL!! I think the results in that case had a lot to do with the phrasing of the question. Let's rephrase it: "Do you prefer cleverly hidden caches regardless of size or do you prefer a regular or large container regardless of how it may be camouflaged?" I suspect the numbers would be somewhat different with that wording. The results would also be very different, if you asked do you prefer micros or a sharp stick in the eye? Yes, they sure would!!! Probably similar to if you asked, do you prefer ammo boxes or a sharp stick in the eye? I was joking. You are correct. The way you phrase a question can effect the results. However, I'm not sure how useful your wording is either because "cleverly placed micro" does not reflect the typical micro that I've found...
  13. I particularily enjoyed the quotes around "scientific"! LOL!! I think the results in that case had a lot to do with the phrasing of the question. Let's rephrase it: "Do you prefer cleverly hidden caches regardless of size or do you prefer a regular or large container regardless of how it may be camouflaged?" I suspect the numbers would be somewhat different with that wording. The results would also be very different, if you asked do you prefer micros or a sharp stick in the eye?
  14. Or you can allow those who are so inclined to encourage the raising of the bar a few notches without belittling and attacking everybody who attempts to do so. I've watched you and sbell111 do this little dance for the last two years and seen more than one thread die horrible deaths because neither of you would budge an inch. I'm not used to the two of you making some forward progress. Which you are*. That's encouraging. I'll keep it to myself going forward. *Festivus Miracle? IMHO, the most pervasive form of encouragement given in Geocaching is numbers caching. It seems to me that every preference should be given an equal voice. So I join Brian and many others in simply using our voice in these threads to promote hiding caches in interesting locations and/or in interesting ways...
  15. It may be fine for you to miss out on good caches in an area but I'd feel rather disappointed, especially if it's an area I can't go back to -- maybe I'm going to only get a once in a lifetime chance to visit the Adirondacks, and will never go back. Can you guarantee that there are going to be plenty more equally awesome caches that I will find while I'm there? If you were able to surgically remove every stinker from your database, would you have enough vacation time to find every remaining cache? Probably. It would probably leave me with 50 good caches. Then I could read through the logs of 50 caches for the cream-of-the-crop caches and probably narrow it to 25 caches. There's a good possibility I could handle 25 caches. It's a lot easier to post in the local thread asking what the "must-do" caches are in the area. Then make a bookmark of those and run a PQ. I do this whenever I travel.
  16. It's easier to just to avoid urban caches unless they are higher difficulty, regulars or recommended. The site could help us out by providing the number of recommendations....
  17. Alas, still too broad a cut. We have, um, some cachers out here in Colorado that are known to put out quite a few "stinkers", but have also placed some really good ones. Hate to give up the latter since they've provided some serious caching entertainment. Like most things, you wind up taking the good with the bad. It's not a perfect system and only really works for people that place a high majority of caches that you don't prefer. It is easy to un-ignore any cache that is recommended.
  18. Why do you think this statement makes me sound a micro hater?
  19. Somebody did a thorough job gutting that one!
  20. "Going in circles, don't really know where I have come from, where I will go..."
  21. Not me. I know that many people like any type of cache. Some are even my caching buddies. I just don't log the ones that I think aren't worth logging and add those to my ignore list later to get them out of my PQs. I think they understand...
  22. Let's look at your caches: Cache Name: Size - D/T Published FTF Date The Forgotten Road: Reg - 2/2.5 Pub 12/20/09 FTF 12/21/09 (@ 3:47am) Brrr, the water is cold!: Reg - 2.5/3.5 Pub 12/10/09 FTF 12/11/09 (STF was at 2:30am) M.H.V.8: Sm - 2/1.5 Pub 12/01/09 FTF 12/01/09 To Grandmothers House We Go: Reg - 3/3 Pub 11/25/09 FTF 11/25/09 M.H.V.7: Sm - 2.5/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/09/09 (@5:20am) M.H.V.6: Mic - 3/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/08/09 (STF 10/10!) M.H.V.5: Mic - 1.5/1 Pub 10/07/09 FTF 10/08/09 (Found in AM) M.H.V.4: Sm - 2/2.5 Pub 09/11/09 FTF 09/11/09 M.H.V.3: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 08/08/09 FTF 08/08/09 M.H.V.2: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09 M.H.V.1: Mic - 3/2.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09 Go West Young Man: Reg - 2/2 Pub 06/27/09 FTF 06/27/09 If there are cachers in your area willing to go after a cache at 3 am, I bet it isn't because it languished all day unfound and they couldn't wait a moment longer. It was likely published somewhere around 11 pm to midnight. So, it looks like none of your caches had to wait long to be found, micro or not. I happened to notice that on MHV6, nobody bothered for two whole more days after FTF was gone. Sounds like people were banging down doors to get to that micro. . . As far as the number of finds on micros vs anything larger, if one looks at the terrain ratings on your caches, they might see why there are more finds on the micros. All but one are 1.5 terrain or less. Interesting empirical evidence TTJ. Thanks. I agree, it's not about cache size. Popular is a relative term too. If bittsen uses the term to mean: "regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general" then just because a cache is visited more often doesn't mean it's regarded with approval and affection (one would have to read the logs to make that determination). It more likely means the D/T was easy, it was a traditional cache, and it was close to parking or a trailhead. As we've read in this thread many micros, are visited in order to clear an area, not because people like them. This is very true. The number of visits to a cache is meaningless because there are many reasons that this could happen besides being good. Is it an old cache? Is it easy to get to? Is it quick and easy to find? Is it well-maintained? Is it in a higher population area? Etc., etc. I agree that log length and content is the best indicator of enjoyment. You'll have to ignore the cut and pasters even with these caches. Finally, how many times a cache has been added to someone's "favorites" or "must-do" list is an indicator of excellence. I been manually compiling an SD Consensus Favorites List for a few years now. Someday, maybe the site might offer an automated system to do this...
×
×
  • Create New...