Are Micro's Really Caches?

[+tozainamboku]

Let's be clear about the usage of the English language here regardig the word "cache", as well as about the more unique usage of the term among members of the geocaching linguistic community. A cache is a secret or hidden container which contains items. A thing is not a cache unless there is a container with something (logbook, etc.) in it. Thus, to me, and to most users of the English language, and to most members of the geocaching community, a virtual is and was never a "cache" but rather a location or a waypoint or a "special spot". I personally am very glad that most of those latter critters (virtuals, locationless) got moved to another site with a far more appropriate name and focus.

 

What part of the English word virtual don't you understand?

Virtual means that a virtual cache was not a real cache but rather a quasi- or psuedo- cache. Whether or not these should be listed on Geocaching.com is a different issue. One could make an argrument that finding a well thought out virtual cache involves the same skills as finding a physical cache - the only difference is instead of signing a log book you email answers to the virtual cache owner to prove your visit. I will grant that locationless caches were not locationless caches. The name should have been reverse virtual cache. You had to find something first (usually not a cache) and then get the coordinates for where you were - the reverse of finding a virtual where you had to go to the coordinates first and then find what you are looking for (answers to verification question). So in either case, it can be argued that some people would find these very much part of their geocaching experience while others would want to ignore them like some ignore micros or puzzle caches.

In any case, there is a lot of activity now at Waymarking.com. New categories get approved everyday. While many are mundane, the are plenty that can make an interesting locationless challenge. There are also many categories where you can visit waymarks and have to provide verification similar to the experience of finding a virtual cache. The Wow! Waymarkers group is in the process of creating a Waymarking category that tries to capture to best of virtual caching - taking you places that you wouldn't otherwise have known about and having to find answers to verify your visit.

[+sbell111]

Let's be clear about the usage of the English language here regardig the word "cache", .... Thus, to me, and to most users of the English language, and to most members of the geocaching community, a virtual is and was never a "cache" but rather a location or a waypoint or a "special spot". ...

Of course I agree with you (except for your assertion that most people agree with you ), but I think you will agree that they are 'virtually' caches.

Edited May 4, 2006 by sbell111

[+bigeddy]

The first cache was a 5 gallon bucket with trade goodies as we all know. Now it seems like all I have to choose from are micros. <snip>

What a load of carp

 

Try caching out of the city for once. ...

Wow, this discussion has really deteriorated. Now we have a Moderator calling a another post a load of "carp" and that the poster should get "out of the city."

 

Anyway, PQs are a great tool for the addicted but are not the answer to every question about selecting caches to hunt. Nor is it helpful to tell people where to cache. Micros have changed the nature of the game and we need to look at that critically and respectfully.

[+Team GeoBlast]

The first cache was a 5 gallon bucket with trade goodies as we all know. Now it seems like all I have to choose from are micros. They are easy to hide and you don't have to be creative to keep the muggles away. I don't mind the occasional "one for the numbers" but it seems that in central Florida it is rediculous with micros.

 

Most micros that I have seen lately you don't even need a GPSr to find, just look under that lightpole or in that tree or under that power box.

 

What drew me to caching was the hunt and being led to a new place that I haven't been to or some remote park.

 

Am I the only one who feels this way?

 

erikwillke

 

One of the main reasons that Geocaching has evolved is inclusion. While it is my personal hope that the well placed cache in the middle of the woods remains a staple of the game, you have to consider the person that really wants to play that can't physcially get out to the woods, or needs a quick lunchtime diversion in an urban setting, or really likes to solve puzzles and so on.

 

You can also do things with a micro that cannot be accomplished with a traditional cache and it expands the possiblities of the game, for some. I will use one of my own caches as an example. I live in Honolulu and we have a wonderful Chinatown area that I wanted people to see. But I wanted them to see some areas that are off the beaten path and experience it in a different way. So, I created The Matrix. This is a multicache where I used a combination of all types of caches ito show people a route less traveled through our Chinatown. There's no way this could have been accomplished using all traditional caches.

 

Why not just seek the type of cache that makes the game fun for you? The choices available are a positive in my opinion. It is also not manditory that you find every cache so why not be selective in your hunts? If a cache has been around for any length of time, it's pretty easy to judge it's creativity or value to finders by reading the logs.

 

In answer to your question, yes, Micros are really caches.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Team GeoBlast

[+Tsmola]

The first cache was a 5 gallon bucket with trade goodies as we all know. Now it seems like all I have to choose from are micros. They are easy to hide and you don't have to be creative to keep the muggles away. I don't mind the occasional "one for the numbers" but it seems that in central Florida it is rediculous with micros.

 

Most micros that I have seen lately you don't even need a GPSr to find, just look under that lightpole or in that tree or under that power box.

 

What drew me to caching was the hunt and being led to a new place that I haven't been to or some remote park.

 

Am I the only one who feels this way?

 

erikwillke

 

I find it funny you complain about micros yet 3 out of your 5 hides are micros

[+sbell111]

...Anyway, PQs are a great tool for the addicted but are not the answer to every question about selecting caches to hunt. Nor is it helpful to tell people where to cache. Micros have changed the nature of the game and we need to look at that critically and respectfully.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but if someone's issue is that they think micros aren't caches, then they can easily filter them out and cache on. In this case, PQs are the obvious solution.

[+erikwillke]

The first cache was a 5 gallon bucket with trade goodies as we all know. Now it seems like all I have to choose from are micros. <snip>

What a load of carp

 

Try caching out of the city for once. The further you go, the fewer micros you will find.

 

I ran a pocket query centered on one of my "somewhat remote" caches (about 50 miles outside of Albuquerque). The percentage of micros compared to all other sizes has actually decreased for 4 straight years!

 

Run a pocket query to exclude micros. If you aren't finding the size caches you want it's no one's fault but your own.

 

I do get out of the city. in fact, most of my caches are out of the city. I went so far out of the city that I was in another city about 2 hours away. a small group of us went caching for 3 hours finding alomst 30 caches and almost all of them were micros. I'm not anti micro since I have placed 2 of them but I was just asking if all we do is micro, are we getting away from the "hidden treasure" part of it?

 

I'll tell you what I have learned from caching and now in the forums is that the "treasure" is not the find, but rather the hunt. At least for me anyway

 

I can safely say that my outlook on cache containers has really changed since this thread has started.

 

Anyway, You're right. If I can't find the cache type I want, then it is MY own fault.

[+Fergus]

In my caching experience at least 90% of micro caches suck!

[+ChucKremer]

In my caching experience at least 90% of micro caches suck!

Here's am thought for all you people who think "the hunt's the thing" and it doesn't matter whether the cache is a useless micro or a regular cache. TRY BENCHMARK HUNTING! They're everywhere, almost no one hunts them, there's no log book to mess you up, and you don't have to be bothered with trade items. The only difference between them and a micro is a log.

[+Team_Talisman]

My 2 cents worth,

 

There are beach combers hunting for small coins from present and past, there are people that scour the hilsides in search of diamonds or other gems, people that look for indian artifacts, and fossel hunters, plus many more searches like listed in this post...

 

They are all cachers in a way... but they dont have GPS and a website to help them on their way...

 

If a person dont like micros dont deal with them.....

 

The search is in the mind of the searcher....

[+erikwillke]

I find it funny you complain about micros yet 3 out of your 5 hides are micros

 

only one of my caches is a micro. the other 2 are either disabled or archived.

 

I don't hate micros. I was just wondering if we were getting too far form our roots.

 

Can I drive an suv and wonder about gas milage?

[+erikwillke]

In my caching experience at least 90% of micro caches suck!

Here's am thought for all you people who think "the hunt's the thing" and it doesn't matter whether the cache is a useless micro or a regular cache. TRY BENCHMARK HUNTING! They're everywhere, almost no one hunts them, there's no log book to mess you up, and you don't have to be bothered with trade items. The only difference between them and a micro is a log.

 

I love benchmarks but you don't get a smiley for them.

 

I'm relatively new at this, just over 100, so I still like the smileys.

[salmoned]

I do them if they are where I am, but don't go far out of my way to find them. I would like to see them listed as a separate category.

 

They are a different catagory; size.

 

You can become a premium member and use pocket queries to filter them out, or use a 3rd party software like Gsak to filter them, or use the "ignore" feature to, well, ignore them.

 

The problem is you are just eliminating all micros, both okay ones and lame ones. I'm still looking for the "lame filter".

 

Ed

 

I consider "Size" to be a description and "Micro" to be a category like "Traditional" and "Multi". I would like Micros to be a separate category and carry their own distinctive icon. I also agree that some sort of quality rating would be extremely useful, especially when planning road trips into unfamiliar areas.

 

I agree with edscott completely! Micros, almost by definition, are incapable of holding any trade items and are therefor like virtuals or locationless in that their only purpose is the hunt. Here in the Raleigh, NC area, micros are a plague that, coupled with the propensity for listing caches as being much easier than they really are, makes me hate them with a passion. Were they listed as a category along with a special icon, it should be easy to "ignore" them all. I also agree with the person who said that listing the cache size should be required.

Not true. Micros can and sometimes do hold better swag than regulars. In fact, I think I may need to place a micro with $20 bills for all finders just to prove the point... Let's see how many cachers put it on their "ignore" list.

Edited May 5, 2006 by salmoned

[+Team_Talisman]

A micro with two free passes on a ftf to a hot springs pool for a day might work

 

but would people go for a nano where the finder has to call the cache owner for the passes...

[+bigeddy]

I love benchmarks but you don't get a smiley for them.

Sure you do! Not as sexy as cache totals, perhaps, but fun just the same.

 

 

And benchmarks are still on the personal "Geocaches" list:

 

[+K0BKL]

Here's am thought for all you people who think "the hunt's the thing" and it doesn't matter whether the cache is a useless micro or a regular cache. TRY BENCHMARK HUNTING! They're everywhere, almost no one hunts them, there's no log book to mess you up, and you don't have to be bothered with trade items. The only difference between them and a micro is a log.

Most of the benchmarks in my area are either missing or covered up.

Highway contruction has eliminated so many of them, that I am considering

deleting them from my gps, giving up.

Edited May 5, 2006 by K0BKL

[+Mudfrog]

I see the word micro and usually think right away that it's gonna be lame. It's a stereotypical reaction that i can't seem to shake. IMO, if it's a micro then there's a 90% (my guesstimate with no facts) that it's gonna be lame. But there's always that 10% chance that it's gonna be a fun little challenge and/or take us to a cool spot.

 

No doubt about it, there are alot of lame caches out there (i'm sure some of mine can be put in that category), but they do get us (alot of times with good friends) out of the house for a fun day of caching and not sitting around in front of the tv all day! We've come across many caches that were in terrible places, not very creative, and/or were just thrown out there. But ya know what? I can't think of a one that ever caused any grief or great turmoil to our lives!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The first cache was a 5 gallon bucket with trade goodies as we all know. Now it seems like all I have to choose from are micros. <snip>

What a load of carp

 

Try caching out of the city for once. The further you go, the fewer micros you will find.

 

I ran a pocket query centered on one of my "somewhat remote" caches (about 50 miles outside of Albuquerque). The percentage of micros compared to all other sizes has actually decreased for 4 straight years!

 

Run a pocket query to exclude micros. If you aren't finding the size caches you want it's no one's fault but your own.

 

I do get out of the city. in fact, most of my caches are out of the city. I went so far out of the city that I was in another city about 2 hours away. a small group of us went caching for 3 hours finding alomst 30 caches and almost all of them were micros. <snip>

Ending up in "another city" is not going to give you fewer micros to hunt. You have to look for caches outside of any city, not just yours.

Anyway, You're right. If I can't find the cache type I want, then it is MY own fault.

Next time you go out, try looking at a map. If there are lots of streets, you're in the city. Try caching somewhere off the beaten path and you won't have a problem with too many micros.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Micros have changed the nature of the game and we need to look at that critically and respectfully.

 

Changed?

 

A better choice of words would be -expanded- the nature of the game and as a result, different choices are now made available for different types of players. I respectfully (sincerely and without malice) ask why we should look at this criticially? It's not like we are altering a 100 year tradition of geocaching.

 

The future and growth of the game depends on meeting the diverse needs of different players. To suggest that new types of caches (that a certain sector of players like to seek and hide) is a negative would be the same as suggesting that everyone that can't physicially hike to a mountain top, or lives within a reachable distance of that mountain top, or even has the desire to go there for that matter shouldn't have an opportunity to participate.

 

I'm looking forward to the -next- type of cache. It might not be for me but there's probably a few people that would enjoy it.

[salmoned]

Expanding the game can be good or bad. If we expand it in directions contrary to the interests of many players, there's a chance of diffusing and losing their support. Growth for it's own sake has never led to stability or longevity in any enterprise. That's one reason I applauded the 'demise' of virtuals.

 

That said, I still support micros, as long as they adhere to the general requirements. What I don't support are special logging requirements (other than no spoilers). If I find a cache and sign the log, I should be allowed to log a find.

[+bigeddy]

Micros have changed the nature of the game and we need to look at that critically and respectfully.

 

Changed?

 

A better choice of words would be -expanded- the nature of the game and as a result, different choices are now made available for different types of players. I respectfully (sincerely and without malice) ask why we should look at this criticially? It's not like we are altering a 100 year tradition of geocaching.

Please read my original post (somewhere on page 2). For better or worse, micos have radically changed the physical attributes and number of caches, changed how we search and log them, and--I maintain--lowered the overall quality and variety of caches because they are so easy to hide. In many places a high percentage of caches are typical micro hides in boring places. It's a numbers game now.

 

Yes, the game expands and offers something for everybody if they are willing to work at it. The problem with copious micros is that they make the task so much harder. It is similar to the challenge of finding healthy food in the grease-belt: possible, perhaps, but the easy availability of junk food works against us. From my perspective micros are unhealthy for the game and we would be wise to talk about it.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Micros have changed the nature of the game and we need to look at that critically and respectfully.

 

Changed?

 

A better choice of words would be -expanded- the nature of the game and as a result, different choices are now made available for different types of players. I respectfully (sincerely and without malice) ask why we should look at this critically? It's not like we are altering a 100 year tradition of GeoCaching.

 

Please read my original post (somewhere on page 2). For better or worse, micos have radically changed the physical attributes and number of caches, changed how we search and log them, and--I maintain--lowered the overall quality and variety of caches because they are so easy to hide. In many places a high percentage of caches are typical micro hides in boring places. It's a numbers game now.

 

Yes, the game expands and offers something for everybody if they are willing to work at it. The problem with copious micros is that they make the task so much harder. It is similar to the challenge of finding healthy food in the grease-belt: possible, perhaps, but the easy availability of junk food works against us. From my perspective micros are unhealthy for the game and we would be wise to talk about it.

 

All good points.

 

I think it is a given that each geographic area is different and the GeoCaching experience is as varied as the people hiding caches. Although I don't believe it to be true where I hunt, I can see how a handful of enthusiastic but non talented micro hiders can skew things in the wrong direction. But I will also contend that it is just as easy to do the same thing with traditional caches AND the time investment you need to make to locate and have that less than desirable experience is much greater.

 

So, let's talk about it.

 

You've got a hider that is running rampant with film canisters or for the sake of discussion, Tupperware, in your area. Because he didn't need to take a test before he joined up at GC.com, most of your current choices for action are after the fact. None of these are solutions, just ideas.

 

1. Send the cacher an email and make some gentle and constructive suggestions on hides that you thought were great and ask him to go check them out. Normally people that are just throwing caches out are inexperienced and perhaps they will be motivated to improve their own hides.

2. Organize a cache award contest in your area. I think our recent contest did wonders for raising the awareness of what it takes to put out a good cache and that once people go find all of the nominations and winners, lessons will be learned, ideas will be hatched, and it will serve to up the overall quality of caches in our area.

3. Look for a cacher that was a flash in the pan and adopt his unimaginative work with your own improvement. I think this type of thing is really where the most gains can be made. If someone has zero game in making a cache, they are not going to maintain it and it will be up for adoption soon.

4. Lastly, it doesn't have to be about numbers if you don't want it to me. Consider the time you take to ensure you are seeking quality caches. You can spend a little more time researching the caches you seek (and their hiders), you can spot talent or lack there of very easily with the information made available to you.

 

Here's the bottom line here; To make a good hide of any size you need talent, education and motivation and you don't have to possess any of it to start hiding caches.

[+Team_Talisman]

Yes, micros are really caches... nano, 35mm, Altoids tin, etc. How they are hidden is the key (as has been stated).

However, plastic AOL CD cases, CD crystal cases, Liquid Ice containers (read: containers that are in no way weather-resistent) should be banned, canned and the Cachers who hide them need to be made to retrieve them and apply them to the Biz Bag (trash) immediately, as they should have been before they ever became geocaches (small "g" intentional).

 

Are you saying My waterproff thimbles(thimbles are not made to be waterpro0f) should be banned or denied...

5 designed one in 3 foot of water for 20 days now with no wetness.....

 

June and July will be the placing of the 5...... But where will they appear and what disguise will they be wearing hehehehe