Micro Vs Traditional.

[+Miragee]

Some people actually prefer micros. Should your preference have greater weight than theirs? Discuss.

And some don't. The quality of my GC finds went up astronomically when I started excluding micros on my pocket queries for unfound caches.

I understand that completely, however, I would not exclude micros completely, I would just up the Terrain rating for them.

 

Because I knew not many people would visit this area, I placed a weatherproof micro container. However, I think it is a fun one -- a bison tube stuffed inside a plastic tarantula -- and it isn't hard to find since it is hidden out on a large expanse of slickrock.

 

If you are ever in this area, I hope you change your PQ to only eliminate Micros with a Terrain rating below a '2'.

[+sbell111]

Some people actually prefer micros. Should your preference have greater weight than theirs? Discuss.

And some don't. The quality of my GC finds went up astronomically, in my opinion, when I started excluding micros on my pocket queries for unfound caches.

I fixed it for you.

 

Unfix it, please. That is not what I said, that is not what I meant. It was a straightforward statement of fact; please don't change my posts like that.

Because it bothers you so much, I will.

 

My point is, your statement was true about your experience. It was your opinion of that experience.

[+grey_wolf & momcat]

Some people actually prefer micros. Should your preference have greater weight than theirs? Discuss.

And some don't. The quality of my GC finds went up astronomically, in my opinion, when I started excluding micros on my pocket queries for unfound caches.

I fixed it for you.

 

Unfix it, please. That is not what I said, that is not what I meant. It was a straightforward statement of fact; please don't change my posts like that.

Because it bothers you so much, I will.

 

My point is, your statement was true about your experience. It was your opinion of that experience.

 

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:

1) Use my brain.

2) Try to make the game fun for others

3) Try not to be too full of myself

 

cool statements huh.

[+fresgo]

So all this arguing doesn't change the fact that the while the discussion is called micro vs. traditional yet micro caches are traditional caches.

[+grey_wolf & momcat]

Micro's are classed as traditional caches. Some folks prefer urban micros over going into the Woods, marsh, bush, etc and visa versa. I think the problem comes when the folks that go for the urban caches end up with a higher "smiley" count than the folks that only do large caches. (there are just more of the small caches) And with most (but not all) cachers, numbers do count. The statement about "quality caches" comes up often, but IMHO the level of quality is in the eyes of the beholder. I sometimes bypass caches, but not because of their size or location (this is probably my personal "quality filter" coming into play)

 

Shields are up

[CoyoteRed]

So all this arguing doesn't change the fact that the while the discussion is called micro vs. traditional yet micro caches are traditional caches.

"Micro" is a size. "Traditional" is a type. Two different things. Like "small" and "American."

 

And with most (but not all) cachers, numbers do count.

Only on a certain level. There are different reasons for watching one's numbers. The folks that are only keeping track out of curiosity aren't the one's harming the hobby. It's the one's that are activity trying to artificially raise their numbers that are harming the hobby. While I feel those are in the minority they are having a disproportionally larger negative influence on the hobby.

Edited June 8, 2006 by CoyoteRed

[+briansnat]

uhh I'm pretty new to this geocaching thing and I've been wondering what is "Micro Spew" and who owns the trademark?

 

Micro spew is the placing of numerous micro caches without any regard for the aesthetic, natural, historic or curiosity value of the site. Basically its placing caches for the sake of placing a cache. Micro spew caches will be found in shopping mall parking lots, next to garbage dumpsters, attached to guardrails and similar mundane or unappealing places.

 

What is it with people who think their opinion is that of the entire community? Mundanity and appeal are subjective, Brian. I hardly think you speak for everyone in what you find mundane and unappealing. The shopping mall lamppost micro might be QUITE appealing to someone who is unable to go traipsing through the forest because they're confined to a wheelchair, for instance. The guardrail cache might be perfect for the guy that only gets 15 minutes to cache during his lunch break. Whatever. It's a bunch of BS is what it is.

 

I reject the notion that handicapped people have to be sentenced to a geo-liftetime of going from shopping mall lamp post to shopping mall lamp post. Its afwully patronizing of you to presume that they should be satisfied with that.

 

I admit that mundanity is subjective. Someone from Somalia might find a Walmart parking lot to be a really cool place and maybe a raccoon will find the dumpster area behind the 7-Eleven to be exciting. But for most of us, I honestly doubt it.

 

Let's be honest here. The term Micro-Spew™ was invented as a way for some people in the forums to feel superior about their find count

 

Wrong. Its a way to describe the indiscriminate placing of caches in mundane and/or unappealing places.

 

 

I think the problem comes when the folks that go for the urban caches end up with a higher "smiley" count than the folks that only do large caches. (there are just more of the small caches) And with most (but not all) cachers, numbers do count.

 

You seem to be saying that people who speak out against micro spew are jealous of people with high find counts thanks to mostly urban micros. A few words come to mind in response. Bunk! Poppycock! Codswallop! Nonsense!

 

Did ya ever think we're just tired of wasting our time going after caches in ugly places? Yeah, I hear the responses to this already - "Just don't do them", "Filter micros out", "blah-blah-blah" The thing is that being a paperless cacher, I don't know that the cache is taking me to the Home Depot, or a garbage and feces strewn lot until I get there. Unfortunately they haven't invented a GPS that will tell me this ahead of time.

 

Filtering out micros may help to some extent, but I'll probably miss out on some great caches if I do this. You see, the issue isn't micros per se, its micro spew. They are not the same thing.

Edited June 8, 2006 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:

1) Use my brain.

2) Try to make the game fun for others

3) Try not to be too full of myself

 

cool statements huh.

Ah, the 'Creed'.

 

I know, I follow #1 and #2 much more carefully than #3, but I try.

[+sbell111]

I reject the notion that handicapped people have to be sentenced to a geo-liftetime of going from shopping mall lamp post to shopping mall lamp post. Its afwully patronizing of you to presume that they should be satisfied with that.

Speaking as someone who has cached with and without a 'handicap', I've got to tell you that I still don't understand what all the fuss is about.

Let's be honest here. The term Micro-Spew™ was invented as a way for some people in the forums to feel superior about their find count

Wrong. Its a way to describe the indiscriminate placing of caches in mundane and/or unappealing places.

Its a good way to polorize the subject, also. Don't ye think?

Did ya ever think we're just tired of wasting our time going after caches in ugly places? Yeah, I hear the responses to this already - "Just don't do them", "Filter micros out", "blah-blah-blah" The thing is that being a paperless cacher, I don't know that the cache is taking me to the Home Depot, or a garbage and feces strewn lot until I get there. Unfortunately they haven't invented a GPS that will tell me this ahead of time.

 

Filtering out micros may help to some extent, but I'll probably miss out on some great caches if I do this. You see, the issue isn't micros per se, its micro spew. They are not the same thing.

Those responses certainly have merit. The way I see it, we have two choices as paperless cachers.

1. We can look for whatever is hidden. This will include some 'lame' micros, but will not filter out any 'good' caches. This, of course will require us to make decisions on-the-fly as to whether we want to search for a specific cache. Interestingly, as a cacher who currently has a physical disability, I have to make such a decision about every cache I seek. Its not that much of a biggie.
   
2. We can tweak our PQs and ignore lists to filter out as many of the caches that are 'lame' as we can. Of course, some stinkers will stay in and some good ones will be filtered out. We will be left with a cache list that is more to our liking.
   

There are no other options. People will always hide the kinds of caches that they like to find. All of those will not be everyone's cup of tea. Big deal.

Edited June 8, 2006 by sbell111

[+grey_wolf & momcat]

So all this arguing doesn't change the fact that the while the discussion is called micro vs. traditional yet micro caches are traditional caches.

"Micro" is a size. "Traditional" is a type. Two different things. Like "small" and "American."

 

And with most (but not all) cachers, numbers do count.

Only on a certain level. There are different reasons for watching one's numbers. The folks that are only keeping track out of curiosity aren't the one's harming the hobby. It's the one's that are activity trying to artificially raise their numbers that are harming the hobby. While I feel those are in the minority they are having a disproportionally larger negative influence on the hobby.

 

While there are a lot of micros out there, i don't know how much a negative influence that they have on the hobby. I have a tendency to not do caches by certain cachers instead of types of caches. There are some very good micros out there.

[+sbell111]

One of my favorite cache finds was in Louisville, KY (actually several of my faves were in Louisville. Good job guys!) It was a drive up cache in a business park. It was a coffee can housed in an unassigned mailbox that had 'geo', 'geocache', or the GC logo on the door (I don't remember exactly. Its been years and I'm old. Give me a break already!)

 

It was a great cache in an uninteresting location. My point is that there are four or five criterion to a good cache. Any of these make a cache good. The addition of more of these criterion make a cache great.

[+grey_wolf & momcat]

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:

1) Use my brain.

2) Try to make the game fun for others

3) Try not to be too full of myself

 

cool statements huh.

Ah, the 'Creed'.

 

I know, I follow #1 and #2 much more carefully than #3, but I try.

 

Seems like i have the same thing going on #3, but I do try to keep a balance.

[+sbell111]

... While I feel those are in the minority they are having a disproportionally larger negative influence on the hobby.

While there are a lot of micros out there, i don't know how much a negative influence that they have on the hobby. I have a tendency to not do caches by certain cachers instead of types of caches. There are some very good micros out there.

I can't see how a lame micro is having a negative affect on the hobby. I certainly don't see how this negative affect is greater than, say, an ammo box under a railroad overpass or a tupperware container hidden inside an above ground burial vault (still 'in use'). (Both are real examples.)

 

First, prove to me that the affect is negative. Then, show me that these 'lame' micros have a 'disproportionally larger negative influence'.

[+sbell111]

When placing or seeking geocaches, I will:

1) Use my brain.

2) Try to make the game fun for others

3) Try not to be too full of myself

 

cool statements huh.

Ah, the 'Creed'.

 

I know, I follow #1 and #2 much more carefully than #3, but I try.

Seems like i have the same thing going on #3, but I do try to keep a balance.

There's a reason that it says 'Try not to be too full of myself'.

[+AtoZ]

As the saying goes "play the game the way you want to."

If you don't like micros don't do them. In all honesty why not complain about the real nemis of caching the cache in a PILE OF ROCKS. Now that is the worst of all.

cheers

[+briansnat]

As the saying goes "play the game the way you want to."

If you don't like micros don't do them. In all honesty why not complain about the real nemis of caching the cache in a PILE OF ROCKS. Now that is the worst of all.

cheers

 

Someone who obviously hasn't read this thread.

Edited June 8, 2006 by briansnat

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Micro's are classed as traditional caches. Some folks prefer urban micros over going into the Woods, marsh, bush, etc and visa versa. I think the problem comes when the folks that go for the urban caches end up with a higher "smiley" count than the folks that only do large caches. (there are just more of the small caches) And with most (but not all) cachers, numbers do count. The statement about "quality caches" comes up often, but IMHO the level of quality is in the eyes of the beholder. I sometimes bypass caches, but not because of their size or location (this is probably my personal "quality filter" coming into play)

 

Shields are up

 

Holy bejesus, the voice of reason.

Edited June 8, 2006 by ParrotRob

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

uhh I'm pretty new to this geocaching thing and I've been wondering what is "Micro Spew" and who owns the trademark?

 

Micro spew is the placing of numerous micro caches without any regard for the aesthetic, natural, historic or curiosity value of the site. Basically its placing caches for the sake of placing a cache. Micro spew caches will be found in shopping mall parking lots, next to garbage dumpsters, attached to guardrails and similar mundane or unappealing places.

 

What is it with people who think their opinion is that of the entire community? Mundanity and appeal are subjective, Brian. I hardly think you speak for everyone in what you find mundane and unappealing. The shopping mall lamppost micro might be QUITE appealing to someone who is unable to go traipsing through the forest because they're confined to a wheelchair, for instance. The guardrail cache might be perfect for the guy that only gets 15 minutes to cache during his lunch break. Whatever. It's a bunch of BS is what it is.

 

I reject the notion that handicapped people have to be sentenced to a geo-liftetime of going from shopping mall lamp post to shopping mall lamp post. Its afwully patronizing of you to presume that they should be satisfied with that.

 

This from the person that thinks he should get to define what is "appealing" and what is "mundane" for the entire community?

 

I admit that mundanity is subjective. Someone from Somalia might find a Walmart parking lot to be a really cool place and maybe a raccoon will find the dumpster area behind the 7-Eleven to be exciting. But for most of us, I honestly doubt it.

 

Let's be honest here. The term Micro-Spew™ was invented as a way for some people in the forums to feel superior about their find count

 

Wrong. Its a way to describe the indiscriminate placing of caches in mundane and/or unappealing places.

 

Again, YOU do not speak for the community. I don't recall electing you the official judge of appeal and mundanity.

 

 

I think the problem comes when the folks that go for the urban caches end up with a higher "smiley" count than the folks that only do large caches. (there are just more of the small caches) And with most (but not all) cachers, numbers do count.

 

You seem to be saying that people who speak out against micro spew are jealous of people with high find counts thanks to mostly urban micros. A few words come to mind in response. Bunk! Poppycock! Codswallop! Nonsense!

 

Heh, the truth hurts, doesn't it. If that's truly the case, you wouldn't be worried about it. You'd just avoid the caches you don't like and go on about your business. But no, you choose to stand up and fight. Why is that, Brian? Tell us again how the lamppost micro at your local Walmart somehow diminishes the quality and/or significance of your favorite ammo can on top of a mountain?

 

Did ya ever think we're just tired of wasting our time going after caches in ugly places?

 

Uh, when I'm tired of doing something I just stop doing it. Even my DOG stops chasing the stick when it gets boring.

 

Yeah, I hear the responses to this already - "Just don't do them", "Filter micros out", "blah-blah-blah" The thing is that being a paperless cacher, I don't know that the cache is taking me to the Home Depot, or a garbage and feces strewn lot until I get there. Unfortunately they haven't invented a GPS that will tell me this ahead of time.

 

Filtering out micros may help to some extent, but I'll probably miss out on some great caches if I do this. You see, the issue isn't micros per se, its micro spew. They are not the same thing.

 

 

A-ha. Now the truth comes out. You're a paperless cacher who just downloads waypoints into your GPS and off you go. I can imagine your disappointment when one of the waypoints takes you to the Shop-N-Save instead of a nice park.

 

Of course, the real reason for this is not something called "Micro-Spew" - it's because Brian didn't do his homework before setting out. Groundspeak goes to great lengths to give you the tools you need to figure this stuff out ahead of time, but rather than YOU putting in the TIME to ensure that YOU have a QUALITY EXPERIENCE (by your definition), you expect the world to change for YOU so you don't have to.

 

Much-a-spew-about-nothing™, of course.

Edited June 8, 2006 by ParrotRob

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Those responses certainly have merit. The way I see it, we have two choices as paperless cachers.

[*]We can look for whatever is hidden. This will include some 'lame' micros, but will not filter out any 'good' caches. This, of course will require us to make decisions on-the-fly as to whether we want to search for a specific cache.

 

Well yeah, but that requires making DECISIONS, which requires you to THINK and do your HOMEWORK. If everyone would just hide the kinds of caches I like, I wouldn't have to think about it. Why work to ensure I have a quality experience if I can get someone else to do it for me?

[CoyoteRed]

While there are a lot of micros out there, i don't know how much a negative influence that they have on the hobby. I have a tendency to not do caches by certain cachers instead of types of caches. There are some very good micros out there.

 

It's been explained time and time again.

 

First, it's not really about micros, it's about spew. It's just the vast majority of spew is micros. "Micros" does not equal "spew," though "spew" does equal (approximately) "micros" given that a tiny bit is smalls and regulars.

 

So, yes, there are good micros as I recognize in my Top Cache List.

 

If folks would quite trying to confuse size with quality then it would be much easier to understand.

 

Next, you have to understand why most spew is micros. It's because they are cheap and easy to hide. You can easily create 50 or more spew-caches for the price of a cheap trading regular even if you don't have the materials on hand. It takes very little effort to find a spot to "place" spew and grab a waypoint. A determined spewer can easily place 50 or more spew caches in a day.

 

How this is a negative on the hobby is the amount of chaff one has to wade through to find the good caches. There is no filter for it. New cachers coming into the hobby sees a large amount of this chaff and thinks this how it supposed to be done and it perpetuates. The chaff migrates from parking lots to parks and starts taking up space where regulars are appropriate. Next thing you know micros dominate.

 

It's already demonstrated that a lot of cachers are lazy. They'd rather do easy traditionals than easy multis. We're seeing this bleed over to placements as well. If you cache, you see it first hand. It's much easier to place a non-trading micro than a regular. It's just a slip of paper and (free) container. In fact, it's getting to the point where some rabid micro hunters are so ingrained in finding micros that they can't think outside the box enough to find a SAW box within 4 inches of their feet!

 

While we've not hidden but one micro--actually a small--I'd be upset that folks are placing such low quality caches, and them being micros, that folks would filter all micros and miss ours.

[CoyoteRed]

Those responses certainly have merit. The way I see it, we have two choices as paperless cachers.

[*]We can look for whatever is hidden. This will include some 'lame' micros, but will not filter out any 'good' caches. This, of course will require us to make decisions on-the-fly as to whether we want to search for a specific cache.

 

Well yeah, but that requires making DECISIONS, which requires you to THINK and do your HOMEWORK. If everyone would just hide the kinds of caches I like, I wouldn't have to think about it. Why work to ensure I have a quality experience if I can get someone else to do it for me?

 

I'm curious. Are you one of those folks who don't log your finds online?

 

The reason I ask is I was going to see what kind of caching you do. Quite frankly, I was little surprised.

 

(Yes, I realize my requested feature of hiding stats would have made it so I couldn't see this, but considering it is there, I looked.)

[+SmartSapper]

snip... The thing is that being a paperless cacher, I don't know that the cache is taking me to the Home Depot, or a garbage and feces strewn lot until I get there. Unfortunately they haven't invented a GPS that will tell me this ahead of time.

 

Filtering out micros may help to some extent, but I'll probably miss out on some great caches if I do this. You see, the issue isn't micros per se, its micro spew. They are not the same thing.

 

I know I am going to hear about this, but I'll express my opinion anyway. Here goes:

You choose to be paperless, I guess I am curious: why? But, if you make that choice, who is responsible for you ending up in the parking lot?

I have recently started using Google Earth with the Geocache view, here in Iraq. That lets me know ahead of time how to get to the area of the base where the cache is hidden. It lets me plan my route and pick and choose what caches I am going after. I've used it to look at several areas in the states and most urban areas have enough resolution to show a parking lot. Granted, I am still new and there are still plenty of caches that I have not found. Maybe as my choices become limited I'll understand your point of view better.

 

I think that I agree with SBell111 that there are options, and my choice probably isn't the next guy's.

 

 

ALSO - regarding the cache size challenge, if you really want to tick someone off, just place an ammo can cache at the site of the micro, pick up the micro, and put it in YOUR ammo can cache!

NOW I'M REALLY GOING TO GET IT...

[+briansnat]

Again, YOU do not speak for the community. I don't recall electing you the official judge of appeal and mundanity.

 

Hmmm, I don't recall claiming to speak for anybody but myself (but you are obviously a spoksperson for handicapped geocachers).

 

Sure there are geocachers who might find a feces and litter strewn homeless ecampment appealing. I bet that there are even some who don't see parking lots as mundane (mundane, by the way means ordinary or commonplace. They are pretty commonplace where I come from. Perhaps you live someplace where they aren't).

 

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most geocachers would find a feces and litter strewn lot to be unappealing and a mall parking lot to be commonplace.

 

Of course, the real reason for this is not something called "Micro-Spew" - it's because Brian didn't do his homework before setting out.

 

Had enough of homework in school. Been there. I geocache for fun and relaxation. The day it becomes work, is the day I find something else to do.

Edited June 8, 2006 by briansnat

[Mushtang]

Those responses certainly have merit. The way I see it, we have two choices as paperless cachers.

[*]We can look for whatever is hidden. This will include some 'lame' micros, but will not filter out any 'good' caches. This, of course will require us to make decisions on-the-fly as to whether we want to search for a specific cache.

 

Well yeah, but that requires making DECISIONS, which requires you to THINK and do your HOMEWORK. If everyone would just hide the kinds of caches I like, I wouldn't have to think about it. Why work to ensure I have a quality experience if I can get someone else to do it for me?

 

I'm curious. Are you one of those folks who don't log your finds online?

 

The reason I ask is I was going to see what kind of caching you do. Quite frankly, I was little surprised.

 

(Yes, I realize my requested feature of hiding stats would have made it so I couldn't see this, but considering it is there, I looked.)

 

Careful ParrotRob, you're being judged on your stats.

Edited June 8, 2006 by Mushtang

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Those responses certainly have merit. The way I see it, we have two choices as paperless cachers.

[*]We can look for whatever is hidden. This will include some 'lame' micros, but will not filter out any 'good' caches. This, of course will require us to make decisions on-the-fly as to whether we want to search for a specific cache.

 

Well yeah, but that requires making DECISIONS, which requires you to THINK and do your HOMEWORK. If everyone would just hide the kinds of caches I like, I wouldn't have to think about it. Why work to ensure I have a quality experience if I can get someone else to do it for me?

 

I'm curious. Are you one of those folks who don't log your finds online?

 

The reason I ask is I was going to see what kind of caching you do. Quite frankly, I was little surprised.

 

(Yes, I realize my requested feature of hiding stats would have made it so I couldn't see this, but considering it is there, I looked.)

 

Is this the "you've only found 40-some caches in three years so your opinion is somehow less relevant than mine" post?

 

If you must know, I have a physical disability which, while occasionally in remission, more often than not limits my ability to get out and about. It also means when I *do* get out and about, I don't stray far from a vehicle and NEVER out of cell phone coverage.

 

I don't have a problem with you looking at my profile, but what that has to do with the issue of THIS topic, I don't know. If you want to talk about my caching history and/or my health, we can do that over in OT. If, on the other hand, you'd like to debate whether I should have hidden the profile or not, well, that topic is being discussed in the web site forum.

 

So, did you have anything useful to add to THIS discussion or did you just want to talk about my stats?

[CoyoteRed]

...but what that has to do with the issue of THIS topic, I don't know.

 

Thank you.

 

My point is you cache the way you do. The way you are describing the way it should be done--like doing your homework, making predetermined decisions, etc.--works for you. You assume everyone should cache like you.

 

I see Mushtang posted about and I'm thinking it's a 50/50 chance it's about something I said in this thread. Probably something about me trying to force everyone to cache the way I do. Kind of ironic, actually. How many posts from him have attacked you on the way you're trying to force everyone to cache like you? Never mind. It was a rhetorical question.

 

Anyway, the point is not everyone caches like you do. Some of us like to simply fill our GPS units and follow where they lead. Others have different methods. The problem comes from the fact that in the past several months to a couple of years or so, where it's been leading us has been a higher percentage of trashy caches.

 

Of course, you're next retort is going to be "trashy caches, in my opinion." Well, yes, I've addressed that elsewhere, as well.

 

EDITED TO ADD: I will concede that I want to cache like the way I want to cache. That's going back to the way it used to be where a large percentage of caches are worth hunting and it didn't matter what size the cache was. There has been a change and not for the better.

Edited June 8, 2006 by CoyoteRed

[Mushtang]

I see Mushtang posted about and I'm thinking it's a 50/50 chance it's about something I said in this thread.

 

You're so vain. You probably think this post is about you, don't you?

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

...but what that has to do with the issue of THIS topic, I don't know.

 

Thank you.

 

My point is you cache the way you do. The way you are describing the way it should be done--like doing your homework, making predetermined decisions, etc.--works for you. You assume everyone should cache like you.

 

I see Mushtang posted about and I'm thinking it's a 50/50 chance it's about something I said in this thread. Probably something about me trying to force everyone to cache the way I do. Kind of ironic, actually. How many posts from him have attacked you on the way you're trying to force everyone to cache like you? Never mind. It was a rhetorical question.

 

Anyway, the point is not everyone caches like you do. Some of us like to simply fill our GPS units and follow where they lead. Others have different methods. The problem comes from the fact that in the past several months to a couple of years or so, where it's been leading us has been a higher percentage of trashy caches.

 

Of course, you're next retort is going to be "trashy caches, in my opinion." Well, yes, I've addressed that elsewhere, as well.

 

EDITED TO ADD: I will concede that I want to cache like the way I want to cache. That's going back to the way it used to be where a large percentage of caches are worth hunting and it didn't matter what size the cache was. There has been a change and not for the better.

 

And no one is telling you you can't cache the way you like. HOWEVER - if you're just going to load up and find caches randomly, then you should be prepared to find ones you don't like. That's the way it works.

 

It is no coincidence that people who put some effort into deciding what to hunt have better results than random waypoint loading. And if you're not willing to put the effort in up front, you really don't have any business complaining about what you get out of it.

 

Now if you want to complain that you found a "lame" micro that the map said was in a park and the cache description said was an ammo can under a rock, well, then you may have an argument there.

[CoyoteRed]

And no one is telling you you can't cache the way you like. HOWEVER - if you're just going to load up and find caches randomly, then you should be prepared to find ones you don't like. That's the way it works.

 

That's the way it works today. Not the way it used to work.

 

Before, the number of trashy caches were few. You hit one or two a day, it wasn't that big of a deal.

 

Today, you can hit one trashy cache after another. Some areas are so bad we just gave up and left to find a better area.

 

There is a trend here. That's the point. Pretty soon everyone is going to have to cache like you by pre-planning their whole trip.

[+The Jester]

I see Mushtang posted about and I'm thinking it's a 50/50 chance it's about something I said in this thread.

 

You're so vain. You probably think this post is about you, don't you?

I haven't thought of that song in a long time. Thanks for the smile.

[+sbell111]

.... New cachers coming into the hobby sees a large amount of this chaff and thinks this how it supposed to be done and it perpetuates. The chaff migrates from parking lots to parks and starts taking up space where regulars are appropriate. Next thing you know micros dominate. ...

This is the point where your logic falls apart. You see, if these hides were horrible, those that found them as their first finds would more likely just decide that the game is stupid and quit. The fact that they are emulating them tells me that they liked them.

My point is you cache the way you do. The way you are describing the way it should be done--like doing your homework, making predetermined decisions, etc.--works for you. You assume everyone should cache like you. ...

 

Anyway, the point is not everyone caches like you do. Some of us like to simply fill our GPS units and follow where they lead. Others have different methods. The problem comes from the fact that in the past several months to a couple of years or so, where it's been leading us has been a higher percentage of trashy caches.

What you don't get is that, since you are the one with the problem, it is appropriate for you to have to put a little (very little, in my opinion) extra work in to get the result that you want.

 

Why must the world conform to your desires?

That's the way it works today. Not the way it used to work.

 

Before, the number of trashy caches were few. You hit one or two a day, it wasn't that big of a deal.

That is not even true. There were 'lame' micros well before you started playing the game. Are there more of them now? Of course there are, but there are also more caches in general. Don't try to rewrite history just to support your arguments.

Today, you can hit one trashy cache after another. Some areas are so bad we just gave up and left to find a better area.

 

There is a trend here. That's the point. Pretty soon everyone is going to have to cache like you by pre-planning their whole trip.

See now you are taking his (and my) argument on preplanning and twisting it to make it appear to be a ton of work. You are already getting your caches using PQs, we are just suggesting that you tweek them to filter out caches that you are unlikely to enjoy.

 

If you are too lazy to take the tiny amount of effort required to do this, then it is on you. The world doesn't revolve around your desires. Sorry.

[CoyoteRed]

.... New cachers coming into the hobby sees a large amount of this chaff and thinks this how it supposed to be done and it perpetuates. The chaff migrates from parking lots to parks and starts taking up space where regulars are appropriate. Next thing you know micros dominate. ...

This is the point where your logic falls apart. You see, if these hides were horrible, those that found them as their first finds would more likely just decide that the game is stupid and quit. The fact that they are emulating them tells me that they liked them.

 

I see you're still using the same false logic as the reason I put you on my ignore list in the first place. Nothing has changed.

 

No one said anything about newbie loving or hating the caches. They would just feel that's the way it is and perpetuate it. The folks that have been around for a while and have the experience knows what it is like.

 

See, your whole post is like that. You're not addressing what I'm actually saying.

 

Care to point me to the filter to eliminate the spew without eliminating the caches folks actually put some effort into? Don't call me lazy because of some mythical filter you claim exists. The fact is the only filter is each and every individual acting like their own reviewer pre-planning each and every cache hunt and then hoping the description is accurate.

 

You can't filter micros without filtering the good ones. You can't even make a blind judgment on urban caches without filtering the good ones. You can't make a judgment based on the quality of the cache page. You can't make a judgment based on the logs without risking a spoiler. You really can't make a judgment until you've hunted the cache or at least gotten close to ground zero.

 

Eh, anyway, this is more explanation than your post deserves.

[+The Jester]

Because it is subjective, your garbage isn't my garbage - so in my eyes maybe the quality is up. Your statement sounded like "It's subjective, I can't filter it out, so everyone use my standard for hiding caches" to me.

 

Let me pose this question to you, then.

 

Would you hunt a cache if you didn't get a smilie out of it? Are there any caches you would hunt just because?

I don't hunt caches for smilies (except the one on my face). So yes, I'd hunt a cache without smilies. And almost all my cache hunts are just because - just like my mountain climbing - "they are there".

 

It doesn't have to be my standard, but the community's standard. Pretend that all find counts went away. How many caches do you suppose would simply die away without a replacement? Those that remain are the ones that isn't garbage.

 

Getting rid of all the caches that exist simply to increment your find count would go a long way in increasing the quality of cache population. It wouldn't be my standard, but that of the community. If no one comes to find it...

Sorry, I don't quite follow you here. Without find counts, some caches would automatically go away?? It seems to me, that a lot of the caches you are complaining about have the most logs, so how does that equate to disappearing. "Getting rid of" ... "wouldn't be my standard" - who's deciding which to get rid of? If the "community" are the ones leaving all those logs on those you don't like, I guess they spoken - even if you don't like what they are saying. And why are so many old, quality caches gone? According to this logic, they should be the ones that are still around.

[CoyoteRed]

I see Mushtang posted about and I'm thinking it's a 50/50 chance it's about something I said in this thread.

 

You're so vain. You probably think this post is about you, don't you?

I haven't thought of that song in a long time. Thanks for the smile.

 

[+The Jester]

Re-read my post about challenging a micro hide. I know of plenty of places where spew was strewn and a regular could have been placed mere feet away. It's one of the complaints about spew I have. Not only did someone bring me to an uninteresting place, but didn't even provide a regular-sized cache.

So a larger cache makes the place more interesting? Maybe if we make it semi-trailer size it would then be a fantastic place?

 

HA HA! HA!

 

Who said a larger cache would make a place more interesting? I don't see it where you quoted me. Anyone else see that, because I sure don't.

 

Location is only one element of creating a quality cache. Bring up any one element of the hide and you make it a bit better, but one element doesn't affect another element.

Sorry, I phrased that wrong. The bolded above is what I was looking at. Would you have more interest in the cache if it was larger? Does bigger mean a higher quality cache? Then a semi-trailer size should make it the best cache ever.

[CoyoteRed]

Sorry, I don't quite follow you here. Without find counts, some caches would automatically go away??

 

I'm not surprised you don't follow.

 

If a cache is so bad that the only reason anyone would hunt it is to get a smilie, then take a way that smilie and there is no reason to hunt it. If a cache is never sought then there is no reason for it to exist. Folks who place these types of caches want them to be found.

 

Then the next time this person places a cache he will be more inclined to place a cache that folks will want to find just for the sake of finding it.

 

Eventually, these types of caches, the ones that only have a smilie as a reward--will disappear from the landscape.

[+sbell111]

I see you're still using the same false logic as the reason I put you on my ignore list in the first place. Nothing has changed. ...

Ummm, Three things about your post.

1. If I'm on your ignore list, how did you read my post? Should I be concerned about my privacy?
   
2. You made the point about new cachers. I only developed your point to show that you were full of it.
   
3. Suggestions have been made at least twice in this thread and in other threads regarding how you can tweek your filters.
   

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Hey! Another argument about whether size matters

 

I don't like most micros -- they are boring.

I love micros in a cool location that won't hold a larger cache -- they are not boring.

Nano's are just cruel micros -- they are boring and mean.

 

However -- all the above are absolutely just my opinion. If someone likes micors, I say let them have fun and do what they like -- it really doesn''t affect me. (of course, I also don't care if someone has found 10, 100 or 1000 caches.)

[+sbell111]

Sorry, I don't quite follow you here. Without find counts, some caches would automatically go away??

 

I'm not surprised you don't follow.

 

If a cache is so bad that the only reason anyone would hunt it is to get a smilie, then take a way that smilie and there is no reason to hunt it. If a cache is never sought then there is no reason for it to exist. Folks who place these types of caches want them to be found.

 

Then the next time this person places a cache he will be more inclined to place a cache that folks will want to find just for the sake of finding it.

 

Eventually, these types of caches, the ones that only have a smilie as a reward--will disappear from the landscape.

First of all, is it necessary for you to personally attack when someone doesn't buy into your position?

 

Second, you are making a huge presumption that all other cachers are only concerned about smileys. I think I addressed this issue on page one. I know others have addressed it. Don't ignore other peoples valid points just because your position can't live up to them.

[CoyoteRed]

Re-read my post about challenging a micro hide. I know of plenty of places where spew was strewn and a regular could have been placed mere feet away. It's one of the complaints about spew I have. Not only did someone bring me to an uninteresting place, but didn't even provide a regular-sized cache.

So a larger cache makes the place more interesting? Maybe if we make it semi-trailer size it would then be a fantastic place?

 

HA HA! HA!

 

Who said a larger cache would make a place more interesting? I don't see it where you quoted me. Anyone else see that, because I sure don't.

 

Location is only one element of creating a quality cache. Bring up any one element of the hide and you make it a bit better, but one element doesn't affect another element.

Sorry, I phrased that wrong. The bolded above is what I was looking at. Would you have more interest in the cache if it was larger? Does bigger mean a higher quality cache? Then a semi-trailer size should make it the best cache ever.

 

You know, this is still a disingenuous post.

 

You say "larger." I said, "regular-sized." Your position falls apart when you're actually arguing what I said, not what you wanted me to say. To answer the obvious question, yes, in general, a regular-sized cache is more interesting than a micro. This statement is made in the context of the caching population in general and only makes sense considering there is more things in the container to look at and a larger logbook to read.

[CoyoteRed]

I see you're still using the same false logic as the reason I put you on my ignore list in the first place. Nothing has changed. ...

Ummm, Three things about your post.

1. If I'm on your ignore list, how did you read my post? Should I be concerned about my privacy?
   
2. You made the point about new cachers. I only developed your point to show that you were full of it.
   
3. Suggestions have been made at least twice in this thread and in other threads regarding how you can tweek your filters.
   

I clicked on the link to view your post. I was curious to see if you were up to the same old junk. You were.

 

Yes, I made the point about new cachers. Your "development" was to put words in my mouth. Heck, I could take your arguments some place you never intended, as well. But I don't want to be like you.

 

Suggestions? What suggestions? I've yet to see a filter that wouldn't have filtered out plenty of micros I've enjoyed. Why don't you show me, step by step, how it's done. I'll even un-ignore you for a short time to give you the opportunity.

[+sbell111]

Perhaps a new attribute is in order. If you don't want CR looking for your cache, CR wouldn't like your cache, you just set the attribute and he doesn't have to worry his pretty, little head about it.

Edited June 8, 2006 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

Perhaps a new attribute is in order. If you don't want CR looking for your cache, CR wouldn't like your cache, you just set the attribute and he doesn't have to worry his pretty, little head about it.

 

Ah, yes, a serious answer.

 

Where's my filter?

[+sbell111]

Perhaps a new attribute is in order. If you don't want CR looking for your cache, CR wouldn't like your cache, you just set the attribute and he doesn't have to worry his pretty, little head about it.

 

Ah, yes, a serious answer.

 

Where's my filter?

They will be on my caches the second the attribute is introduced. I promise.

[CoyoteRed]

Perhaps a new attribute is in order. If you don't want CR looking for your cache, CR wouldn't like your cache, you just set the attribute and he doesn't have to worry his pretty, little head about it.

 

Ah, yes, a serious answer.

 

Where's my filter?

They will be on my caches the second the attribute is introduced. I promise.

Yeah, I thought so. All talk. No action.

 

Back to the list.

[+sbell111]

Does anyone have a clue what he's babbling about now?

[+tozainamboku]

To answer the obvious question, yes, in general, a regular-sized cache is more interesting than a micro. This statement is made in the context of the caching population in general and only makes sense considering there is more things in the container to look at and a larger logbook to read.

 

I sure had more fun yesterday finding that micro at the beach than I did finding the big bucket someone hid in the bush in front of their house. Ok, it may have been hard to hide a bucket at the beach - but a few months ago I found a cache similar to the one a the beach that was hidden in front of another cacher's house and it was very fun to do because of how well that one was done. I still think that size doesn't matter. I will agree with CR that location is important and that it is hard to filter the caches in boring locations without a lot of work. However, when I do just go out with a bunch of caches loaded in my GPSr and it leads me to the dumpster behind the strip mall, I can decide not to get out of the car and just keep going to the next cache.

Edited June 8, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+fresgo]

Does anyone have a clue what he's babbling about now?

 

babble babble

[+fresgo]

Does anyone have a clue what he's babbling about now?

[+SixDogTeam]

I personally know a geocacher who ENJOYS searching for micros in the woods, especially when others DNF it. I'm not making this up. She knows who she is.