Micro Vs Traditional.

1.8k · June 9, 2006

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.

Now I KNOW you're talking crazy, Toz! :rolleyes:

June 9, 2006

.... 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.

That's not the only point. The biggest one, in my opinion, is the persistent assumption, not only by CR, but by others as well, that THEIR opinion of what is "trashy", "appropriate", "mundane", etc. is the only one, when all of those things are a matter of opinion and subjectivity.

June 9, 2006

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

Yeah, it sounded something like "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH Micro-Spew BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH too much work BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH the world should change for me BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...." :laughing:

3.2k · June 9, 2006

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.

I can identify, I actually prefer micros to other types. I don't see the purpose of the "junk drawer" type caches. I do it for the hunt. When I was a kid and played hide and seek, it wasn't so I could rifle thru my friends jacket for a McToy when I found them. About the only thing I trade are TB's and that's only to move them along. If there is a log and (hopefully) a pencil, I'm a happy cacher.

Micros allow a more creative hide and, at least for me, a sometimes more difficult find. The caches that have frustrated me the most, are the ones that get talked about at events. I also think that a micro in a FP stands a better chance of not being muggled.

7.2k · June 9, 2006

Micros allow a more creative hide...

I think it takes more creatively to hide a regular-sized cache in the same area as you would normally find a micro.

We have a cache that a lot of folks just can't fathom the cache is a regular--actually a SAW ammo can--even when they call up for a lifeline and I tell them they're standing within arm's reach.

You can incorporate creativity into any size cache. I don't think any size has the lock on allowing a more creative hide.

20.7k · June 9, 2006

I think it takes more creatively to hide a regular-sized cache in the same area as you would normally find a micro. ...

Certainly, you agree that micros lend themselves to more creative hides than larger caches do. While it's true that you can hide a large box so it is difficult to find, you can camo micros in many, many more ways.

3.2k · June 9, 2006

Micros allow a more creative hide...

You can incorporate creativity into any size cache. I don't think any size has the lock on allowing a more creative hide.

True, however we should be able to agree that most of the "ammo-spew" in the woods are under a log, behind a rock tucked under the trail bridge, etc.

There only so much you can do with a regular size cache. Aside from, of course, the disguised caches that some make, however even those are usually better catorgorized as small.

I'll hunt it all, I just prefer the greater potential challenge of a micro. Fortunatly for those who like either, Chicagoland has a pretty good mix for for all preferences of about a 125 miles radius. (55 to 60% regular, the rest small or less).

8k · June 9, 2006

I think it takes more creatively to hide a regular-sized cache in the same area as you would normally find a micro. ...

Certainly, you agree that micros lend themselves to more creative hides than larger caches do. While it's true that you can hide a large box so it is difficult to find, you can camo micros in many, many more ways.

That's what he babbled: It takes more effort to creatively hide a regular sized cache.

So when I find a creatively hidden regular cache - I'm likely to remember it as a great hide. A creatively hidden micro may need to be more exceptional. However, around here, a ammo can is almost always just hidden under a bush - and often not even painted or camo'd. I like non-urban micros because it usually means I have to think and use my geo-senses to find it.

7.2k · June 9, 2006

On the flip side, it takes almost zero creativity to hide a difficult micro versus a difficult regular.

3.2k · June 9, 2006

On the flip side, it takes almost zero creativity to hide a difficult micro versus a difficult regular.

We really need to get a tongue in cheek smiley so people know when you are kidding like this.

June 9, 2006

edited due to slow fingers causing time to pass by

Edited June 9, 2006 by boda

June 9, 2006

What exactly is a micro? What does one look like?

Sorry for the noob question....

20.7k · June 9, 2006

It's like regular-sized cache, except smaller. Take a look at CR's website. He sells them.

Hey, I just thought of something...

Edited June 9, 2006 by sbell111

15.3k · June 9, 2006

What exactly is a micro? What does one look like?

The official guidelines describe a micro as "35 mm film canister or smaller, typically containing only a logbook". Many of the ones I've found have been film canisters or magnetic keyholders, but some have been rather creative. Despite the "containing only a logbook" comment, many micros that I find have very small trade items in them, such as signature items, geocoins, or tiny trinkets.

There's also an unofficial size class called "nano", which are very small micros. They are generally large enough for only a custom-designed log, which completely fills them leaving no room for even the smallest trade items. Many of the ones I've found have been blinkers or Bison tubes.

Sometimes it takes longer to roll the log back up and get it back in the nano cache's container than it did to find the container and sign the log.

3.9k · June 9, 2006

It's like regular-sized cache, except smaller. Take a look at CR's website. He sells them.

Hey, I just thought of something...

I wonder how many he sells, and how much money he makes doing it?

7.2k · June 9, 2006

What exactly is a micro? What does one look like?

Sorry for the noob question....

Here's an article from Today's Cacher that might help.

June 11, 2006

On the flip side, it takes almost zero creativity to hide a difficult micro versus a difficult regular.

And your answer is to insult people that don't think the way you do? I was hoping to read comments from people that were a bit more open minded.

June 11, 2006

I, personally, don't give a darn about smileys, find counts or even silly forum post counts.

I do this because it gets me outdoors, on trails I have skipped for years and gives me much needed exercise.

I did a few micros and yes, most of them were lame. No you couldn't hide an ammo can in a lamp post and if you could it would still be lame.

I filter micros one at a time now. If they come in with a PQ I look them over, check the area and terrain and if they wont show me a new area or site to see, I put them on my ignore list and delete them from GSAK never to be seen again.

It does take some time to do it this way and in most cases it takes me longer to delete them than it took the hider to list them. :blink:

I won't say I'll never hide a micro but it wont be this year, that's for sure, and if I do you wont be able to drive to it or find it without a good long walk and some time looking.

June 11, 2006

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

I've looked and I could't find a separate category of cache TYPES called Micro. There is Traditional, Multi, Mystery/Puzzle Letterbox and the event TYPEs and some others, maybe the micro cache TYPE is grandfathered? I went to the CACHE "TYPES" page and I just don't see the micro "TYPE" listed. Is there another page I don't know about that lists cache TYPES. Maybe I am blind!

I thought a Traditional Cache TYPE was one that had a container with a log regardless of SIZE

Edited June 11, 2006 by fresgo

7.2k · June 11, 2006

On the flip side, it takes almost zero creativity to hide a difficult micro versus a difficult regular.

And your answer is to insult people that don't think the way you do? I was hoping to read comments from people that were a bit more open minded.

You want to explain how what you quoted was an insult?

20.7k · June 11, 2006

I've looked and I could't find a separate cateogry of caches called Micro. I checked here on Geocaching.com CACHE "TYPES" page can someone point to where I am wrong cause I just don't see the micro "type" listed. Maybe there is hidden text. Is there another page I don't know about that lists cache types. Maybe I am blind!

You are correct. 'Micro' is a size, not a type.

20.7k · June 11, 2006

On the flip side, it takes almost zero creativity to hide a difficult micro versus a difficult regular.

And your answer is to insult people that don't think the way you do? I was hoping to read comments from people that were a bit more open minded.

You want to explain how what you quoted was an insult?

I think Sadie was referring to your overall actions in this thread and others.

7.2k · June 11, 2006

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

I've looked and I could't find a separate cateogry of caches called Micro. I checked here on Geocaching.com CACHE "TYPES" page can someone point to where I am wrong cause I just don't see the micro "type" listed. Maybe there is hidden text. Is there another page I don't know about that lists cache types. Maybe I am blind!

You're right. "Micro" is a size. Just like I said.

When you report a cache "micro" is not a choice under "Cache Type." It is a choice under "Cache Size."

June 11, 2006

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

I've looked and I could't find a separate cateogry of caches called Micro. I checked here on Geocaching.com CACHE "TYPES" page can someone point to where I am wrong cause I just don't see the micro "type" listed. Maybe there is hidden text. Is there another page I don't know about that lists cache types. Maybe I am blind!

You're right. "Micro" is a size. Just like I said.

When you report a cache "micro" is not a choice under "Cache Type." It is a choice under "Cache Size."

I just don't understand the "Micro vs. Traditional" argument and there are several threads on the forums. Should this forum title be called Micro SIZED "Traditional" vs Other SIZED "Traditional" caches or something to that effect.

7.2k · June 11, 2006

I just don't understand the "Micro vs. Traditional" argument and there are several threads on the forums. Should this forum title be called Micro SIZED "Traditional" vs Other SIZED "Traditional" caches or something to that effect.

What is happening is some folks are confusing "Traditional" with "Regular," meaning the title should have been something to the effect "Micro Vs Regular." The argument is about placing a micro-sized container when a regular-sized could have easily been hidden so folks would have the opportunity to enjoy trading trinkets, writing in a, somewhat, normal-sized notebook, or dropping a Travel Bug.

5.6k · June 12, 2006

What exactly is a micro? What does one look like?
The official guidelines describe a micro as "35 mm film canister or smaller, typically containing only a logbook". Many of the ones I've found have been film canisters or magnetic keyholders, but some have been rather creative. Despite the "containing only a logbook" comment, many micros that I find have very small trade items in them, such as signature items, geocoins, or tiny trinkets.

There's also an unofficial size class called "nano", which are very small micros. They are generally large enough for only a custom-designed log, which completely fills them leaving no room for even the smallest trade items. Many of the ones I've found have been blinkers or Bison tubes

Sometimes it takes longer to roll the log back up and get it back in the nano cache's container than it did to find the container and sign the log.

Hmm, you're the first person I've seen that classifies a bison as a nano. Maybe it's a regional thing, but around here the standard size micro is a bison (some film cans, but they tend to leak in the rain).

5.6k · June 12, 2006

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.

With logic like that, no wonder I don't follow you.

"so bad that the only reason anyone would hunt it is to get a smilie" can only happen if everyone had the exact same opinion of all caches. As this thread is showing, that doesn't happen/won't happen - no matter how loud/frequently someones proclaims their "standards".

You've also complained there is no way to filter such caches out, so how would people know not to hunt them? A lot of cachers I know, even if the cache is NRV, once they've gotten to site will still sign the log. So a cache that's listed - no matter how "bad" - will all ways have one reason to be hunted: it's listed!

So, how do you (general you, not specific you) tell a cache is so bad it shouldn't be hunted by anyone?

June 12, 2006

On the flip side, it takes almost zero creativity to hide a difficult micro versus a difficult regular.

And your answer is to insult people that don't think the way you do?

Well, that and to bring up their find counts, since that's the most important factor in judging one's opinion.

June 12, 2006

I just don't understand the "Micro vs. Traditional" argument and there are several threads on the forums. Should this forum title be called Micro SIZED "Traditional" vs Other SIZED "Traditional" caches or something to that effect.

What is happening is some folks are confusing "Traditional" with "Regular," meaning the title should have been something to the effect "Micro Vs Regular." The argument is about placing a micro-sized container when a regular-sized could have easily been hidden so folks would have the opportunity to enjoy trading trinkets, writing in a, somewhat, normal-sized notebook, or dropping a Travel Bug.

I know!!

June 12, 2006

I'm very new to geocaching but this topic has already hit home with me.

A few points in no particular order:

- my introduction to caching was by a friend, at a micro-sized cache, a film canister with a magnet stuck inside a guard rail at a bus terminal. The idea that tens-of thousands of people walk within INCHES of that cache, daily, hooked me right there.

- I've found a few caches and DNF'd a few. My first DNF was at a location listing a micro (it was muggled) but was so beautiful I'll go back not only to find the now-replaced cache but just to sit and enjoy the view.

- I found my first large cache (ammo box) in the woods and the joy of that one was being able to leave some real swag. I even stocked up on swag subsequently to help build up any large caches I find.

- I'd have been disappointed with the aforementioned large cache if it had been a micro; it's a ZERO traffic area in the woods, the only challenge being mosquitos.

- If there's WIT to a cache, I don't mind if it's a micro or nano - go ahead and call it "geo-logging" if you like; hiding something in plain sight, in the middle of a busy intersection or at some landmark, even just a capsule with a log sheet, is what attracts me to the sport; a film canister in the woods, not so much; film canister on top of Everest, maybe. (but at that point I'd be hoping for a macro with an oxygen station)

Just the thoughts of a recently converted muggle.

7.2k · June 12, 2006

A lot of cachers I know, even if the cache is NRV, once they've gotten to site will still sign the log. So a cache that's listed - no matter how "bad" - will all ways have one reason to be hunted: it's listed!

Conversely, this very thread tells us there are folks who will pass on trache once they show up to the area. Heck, I've held trache in my hand and not logged it.

I'll tell you what, this "lot of cachers" you know, ask them what their view is of someone being able to turn off the ability of getting smilie for finding a cache. If tomorrow Jeremy informs us there is a new switch a cache owner can turn on that when someone logs a "Found It" the finder's find count does not increment. Ask them if they would still log every cache they show up at GZ.

I have a prediction. If such a feature was implemented folks would demand a filter to filter out those "smilie-less" caches.

Trache is the fast-food, empty calories of geocaching.

7.2k · June 12, 2006

On the flip side, it takes almost zero creativity to hide a difficult micro versus a difficult regular.

And your answer is to insult people that don't think the way you do?

Well, that and to bring up their find counts, since that's the most important factor in judging one's opinion.

Now, that's disingenuous, at best.

Certainly helps your cause in being forthright and honest. :lol:

Edited June 12, 2006 by CoyoteRed

June 12, 2006

To answer your question - no. The minimum distance between caches is .1 mile. It doesn't matter what the cache container is. The reason I didn't re-post the original quote is so some of you can hopefully scroll back through all the garbage and BS that's been posted. Most of the new generation cachers place a cache for convenience. It's too much of a problem to get a waterproof ammo box, fill it with items and hike out in the woods. (After all, there are snakes and animals and mud!) To justify this laziness, they make quotes to 'guidelines', 'your opinion' and spend more time posting here as opposed to... caching.

June 12, 2006

To answer your question - no. The minimum distance between caches is .1 mile. It doesn't matter what the cache container is. The reason I didn't re-post the original quote is so some of you can hopefully scroll back through all the garbage and BS that's been posted. Most of the new generation cachers place a cache for convenience. It's too much of a problem to get a waterproof ammo box, fill it with items and hike out in the woods. (After all, there are snakes and animals and mud!) To justify this laziness, they make quotes to 'guidelines', 'your opinion' and spend more time posting here as opposed to... caching.

I thought that I would post this statement that I posted on another forum here. Lazy is an opinion I think. :lol:

""I think that a "Statement" needs to be made. IF you cache a lot you get HIGH numbers. You can sign logs and log only one time on an event or any other cache and you still get Higher numbers. If some don't like people with higher numbers, CACHE MORE.""

20.7k · June 12, 2006

... I'll tell you what, this "lot of cachers" you know, ask them what their view is of someone being able to turn off the ability of getting smilie for finding a cache. If tomorrow Jeremy informs us there is a new switch a cache owner can turn on that when someone logs a "Found It" the finder's find count does not increment. Ask them if they would still log every cache they show up at GZ.

I have a prediction. If such a feature was implemented folks would demand a filter to filter out those "smilie-less" caches.

I firmly believe that most cachers (and TPTB) would think that this is a stupid idea. As much as I realize that taking this stand will allow you to paint me as 'about the numbers', this couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is, personal stats have been ingrained in this game since the beginning of GC.com. I don't see how any one cacher, whether it is an individual cache owner or the great and powerful CR, has the right to alter the game for everyone by making a decision as to whether individual caches are worthy of being counted.

In my personal opinion, your private battle against micros is getting old.

20.7k · June 12, 2006

To answer your question - no. The minimum distance between caches is .1 mile. It doesn't matter what the cache container is. The reason I didn't re-post the original quote is so some of you can hopefully scroll back through all the garbage and BS that's been posted. Most of the new generation cachers place a cache for convenience. It's too much of a problem to get a waterproof ammo box, fill it with items and hike out in the woods. (After all, there are snakes and animals and mud!) To justify this laziness, they make quotes to 'guidelines', 'your opinion' and spend more time posting here as opposed to... caching.

Perhps it would be better if you had contained the post you are replying to. As it stands, you just gave us your opinion on an issue that is tangent to the subject of this thread. Unfortunately, you neither explained why your opinion is relevent to this thread or fleshed out your opinion enough to allow anyone to attain buy-in.

8k · June 12, 2006

To answer your question - no. The minimum distance between caches is .1 mile. It doesn't matter what the cache container is. The reason I didn't re-post the original quote is so some of you can hopefully scroll back through all the garbage and BS that's been posted. Most of the new generation cachers place a cache for convenience. It's too much of a problem to get a waterproof ammo box, fill it with items and hike out in the woods. (After all, there are snakes and animals and mud!) To justify this laziness, they make quotes to 'guidelines', 'your opinion' and spend more time posting here as opposed to... caching.

People who want to hike in the woods (with snakes and animals and mud) will hide caches out in the woods. If they like to find ammo cans with lot of trade items, they will hide an ammo can with lots of trade items. People who want to find caches by driving their car to Wal*Mart will hide caches in Wal*Mart parking lots. I wouldn't call these people lazy or cheap or uncreative. They prefer a different type of caching experience. Perhaps they like getting a high find count or perhaps they feel that a hike in the woods is too difficult for them.

Some people will search for any cache that is out there. They like geocaching. Many of them will prefer the experience of a hike in the woods but the Wal*Mart hide is also an enjoyable experience at a different level for them. They tend to hide a mixture of urban micros and both micro and full sized non-urban caches.

My suggestion: Look for the kinds of caches you like to find. Ignore the caches that you don't like to find. Hide the kinds of caches you like to find. Have fun. If you're not having fun, find another hobby.

June 12, 2006

To answer your question - no. The minimum distance between caches is .1 mile. It doesn't matter what the cache container is. The reason I didn't re-post the original quote is so some of you can hopefully scroll back through all the garbage and BS that's been posted. Most of the new generation cachers place a cache for convenience. It's too much of a problem to get a waterproof ammo box, fill it with items and hike out in the woods. (After all, there are snakes and animals and mud!) To justify this laziness, they make quotes to 'guidelines', 'your opinion' and spend more time posting here as opposed to... caching.

People who want to hike in the woods (with snakes and animals and mud) will hide caches out in the woods. If they like to find ammo cans with lot of trade items, they will hide an ammo can with lots of trade items. People who want to find caches by driving their car to Wal*Mart will hide caches in Wal*Mart parking lots. I wouldn't call these people lazy or cheap or uncreative. They prefer a different type of caching experience. Perhaps they like getting a high find count or perhaps they feel that a hike in the woods is too difficult for them.

Some people will search for any cache that is out there. They like geocaching. Many of them will prefer the experience of a hike in the woods but the Wal*Mart hide is also an enjoyable experience at a different level for them. They tend to hide a mixture of urban micros and both micro and full sized non-urban caches.

My suggestion: Look for the kinds of caches you like to find. Ignore the caches that you don't like to find. Hide the kinds of caches you like to find. Have fun. If you're not having fun, find another hobby.

We must agree with this statement. We consider ourselves middle of the road as numbers go. We like hiking caches, but we love Geocaching period and will take them on as they pop up in the queries and on the GPSr. AND, we have not yet met a Cacher in person that we didn't like.

2.3k · June 12, 2006

If tomorrow Jeremy informs us there is a new switch a cache owner can turn on that when someone logs a "Found It" the finder's find count does not increment. Ask them if they would still log every cache they show up at GZ.

Yes, I would because I cache for me. I don't cache for anyone else's benefit. I do enjoy meeting other cachers and I enjoy placing caches for others to enjoy. But I could really care squat about a smiley.

June 12, 2006

On the flip side, it takes almost zero creativity to hide a difficult micro versus a difficult regular.

And your answer is to insult people that don't think the way you do?

Well, that and to bring up their find counts, since that's the most important factor in judging one's opinion.

Now, that's disingenuous, at best.

Certainly helps your cause in being forthright and honest.

Well, you ARE the one who countered my post in a civilized debate by bringing up my find count, aren't you?

Edited June 12, 2006 by ParrotRob

2.3k · June 12, 2006

To answer your question - no. The minimum distance between caches is .1 mile. It doesn't matter what the cache container is. The reason I didn't re-post the original quote is so some of you can hopefully scroll back through all the garbage and BS that's been posted. Most of the new generation cachers place a cache for convenience. It's too much of a problem to get a waterproof ammo box, fill it with items and hike out in the woods. (After all, there are snakes and animals and mud!) To justify this laziness, they make quotes to 'guidelines', 'your opinion' and spend more time posting here as opposed to... caching.

Excuse me!!! But just who are you calling lazy? I think this thread is getting a little over the top now. I consider myself a new generation cacher as I have been caching for just over a year. I am very cognisant to choose waterproof containers. I wasn't as careful when I put my first caches out though, but not because I was lazy. It was because I didn't really know better. After spending time on the forums and talking with local cachers, I make sure all my containers are waterproof, or as waterproof as can be.

But what I really take issue with is your apparent feeling that if someone doesn't hike out in the woods to place a cache that they are LAZY???? How about handicap? How about remembering that not everyone can make hike deep in the woods, climb the highest mountain, swim the deepest sea, go where no man has gone before.

Some of us just appreciate the fact that we can get out of the house and get some fresh air.

This is why noone has the right to declare what is quality or trash for everyone. You cannot and should not speak for every cacher out there. We are all unique and have our own unique take on this activity.

For goodness sake don't just call us all lazy because we don't place caches that you approve of.

15.3k · June 12, 2006

There's also an unofficial size class called "nano", which are very small micros. They are generally large enough for only a custom-designed log, which completely fills them leaving no room for even the smallest trade items. Many of the ones I've found have been blinkers or Bison tubes

Hmm, you're the first person I've seen that classifies a bison as a nano. Maybe it's a regional thing, but around here the standard size micro is a bison (some film cans, but they tend to leak in the rain).

Well, I'm new to the hobby, so my view may not be representative of local usage. Like I said, the distinction I make is whether there's room for swag, whether the log sheet completely fills the container, whether the log sheet needs to be carefully designed to fit in the container, and whether you must roll the log carefully to get it back in the container. The Bison tubes I've found have fit this description. Sure, their log sheets have been bigger than those used for blinkers, but they still have to be rerolled carefully to get them back in the container, and nothing else will fit in the container.

5.6k · June 12, 2006

A lot of cachers I know, even if the cache is NRV, once they've gotten to site will still sign the log. So a cache that's listed - no matter how "bad" - will all ways have one reason to be hunted: it's listed!

Conversely, this very thread tells us there are folks who will pass on trache once they show up to the area. Heck, I've held trache in my hand and not logged it.

I'll tell you what, this "lot of cachers" you know, ask them what their view is of someone being able to turn off the ability of getting smilie for finding a cache. If tomorrow Jeremy informs us there is a new switch a cache owner can turn on that when someone logs a "Found It" the finder's find count does not increment. Ask them if they would still log every cache they show up at GZ.

I have a prediction. If such a feature was implemented folks would demand a filter to filter out those "smilie-less" caches.

Trache is the fast-food, empty calories of geocaching.

I guess I don't understand how a smilie is a "reward" different from finding the cache. All a smilie does is mark a found log. Whether the site counts my finds or if I keep my own personal journal, that changes nothing about how many caches I've found.

I know people who will sign the log, you know people who will pass on it - which group is the more important? Who gets to set the rules of what caches can exist?

38.2k · June 12, 2006

But what I really take issue with is your apparent feeling that if someone doesn't hike out in the woods to place a cache that they are LAZY???? How about handicap? How about remembering that not everyone can make hike deep in the woods, climb the highest mountain, swim the deepest sea, go where no man has gone before.

For the bazillionth time, the issue is not micros, or urban and suburban caches. It's thoughtlessly placed caches.

Do you really think disabled people want to spend the rest of their geo-lifetimes going from parking lot lamp posts to 7-Eleven dumpsters and back? I think most disabled people would have their fill of Wal-mart parking lots after a while and what is wrong with giving them (and everyone else ) caches in interesting and/or appealing places.

Edited June 12, 2006 by briansnat

June 12, 2006

snip ...

For the bazillionth time, the issue is not micros, or urban and suburban caches. It's thoughtlessly placed caches.

... snip

I couldn't agree more. Any cache placed with the thought of getting me out into the fresh air is good, regardless of size or contents.

On the other hand, we can send our permission slip to a speacil committee to get thier blessing, include photos and such. If it doesn't meet thier criteria, then they can call us lazy, unimaginative, and whatever else we are because we don't meet thier standards.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Sadie

11.3k · June 12, 2006

As I continue perusing the posts in this thread, I keep thinking how incorrect the Title is.

It shouldn't be "Micro vs. Traditional," as much as it should be "Carpy location vs. Nice location."

Or maybe, "Thoughtlessly-placed cache, particularly of the micro size vs. Well-thought-out cache-placement of any size."

I have found terrible "Traditional" caches and I have found fun Micros in both urban and back-country locations.

It is really just about location, location, location.

7.2k · June 12, 2006

On the flip side, it takes almost zero creativity to hide a difficult micro versus a difficult regular.

And your answer is to insult people that don't think the way you do?

Well, that and to bring up their find counts, since that's the most important factor in judging one's opinion.

Now, that's disingenuous, at best.

Certainly helps your cause in being forthright and honest.

Well, you ARE the one who countered my post in a civilized debate by bringing up my find count, aren't you?

No, I didn't.

You might want to go back read it again and read it in context. The context of which was you blathering on about doing your homework before going out to hunt a cache. Not everyone caches with such a slow and methodical way as you do. Don't assume they should.

7.2k · June 12, 2006

If tomorrow Jeremy informs us there is a new switch a cache owner can turn on that when someone logs a "Found It" the finder's find count does not increment. Ask them if they would still log every cache they show up at GZ.

Yes, I would because I cache for me. I don't cache for anyone else's benefit. I do enjoy meeting other cachers and I enjoy placing caches for others to enjoy. But I could really care squat about a smiley.

I believe you would.

Taking a sampling of the last few caches you've logged you didn't log "TNLNSL" and left it at that.

I highly suspect those that do wouldn't log anything if they didn't get a smilie.

7.2k · June 12, 2006

I guess I don't understand how a smilie is a "reward" different from finding the cache.

Then I can't explain it to you.

It's a wonder folks would log caches they don't find, too, right?

June 12, 2006

But what I really take issue with is your apparent feeling that if someone doesn't hike out in the woods to place a cache that they are LAZY???? How about handicap? How about remembering that not everyone can make hike deep in the woods, climb the highest mountain, swim the deepest sea, go where no man has gone before.

For the bazillionth time, the issue is not micros, or urban and suburban caches. It's thoughtlessly placed caches.

Do you really think disabled people want to spend the rest of their geo-lifetimes going from parking lot lamp posts to 7-Eleven dumpsters and back? I think most disabled people would have their fill of Wal-mart parking lots after a while and what is wrong with giving them (and everyone else ) caches in interesting and/or appealing places.

For the bazillionth time, YOU are not the judge of what is INTERESTING or APPEALING. Do YOU really think disabled people want to spend the rest of their geo-lifetimes looking at lists of ammo cans in the woods that they can't get to? Unless you yourself are disabled in some way, you have no idea what you're talking about, so quit trying to put yourself in their shoes, and quit acting like you speak for the entire community.

Micro Vs Traditional.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment