Jump to content

Micro Vs Traditional.


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

Yes, I would agree. But you and I both know that Micro Spew pretty much always means a majority of unimaginative hides and/or choices of locations. NOT ALL, but a majority.

Sure, but micros are easy to ignore. Anyone who believes that most micros are lame and do not have fun finding them, should simply ignore all micros. This will take them back to the 'glory days' before the Spew™.

 

LOL yeah then it was a tupperware under a bush

Yeah, that's a real challange to a micro (going back to CR's challenge idea). A well camo'd micro vs. a tupperware under a bush. :)

 

As to this whole pre/post spew: a big part of it, there were a heck of a lot less cachers back then! Fewer cachers, fewer caches.

 

And lazy cachers don't just hide micros. It's just as boring to just find that tupperware/lock n' lock/ammo can under a bush/behind the tree/under the log.

 

I know micros started because people were trying a. new things; b. trying for harder caches (it's a lot easier to make a 3.5/4 diff micro, then a ammo can of the same).

 

Another comment about the "spew": times change, complaining about that won't change it. Constant complaining about it just gets boring, and soon the complainer gets tuned out.

Link to comment

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

 

It's the phenomenon that I call "Much A-Spew About Nothing™". An alleged point in time after which the game was "cheapened" by the proliferation of micro caches. Here's the theory:

 

Before Much-ASpew-About-Nothing™: The good old days. There are only a handful of decent caches in your area. If you want to find more decent caches, you have to drive farther to get to them.

 

After Much-ASpew-About-Nothing™: It's Geocaching Hell. There are still only a handful of decent caches in your area. If you want to find more decent caches, you have to drive farther to get to them. Except now, you can't do that because there are 3000 micros in your neighborhood that somehow inhibit your ability to search for and find the decent caches.

 

Make sense? Thought so.

 

edit: Oh by the way, ™ means a trademark is CLAIMED, not necessarily owned. If it's owned and registered, you replace the ™ with ®

Edited by ParrotRob
Link to comment

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.

 

The trademark is just some tongue in cheek silliness. Nobody has a claim to it that I know of.

Link to comment

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.

 

Much-ASpew-About-Nothing™.

Link to comment

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.

 

Much-ASpew-About-Nothing™.

 

My thoughts exactly. With a premium member account, you have the tools available to filter out the so-called garbage. With other tools you can further refine your searches. Since I have difficulty walking, I use GSAK to give me the caches that are 2/2 to 1/1. If someone doesn't like micro-spew, and let's face it, most of the complainers aren't really happy with micros in general, the filter for 3/3 and up with no micros.

 

I just don't see what all the fuss is about. If I was able to get out more, I would stay away from the forums. Because if you buy into the crap you read here, you would think micros have destroyed caching forever. Somehow micros have prevented the caching purists from placing those high quality caches everyone keeps touting?

 

I don't get it.

 

"Explain it to me like I was a six year old" - Philidelphia

Link to comment

Thanks for the definitions I never heard that term before. Anyway my thought is I like micros and I like regular size caches I like 1/1s and 5/5s I like to find them on a hike I like to find them on my bike. I like them big and small. Whatever the size I really like them all. Oh bad dr seuss impression sorry. I would say more but a new micro cache at wal mart popped up and I got to go get it first!!

Link to comment
Does geocaching.com allow for close proximity when one cache is a micro and one is a container?

 

No, they do not.

 

Also, ditto Briansnat.

 

I find it very discouraging that too many folks prefer to place a micro over a regular. Some claim that nothing else with fit. I've found very few instances where this is really the case.

 

Hmmm... Here's a thought. Challenge the micro owner that if you can hide a regular at or near his spot--I mean within 100', well under the 528' limit--then he archives his cache allowing you the spot.

While I agree with CR's concept, I don't think "challenge" is the right way to put it. It might make the micro owner defensive.

Find a spot to put your larger container, then e-mail the owner of the micro with a nice "I found a location where I can put a larger container in this park about X number of feet from your micro. How would you feel about archiving your micro so I can do that?"

They might be willing to do that, especially if the micro has been there awhile. On the micro that I had, if someone could have come up with a spot for a full-sized cache I would have gladly archived it.

Plus, and I'm sure someone will take this the wrong way, a number of the hiders of micro caches seem to do it just to up their hide counts. If the cache is archived, they still have credit for the hide.

Link to comment

Does geocaching.com allow for Hmmm... Here's a thought. Challenge the micro owner that if you can hide a regular at or near his spot--I mean within 100', well under the 528' limit--then he archives his cache allowing you the spot.

 

That is a good suggestion. If I was an owner on a micro in the woods (most of micros are placed where regular sized cache would not be appropriate, with one exception that is a puzzle cache, and the cache size is relevant to the theme of the cache), I would accept the challenge in a heartbeat.

 

Then, as I was collecting up my micro, I would get to log another cache. Oh, goodness all around, and everyone wins.

Link to comment

As a cache hider, I find the challenge to be to hide the biggest cache I can get away with in an area.

 

As a father of two young girls, I can attest first hand that kids don't like most micros either. We had to quit caching last Sunday after a string of four micros in places that could have easily supported a small or regular cache. My daughters asked if there would be treasure in the next cache and I had to tell them "no" because it was another micro. So, despite a batch of hot chicken nuggets, we headed for the barn.

 

Unfortunately, we've found all but a few caches within 100 miles of home and we had a role in placing many of those, so it's not a simple matter of "just don't hunt what you don't like" if we want to keep playing the game. Since there isn't much to hunt, we hide. We've hidden 35, only five of which are micros (one which will be upgraded to a larger size this weekend when the glue dries), which represent about 20% of the caches within 100 miles.

 

We enjoy a nicely camoed, well thought out micro or other cache as well as the next person. But we also enjoy larger caches hidden with the intent to bring us to an interesting place we otherwise wouldn't have ever visited.

Link to comment
With a premium member account, you have the tools available to filter out the so-called garbage.

 

Um, no, we don't.

 

While the phenomena is called Micro-Spew™ I think those who use the term will be quick to point out there are plenty of excellent micros on one hand and lame regulars on the other. The issue isn't really about the size, but the quality. Yes, I consider two caches being otherwise equal, a trading cache is better than a non-trading cache.

 

Given that, I've yet to see a filter on quality--no switch that says, "Filter garbage."

 

This is where the crux of the situation comes into play. Folks are placing trache (trash caches) and there is no way to filter it.

Link to comment

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 counts.

 

Yes, there are a lot of lame micros out there, and no, there isn't any way to filter for quality in a PQ. Having said that, when you see that the cache size is micro and the location is a parking lot, what do you think you're going to find when you get there?

 

As for asking micro owners to archive their caches, I don't think you'll get much traction there. First off, have you considered how that sounds? No matter how you word it, the email will boil down to you saying "I'd like you to consider archiving your lame trash cache so I can place one of my masterpieces." Second, most of what is widely considered Micro-Spew™ is in a location that wouldn't generally support a full sized cache anyway. Third, yes, there are some micros placed that are interfering with locations where a full sized cache could go, but if you have to hike two miles uphill to get to it, then it's not really Micro-Spew™ anyway, is it?

 

Where does this stop? If we start by asking owners to archive what we believe to be low quality micros, will we then progress to asking that all cool whip tubs under pine needles filled with busted McTrash be archived as well? What about small caliber ammo cans under conspicuous piles of sticks or rocks. Those seem pretty lame to me, too.

 

I don't like lame micros either, but somehow I manage to avoid them without asking that others give up anything.

Link to comment

Micro and regular cache has something for all of us...If you don't like Micro's...don't hunt...If you don't like Multi-cache's...don't hunt....if you don't like regular caches....don't hunt. I sure hope that no one is twisting your arms to hunt a certain type of cache...me, I like them all. It is all in the planning... and then the hunt..:anitongue:

Link to comment

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 counts.

 

Yes, there are a lot of lame micros out there, and no, there isn't any way to filter for quality in a PQ. Having said that, when you see that the cache size is micro and the location is a parking lot, what do you think you're going to find when you get there?

 

As for asking micro owners to archive their caches, I don't think you'll get much traction there. First off, have you considered how that sounds? No matter how you word it, the email will boil down to you saying "I'd like you to consider archiving your lame trash cache so I can place one of my masterpieces." Second, most of what is widely considered Micro-Spew™ is in a location that wouldn't generally support a full sized cache anyway. Third, yes, there are some micros placed that are interfering with locations where a full sized cache could go, but if you have to hike two miles uphill to get to it, then it's not really Micro-Spew™ anyway, is it?

 

Where does this stop? If we start by asking owners to archive what we believe to be low quality micros, will we then progress to asking that all cool whip tubs under pine needles filled with busted McTrash be archived as well? What about small caliber ammo cans under conspicuous piles of sticks or rocks. Those seem pretty lame to me, too.

 

I don't like lame micros either, but somehow I manage to avoid them without asking that others give up anything.

 

Well said!!

Link to comment
Having said that, when you see that the cache size is micro and the location is a parking lot, what do you think you're going to find when you get there?

 

What I'm going to find is me hitting the GOTO button to find a better cache. Later, I'm going to be finding me placing that cache on my ignore list.

 

The problem is that in the meantime that trache has taken up a slot in the PQ that could be available for a better cache.

 

The point is, folks used to have a bit of pride in their hides and those hides had some meaning. Today, it seems that too many folks are losing sight of that.

 

Second, most of what is widely considered Micro-Spew™ is in a location that wouldn't generally support a full sized cache anyway.

 

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.

Link to comment
Having said that, when you see that the cache size is micro and the location is a parking lot, what do you think you're going to find when you get there?

 

What I'm going to find is me hitting the GOTO button to find a better cache. Later, I'm going to be finding me placing that cache on my ignore list.

Exactly the right response.

 

The problem is that in the meantime that trache has taken up a slot in the PQ that could be available for a better cache.

Filter it.

 

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.

By all means, contact them by email, challenge them. Just don't be surprised if they don't take you up on your challenge, especially if you identify the caches as "trache" in the email. And if they don't, end of story. They placed a cache that met the guidelines and it was approved, they have no responsibility to remove it because somebody doesn't like that kind of cache.

 

Not only did someone bring me to an uninteresting place, but didn't even provide a regular-sized cache.

Yes, but I can tell that by the location, container size, description and sometimes the hider before driving there.

 

I don't like urban micros either, and I plan accordingly. They don't add to my count or detract from my enjoyment of the game.

Link to comment
Filter it.

 

How? Show me the settings.

 

When creating PQs, you can choose to filter by container size and eliminate all micros. The down side is that you are filtering out all micros, and they're not all lame. A better way of handling it would be to put it on your ignore list, then exclude your ignore list from your PQs.

 

cachefilter.jpg

 

This way they only need to show up in your PQ once, just long enough to identify them and ignore them.

Link to comment
Does geocaching.com allow for close proximity when one cache is a micro and one is a container?

 

No, they do not.

 

Also, ditto Briansnat.

 

I find it very discouraging that too many folks prefer to place a micro over a regular. Some claim that nothing else with fit. I've found very few instances where this is really the case.

 

Hmmm... Here's a thought. Challenge the micro owner that if you can hide a regular at or near his spot--I mean within 100', well under the 528' limit--then he archives his cache allowing you the spot.

While I agree with CR's concept, I don't think "challenge" is the right way to put it. It might make the micro owner defensive.

Find a spot to put your larger container, then e-mail the owner of the micro with a nice "I found a location where I can put a larger container in this park about X number of feet from your micro. How would you feel about archiving your micro so I can do that?"

 

Dear Mr. Larger Container,

How would you feel about taking a hike and jumping off a cliff? I placed that micro there because I WANTED TO. If you don't like it, place your container somewhere else and stop wasting your time scouting out places to hide your ammo box that are within 528' of my existing caches. Have a nice day.

 

Mr. Micro Hider

Link to comment

As a cache hider, I find the challenge to be to hide the biggest cache I can get away with in an area.

 

As a father of two young girls, I can attest first hand that my kids don't like most micros either. We had to quit caching last Sunday after a string of four micros in places that could have easily supported a small or regular cache. My daughters asked if there would be treasure in the next cache and I had to tell them "no" because it was another micro. So, despite a batch of hot chicken nuggets, we headed for the barn.

 

 

There, I fixed it for you. You made the mistake of assuming that your (and your kids') opinion(s) was/were EVERYONE's.

Link to comment
With a premium member account, you have the tools available to filter out the so-called garbage.

 

Um, no, we don't.

 

While the phenomena is called Micro-Spew™ I think those who use the term will be quick to point out there are plenty of excellent micros on one hand and lame regulars on the other. The issue isn't really about the size, but the quality. Yes, I consider two caches being otherwise equal, a trading cache is better than a non-trading cache.

 

Given that, I've yet to see a filter on quality--no switch that says, "Filter garbage."

 

This is where the crux of the situation comes into play. Folks are placing trache (trash caches) and there is no way to filter it.

 

Because "garbage" is subjective. Why is that such a foreign concept to you?

Link to comment
With a premium member account, you have the tools available to filter out the so-called garbage.

 

Um, no, we don't.

 

While the phenomena is called Micro-Spew™ I think those who use the term will be quick to point out there are plenty of excellent micros on one hand and lame regulars on the other. The issue isn't really about the size, but the quality. Yes, I consider two caches being otherwise equal, a trading cache is better than a non-trading cache.

 

Given that, I've yet to see a filter on quality--no switch that says, "Filter garbage."

 

This is where the crux of the situation comes into play. Folks are placing trache (trash caches) and there is no way to filter it.

 

Because "garbage" is subjective. Why is that such a foreign concept to you?

 

BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar!

 

Because it is subjective, and thusly you can't filter for it, it's all the more reason to endeavor to keep the quality up.

Link to comment

I personally must disagree with the concept that all micros where the GPS leads you to a parking lot somewhere are bad. I have found a good number of nicely done micros in parking lots. As a matter of fact, I have placed one cache (Gecko Meets Oldschool, in Alpharetta Georgia) which was nominated by the cachers in the GGA for a "best of" award last year. I consider myself lucky to have been nominated, but I'm sure that the cacher who placed the winning cache had a nicely-done cache as well, and apparently, theirs was even better than the one I did.

 

Therefore, I would recommend that just because you find yourself in a parking lot does not mean you should instantly judge the cache as being bad.

Link to comment

I can never understand the complaints about micros. A few days ago I had my GPS pointing toward a cache, the GPS was pointing at a McDonald's, first time I've ever come across a cache apparently in a place like that.

 

Know what I did? I kept right on driving.

 

No you can't filter out all the garbage, granted you will likely find some in your GPS while out caching, but it does not mean you need to hunt it, delete the waypoint for an undesired cache and move on.

Link to comment
Therefore, I would recommend that just because you find yourself in a parking lot does not mean you should instantly judge the cache as being bad.

 

I think we all know there are few absolutes. But, just playing the odds...

 

Yup. I might be missing something, but unless the logs say more than "SL TFTC" I'll never know.

Link to comment

For me, I like going after micros sometimes, other times, I want to go after ammo cans, its all good for me... I just filter by container size, or difficulty...

 

Do 2 pocket queries.

First one, small (or medium sized) or larger, any difficulty

second one micro sized, 1.5 terrain, 1.5 difficulty

 

That should take care of the majority of the parking lot caches.

 

This time of year when its HOT out, I tend to look for the micros since if I go hiking, I need to carry a lot of water with me, and by the end of the hike I will be very stinky and tired (I'm not a tiny geocacher)

 

(example, today its a little overcast, and its 91 out right now)

Link to comment
With a premium member account, you have the tools available to filter out the so-called garbage.

 

Um, no, we don't.

 

While the phenomena is called Micro-Spew™ I think those who use the term will be quick to point out there are plenty of excellent micros on one hand and lame regulars on the other. The issue isn't really about the size, but the quality. Yes, I consider two caches being otherwise equal, a trading cache is better than a non-trading cache.

 

Given that, I've yet to see a filter on quality--no switch that says, "Filter garbage."

 

This is where the crux of the situation comes into play. Folks are placing trache (trash caches) and there is no way to filter it.

 

Because "garbage" is subjective. Why is that such a foreign concept to you?

 

BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar!

 

Because it is subjective, and thusly you can't filter for it, it's all the more reason to endeavor to keep the quality up.

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.

Link to comment

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?

Link to comment

I agree with the poster, in general, the container should generally match the location. Why not have a decent sized container if the location can properly conceal it?

 

Because the person who hides the cache gets to decide what size container he will hide, not the caching community.

Link to comment

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?

 

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...

Link to comment

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! :anibad:

 

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.

Link to comment
What if I happen to like micros and I think all regular sized caches should be archived and replaced by micros? This insanity is getting out of control.

 

I agree with the second quoted sentence, but probably not the way you intended.

 

To answer your query, if your micros are like the typical, non-trading micro, then your version wouldn't be caching at all, now would it? Where's the "cache" in "geocaching?" It would be "geologging."

 

I totally agree. Micros that are too small for trade items should be ashamed of themselves. Let's all strive to get rid of the small micros, and have more caches that offer trade items!

 

Where do people get these small Micros from anyway???

Link to comment
What if I happen to like micros and I think all regular sized caches should be archived and replaced by micros? This insanity is getting out of control.

 

I agree with the second quoted sentence, but probably not the way you intended.

 

To answer your query, if your micros are like the typical, non-trading micro, then your version wouldn't be caching at all, now would it? Where's the "cache" in "geocaching?" It would be "geologging."

 

I totally agree. Micros that are too small for trade items should be ashamed of themselves. Let's all strive to get rid of the small micros, and have more caches that offer trade items!

 

Where do people get these small Micros from anyway???

I don't care who you are, that's funny! :anibad::P:P

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

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.

 

Based on a non-random sample (my caches) location may be the only element in determining whether a cache is hunted. I have both a large ammo can and a 35 mm film can hidden on the same trail and both have been found the same number of times. (I also have another ammo on that trail which is a puzzle cache that has been there longer than the other two and found far fewer times - so I take back what I said - a puzzle cache will be found less than a traditional - but I still think that size does not matter nearly as much as location). Ok, here's my new theory - location is most important factor in determining whether a cache get hunted, followed by type in that some people will only search for traditionals, and finally size - but I think different people have different reasons for avoiding micros. Some find micros harder to find - sometimes they are hidden inside something that people are uncomfortable to search in (like a lampost skirt) or they are hidden in a place with many muggles around. Some feel that the ability to trade items is important - ofter cachers with small children who like to go on a treasure hunt. I think the biggest group that objects to micros are those that confuse size with location - since many micros are hidden in not very interesting locations and caches hidden in not very interesting locations are almost always micros.

Link to comment
Based on a non-random sample (my caches) location may be the only element in determining whether a cache is hunted.

 

I do agree somewhat except I would reverse type and location. I've got two caches in nearly identical locations, but the multi gets hunted about half the time versus the traditional.

 

But, I would have to argue the frequency of getting hunted is not an accurate indicator of how much something is enjoyed. An easier to find or access cache is going to be found more often than a harder one. Even 1/1 traditional caches that are well out of the way are found more often than difficult puzzle caches in populous areas.

Link to comment

I'm about to place my first cache and it will be a micro. Even before this thread started, I already considered the type of location where I'll place it. If I think the general area is good enough for a larger cache, I move on to another area where the micro would be ideal and a larger would not.

 

I keep this in mind since I myself would prefer to find a larger cache in an area that can handle it and find the micros in areas that just aren't condusive to large caches.

Link to comment

I completely understand the argument of those that are opposed to Micro Spew™. An area can become, and in some have been, overrun with micros. Micros should not be placed in any and all locations just because you want to place a cache. The cache should match its environment and its purpose. When placing a cache the hider should consider the possible places to hide the cache, the muggle activity in the area, and the experience that he/she wants to give the hunter.

In some case, this will be a micro; however this selection of the container should be part and parcel of the selection of the hide site. Selecting the container and then plopping into the first spot you see is doing the sport a disservice in my book.

This does not mean that all micros are bad. If the hide site calls for a micro, then a micro hidden there would be a quality hide.

I personally don’t think that the argument is just that micros are bad. I believe the problem is one of quantity over quality. Since micros are easier to hide, they lend themselves to more poor quality hides unfortunately.

A micro hidden in the deeps woods makes as much since as an ammo can at the base of a statue in the center of town. They are both out of place.

Micro Spew™ in my opinion states that, too many micro hides of poor quality have pushed out the possibility of a cache of good quality, by means of the large quantity. Cache overpopulation would not be a problem if caches of good quality were hidden at each location.

 

As another point not all areas have the problem of Micro Spew™. In many rural areas it has not yet reared its ugly head. I count myself luckily to live in such a place. However there are some of the caches here that are regular caches, of the traditional type, that were placed merely to place a cache. It’s nice to have a cache any type in such a cache light area, yet this shows that even regular caches can be a problem if we allow the quality to slip.

 

It’s is the ease with which micros can be and have been hidden that has lead to this problem. I don’t blame the micro. I blame the lazy cacher that hid the low quality cache

Link to comment

I usually run my queries in pairs. One with all caches and one that excludes multi's, puzzles, and virtuals. This way I can hunt the type I have time to hunt.

 

I enjoy all TYPES of caches. A well placed micro in a high visibility area where maximum stealth is required is almost as much fun as an ammo can in the swamp next to a gator slide. :blink::P

Link to comment
What I'm going to find is me hitting the GOTO button to find a better cache. Later, I'm going to be finding me placing that cache on my ignore list.

Heh... I did this a few days back on a parking lot cache. Got home, logged my DNF, went about my business. A day or so later I noticed that the cache owner blasted my DNF log with a note of his own. I didn't even say anything bad about the cache, only that I preferred not to look for it.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

Heh... I did this a few days back on a parking lot cache. Got home, logged my DNF, went about my business. A day or so later I noticed that the cache owner blasted my DNF log with a note of his own. I didn't even say anything bad about the cache, only that I preferred not to look for it.

This really goes back to one of the many 'When do you log a DNF?' threads.

Link to comment

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.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

 

That's funny - the quality of my finds didn't go up astronomically when you started excluding micros.... :blink:

 

At the same time - nobody should edit what others are saying and call it a quote. That is poor behavior.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...