Jump to content

The End Of Micros?


Bill & Tammy
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

In my local group as is apparent in the rest of the caching community there is growing criticism of the increasing number of micros being published as many of you that have been following the issue are all too aware. I'll refrain from using the popular "trademarked" word for it.

 

If history can be an indicator I think I can with some relative assuredness predict that in the probably not too distant future we will see Groundspeak stop publishing them.

 

Why? Because in the absence of a rating method or some type of mechanism that prevents the majority of caches in a certain category from reaching "lametood" archival is how it is dealt with.

 

Perhaps we are looking at the problem in the wrong way. Instead of limiting the creativity and growth of the hobby by wholesale archival and eliminating another venue, we need to look at the criteria for how any cache is published or allowed to remain published.

Edited by Bill & Tammy
Link to comment

i'm still not understanding why there is so much hate for micros? i think they are very challenging to look for, thats the fun!

 

In my opinion, I believe the issue isn't the quantity but quality of micros. I'd be more apt to go after a micro that is cleverly hidden in a nice park, hiking trail or areas like that then to hit all the light poles in an area.

 

As others have said over and over again... to some people, it's about the numbers. I suppose they don't mind the quick grabs... to others, it's about the hunt. Those individuals probably enjoy searching for the micro in quality areas, as mentioned above.

 

I think the answer, as Bill & Tammy stated, would be updated criteria for publishing micros.

 

With all that said, yes, I prefer the fun hunts for the micros, but I'm not above going after the others as well. Since I'm still new to the sport, I consider every cache, regardless of rating or location, to be a learning experience. As time goes on and I become more adept at the sport, I may be a little more picky, but for now... bring them on.

Link to comment

Micros always seem to cause an uproar. I have found some that I thought were interesting and challenging. The one that I hiked a mile to, in a area where snakes and alligators could possibly be found, only to find a 35mm film container stuffed in a palm tree really disappointed me. It was a great place for a full size cache and they ruined it by putting a micro in an area where it could be anywhere. Is that a challenge??? I guess in some sense it is, but it's not a challenge to your brain it's a challenge to your patience and you desire to preserve nature while looking for a needle in a haystack (which is exactly what it was). Those kind of micros I don't like.

 

I'm also not partial to ones that are in the middle of public view and the challenge is to "not get seen" while finding or replacing them. In larger cities that are tourist destinations (ie. New Orleans) where you couldn't hide a full size cache and car rental by tourists is rare, I appreciate them. To put a ton of micros, each about .1 mile away from each other just so that people "can find caches" I think is lame.

 

But... as someone on this thread will inevitably tell me, this is a game and to each his own. I guess some people just like the numbers and other actually like the hunt. Me I like the hunt and finding new and interesting areas. I rarely hunt near home anymore, just when traveling, because so many caches were quick finds or contained junk when I found them. It just became disappointing.

 

On the issue of will GC stop publishing them... I hope not. Unfortunately, IMHO, the people that place lame caches (micro or other) usually don't participate in these forums (at least not in our area). So... whatever we may think they will never know! But there are good micros and I'm all for them!

Link to comment
If history can be an indicator I think I can with some relative assuredness predict that in the probably not too distant future we will see Groundspeak stop publishing them.

 

I suspect that your world-view is somewhat tainted by what you read in these forums; only a very narrow segment of geocachers is represented here. Of the hundreds of geocachers I have met, few if any dare come in here.

 

Outside of these forums micros are quite popular and in no way, at least I hope, in any danger!

 

Being an avid attendee of events and geocaching with a wide variety of cachers I get quite the opposite opinion of their value than is often portrayed in here.

 

I lost a leg in '99 and broke my neck in '02, and am a 50 year-old fat man on crutches - urban micros are my main cache targets, I would hate to see them taken away!

Link to comment

I like some micros, well hidden, intresting place, some story behind the hide. I believe the popular oppinion is that lamppost hides are for numbers only ( I did my share of them). I think the answer may be as simple as adding some sort of review or ratting system. Not just dificulty and terrain. I know nothing about programing so I am not sure how hard it would be to set up some kind of scoring system that you could do when you log the cache. Five or six questions and you rank the cache, than they average the responses. A little star ratting so you don't have to read through all the logs. Thats just my two cents.

Link to comment

There is nothing wrong with Micros that a little creativity couldn't cure. There are many great, creative,and imaginitive micros out there. Unfortunitly it is simply easier for cachers who want to start putting out caches to make a micro and stick it somewhere. They see the altoids tins and 35mm cans everyday when they shop. They can easily figure out something to do with it. Now a .50cal. Ammo can is differnt. WOW, a big blank canvas that needs a bunch of cool stuff to fill it and is not as easy to hide... stick it under a park bench and someone will notice it ,...wrap it in cammo duct tape and it looks like a .50 cal. Ammo can wrapped in cammo duct tape sitting under a park bench, and I assure you someone will notice it.

 

So if everyone doesn't do their caches like everyone else does, but rather waits for that spark of creativity to strike and the mind to expand with the imagination of bringing forth something new in the neighborhood....Where was I....Okay I'm under control now...Well anyway.....

 

Many caches both large and small are "so-So" caches because the hider just wanted to hide "something", not to create a great cache.

 

Wow, Micro-marking, the site too small too see! :laughing::laughing::laughing:

 

BTW, who eats all those altoids anyway?

Edited by wiseye
Link to comment

i'm still not understanding why there is so much hate for micros? i think they are very challenging to look for, thats the fun!

 

In my opinion, I believe the issue isn't the quantity but quality of micros. I'd be more apt to go after a micro that is cleverly hidden in a nice park, hiking trail or areas like that then to hit all the light poles in an area.

 

As others have said over and over again... to some people, it's about the numbers. I suppose they don't mind the quick grabs... to others, it's about the hunt. Those individuals probably enjoy searching for the micro in quality areas, as mentioned above.

 

I think the answer, as Bill & Tammy stated, would be updated criteria for publishing micros.

 

With all that said, yes, I prefer the fun hunts for the micros, but I'm not above going after the others as well. Since I'm still new to the sport, I consider every cache, regardless of rating or location, to be a learning experience. As time goes on and I become more adept at the sport, I may be a little more picky, but for now... bring them on.

 

Thanks, you explained a lot!! appreciate it :laughing:

Link to comment
If history can be an indicator I think I can with some relative assuredness predict that in the probably not too distant future we will see Groundspeak stop publishing them.

Hi Bill & Tammy!

I have to disagree with y'all on this one. I've only seen the Holy Mother Church react strongly to forum opinions one time. Hardly an indicator of history.

 

On a side note; If I were to give a class on hiding caches, I would include the axiom, "Use the biggest container the area will support". I realize that's only one ol' fat guy's opinion, so take it for what it's worth. A film cannister dropped into the shrubbery at Burger King will always be lame. That same film cannister, painted brown & velcro'ed to the underside of a boardwalk that meanders through a cypress swamp is kewl. Both use the same container. One was thought out, while the other was the geocaching equivalent of Turret's Syndrome.

Link to comment

I think micros in urban areas or muggle-heavy areas are suitable. What I don't think is necessary is when people hide a camouflage micro in the middle of a dense forest where nobody ever goes. Why not hide a bucket or at least an ammo can? If a cacher goes a mile into a deep forest to find a cache, they have had enough of a challenge. They can also be rewarded with swag or some kind of prize. I'm tired of going into lush forests to find only a logbook.

Link to comment

Not only is it about "find" numbers for some but it is also about "hide" numbers for others. If you want a hundred hides quickly without much thought it is easier and cheaper to make them micros. Its also easier to carry a dozen micros in your pack for spur of the moment hides.

 

I enjoy an occasional micro myself and will look for anything when I decide on an area to cache in. However, I am disappointed with micros in the woods that take awhile to hike to, especially when there are plentiful hiding places for larger containers. If I'm going to climb a mountain to get a cache it better have something I can trade for at the end.

Link to comment

I'm sure this has been said before, but I think some people are good cache finders and some are good hiders.... I'm better at finding, I have NO imagination at hiding them. Most of my cache hides are pretty lame, I admit it, but I feel obligated to contibute something to the game.

 

How many caches are put out there for the purpose of contributing to the cause? I realize most of the "lame" caches are put out by people that want to provide more caches in the area vs more intersting/challenging caches in the area. But... I also think that some people who feel an obligation to place a cache because they have found so many end up placing "lame" caches. I know, becaue I have done that.......

Edited by Uno Mas
Link to comment

Does someone have example of so called lame micros?

I haven't encountered so far any here in Finland.

 

Lame is in the mind of the finder! I have found a couple thousand caches, I quit logging them for the most part a long time ago so I don't really know how many, but can't think of a one that I would call lame!

 

Some are better than others, obviously, and some hide styles (film cans under lightpole skirts in parking lots) can get a bit predictable, but lame? No. There are plenty of folks who can't access mountaintops and the lightpole micro serves their purpose nicely!

 

Lame is, I think, all about control issues. Folks naturally want others to play the game their way. Some get so wrapped up in that desire that they want to control how the game is played. These are the folks who are usually vocal about criticizing any style hide but their own favorite.

 

With an open mind and an acceptance that there are many ways to play and many personalities and capabilities you'll develop your own favorites while allowing others theirs... when that happens there are no lame caches, just ones you don't want (or have) to hunt.

 

Ed

Link to comment

Does someone have example of so called lame micros?

 

Well, providing specific examples of lame caches would be rude, so I hope no one does it. That said, I can think of several right off the top of my head.

 

First, I want to preface the following with being "lame" is not the only issue that needs to be addressed to take the heat off of micros. There are some very fine micros out there and I'd hate to see those go away. It's hard enough to find the good micros when so many are lousy.

 

Second, let me make clear the problem is not limited to micros. It's caches of all sizes. Be aware of the law of unintended consequences. Unless the real issue is addressed, you could archive all micros tomorrow and the problem would shift to smalls. (...and not to mention micros being listed as smalls.) Please, don't let the message of this paragraph be lost in rebutting the rest of this post.

 

Yes, "lame" is in the eye of beholder. Each and every person has their own lame threshold. But, what is lame? Lame is defined as "Weak and ineffectual; unsatisfactory."

 

Then you have to determine the purpose of placing a cache and did it met its goal?

 

If the purpose was simply to allow someone to increment their find count, then yes, I suppose no cache is lame. You got the smilie, mission accomplished.

 

If the purpose is to provide an excuse to get out of the house, then no cache is lame. The same could be said of activity such as watching the grass grow, it gets you out of the house.

 

If the purpose is to provide an excuse to socialize, then I suppose no cache is lame. I guess it could be said that no bar is lame either--unless it's empty. Hang-out spots a lot of the time are popular for no other reason than the other "cool" folks are there.

 

However, if the purpose of placing a cache is to entertain the finder in some way, then yes a cache could fail to entertain the finder. The entertainment value could be described as "weak and ineffectual, unsatisfactory" and then it would be lame. (The "pointing and laughing" entertainment value aside, that is.)

 

Yes, some can be entertained by anything even when 95% or better of the rest of the population wouldn't be. I've seen kids laugh at the dumbest, even cruelest, of things and think it funny. So, no, there are no absolutes. Don't let "well, somebody though it was entertaining" be an excuse for garbage to be acceptable.

 

If folks would simply try to put some entertainment value into each and every cache so it can stand on its own merit then the hobby would be much better off.

Link to comment

Outside of a few universal definitions of "lame" micros (WalMart Lamp Skirts), I doubt we could all agree that any particular cache was lame. And that is the problem. Micros have a place in our Geocaching world. Some are well hidden, interesting and creative. Others are tossed into bushes at 50MPH with poor coordinates. I am personally more dismayed at the crude quantity of Micros because they are cheap and disposable and give a handful of smilies before disappearing. I don't think ratings are the answer - or stricter guidelines. I would like to see an indicator of sort to weed out "log only" micros however. I do tend to ignore any micro with less than 10 logs and out for less than 2 months. If they are truely lame, they often have a shorter life than that.

Link to comment

. . .Both use the same container. One was thought out, while the other was the geocaching equivalent of Turret's Syndrome.

Spelling Police here, with more useless trivia. . . The correct spelling of the name of that diagnostic category is "Tourette's Syndrome" and the more complete name is "Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome".

 

Analogy Policy here, with another observation. . . The employment, in this case of lame urban micros, of Tourette's syndrome does not appear to be a particularly accurate analogy, and the Analogy Police instead suggest the use of the term "paranoid schizophrenia" since the latter condition is -- according to DSM-IV -- marked by delusions and thought disorder, which many experts have posited are necessary prerequisites for placement of lame urban micros.

Link to comment

As someone who lives, and walks daily in a large city, I have really enjoyed the urban micros that I have found! I luckily live in the only large N.American city without a Walmart, so I don't have to worry about the notorious Wally's micros.

 

All of the micros I've found, or that are on my to-do list are in small parks, historical areas, waterfront piers, etc... Worthy places where 'the container fits the area'. I always enjoy reading the logs from tourists who were able to enjoy our beautiful city by going to the spots that people who live here think they should see.

 

It comes down to just following the same rules that are suggested for EVERY cache... find a worthy spot, use the right container. Then we'll all be happy cachers.

Link to comment

I love the assumption that most micros are lame, while larger cache containers should be preferable wherever the location will support them.

 

A 10 mile drive to park the car, a 10 yard walk to the only stand of trees in the field, uncover the conspicuous looking pile of rocks to find a Cool Whip tub full of wet, broken McCrap. yee-haw.

 

Furthermore, in guarantee you that the above described cache is much harder to filter out of your PQs than a micro is.

Link to comment

"Lameness" isn't a characteristic of particular cache sizes or types. It's the style of some cache placers. Once you figure out who these are, it's a simple matter to just avoid their caches. If your OCD won't let you avoid them, just regard them as "B" caches--so bad they're funny.

Link to comment

What we need is a user-compiled rating system for all caches. That way the cream can rise and the stank can sink. The problem isn't micros, it's not knowing which micros suck before wasting an hour on them. If the FTF can say, "this one's really great" and give it five stars, or "thanks for placing the cache, SL, yawn" and give it 1 star, those of us who follow after can at least figure out which are worth the trip.

Link to comment
If history can be an indicator I think I can with some relative assuredness predict that in the probably not too distant future we will see Groundspeak stop publishing them.

 

I suspect that your world-view is somewhat tainted by what you read in these forums; only a very narrow segment of geocachers is represented here. Of the hundreds of geocachers I have met, few if any dare come in here....

 

Like you most of the cachers here in the forums know cachers outside the forums. Unlike you're experience most cachers I know have a love hate relatinonship with Micro's but few if any would trade in full size caches for micros, but plenty would do vise versa.

 

Most cachers, inside the forums and out recognize that micro's have their place and would not get rid of them.

 

My opinion on micro's remains the same. Place the largest cache the area can support, but place a cache rather than not.

Link to comment
If history can be an indicator I think I can with some relative assuredness predict that in the probably not too distant future we will see Groundspeak stop publishing them.

 

I suspect that your world-view is somewhat tainted by what you read in these forums; only a very narrow segment of geocachers is represented here. Of the hundreds of geocachers I have met, few if any dare come in here....

 

Like you most of the cachers here in the forums know cachers outside the forums. Unlike you're experience most cachers I know have a love hate relatinonship with Micro's but few if any would trade in full size caches for micros, but plenty would do vise versa.

 

Most cachers, inside the forums and out recognize that micro's have their place and would not get rid of them.

 

My opinion on micro's remains the same. Place the largest cache the area can support, but place a cache rather than not.

 

your............vice <_<:D:o

Link to comment

How I envy all of you folks who live in such cache-rich areas that you can "filter out" caches that don't meet your rigid quality control standards! If someone within ten miles of me (actually, make it 20) were to stick a magnetic keyholder to the guardrail next to a Taco Bell behind a KMart, we'd be there and be happy. Plus, that kind of cache is great for allowing the Little Whistler (age 4) to make some real finds without any hints from mom and dad. Micros are also great for parents because we have enough junk masquerading as toys at our house, and it's awesome when there is absolutely no opportunity to trade for yet more plastic crap.

 

One of our favorite caches was a nano hidden on a huge plastic alligator in a busy park. After the three older Whistlers employed all manner of stealth and searched the beast from snout to tail, the Little Whistler peeked at it and said "Got it" in two seconds flat. It made our day, and his, and the cache was so tiny it didn't even contain a log book (we had to email the owner describing the contents in order to claim a find). One of our worst caching experiences involved a long, tedious walk ending in a tick-infested pole line where the cache turned out to be a dented metal box containing mainly junk. No view, no tricky hide, no good swag. Blah.

 

As they say, it's not the size of the hammer that counts, it's all in how you use your tool! <_<

Link to comment

...Perhaps we are looking at the problem in the wrong way. Instead of limiting the creativity and growth of the hobby by wholesale archival and eliminating another venue, we need to look at the criteria for how any cache is published or allowed to remain published.

 

The guidlines are just fine the just way they are. As a big kid who caches with his kids, I prefer finding bigger containers with cool swag to trade, but micro containers meet the definition of a cache: a physical container hiolding a log book. As long as they meet the placement guidlines, they should be published. When Groundspeak becomes so elietest they refuses to publish my cache of any size because it doesn't meet arbitrary criteria such as "quality", that's when I stop playing the game. Fortunately I don't see either happening anytimel soon.

Link to comment

I think we should ban all the lame ice cream flavors. Back in the old days you got vanilla or chocolate. Ice cream makers who create weird flavors only to get there flavor count higher than 31 are ruining ice cream. :o

 

You and your crazy ideas about chocolate. Vanilla is the only QUALITY flavor!!

 

If history can be an indicator I think I can with some relative assuredness predict that in the probably not too distant future we will see Groundspeak stop publishing them.

 

I suspect that your world-view is somewhat tainted by what you read in these forums; only a very narrow segment of geocachers is represented here. Of the hundreds of geocachers I have met, few if any dare come in here....

 

Like you most of the cachers here in the forums know cachers outside the forums. Unlike you're experience most cachers I know have a love hate relatinonship with Micro's but few if any would trade in full size caches for micros, but plenty would do vise versa.

 

Most cachers, inside the forums and out recognize that micro's have their place and would not get rid of them.

 

My opinion on micro's remains the same. Place the largest cache the area can support, but place a cache rather than not.

 

I had a really nice multi with the coordinates for the main cache hidden inside of a fishing lure stuck to the side of a tree. You would be amazed at how many people overlooked the lure. I was amazed at the number of people who stole the main cache. It got to be such a pain that I had to archive the whole thing and turn it into a micro. After all, the area was still nice, it was just not possible to keep a traditional cache box in the area.

 

So, while I did not want to, I had to replace a traditional with the largest cache the area would support - a micro in the middle of the trees. <_<

Link to comment

I've got a couple of micros in historic places. Most people love the locations. It seems I have to replace them regularly. I don't think it's always muggles. I've got to hide the cache from overzealous grounds crew. When the area is manicured from head to toe only a micro will do.

Link to comment
Micros have a place in our Geocaching world. Some are well hidden, interesting and creative. Others are tossed into bushes at 50MPH with poor coordinates.

Yup. I'm new to this little game. Still less than two dozen finds. But I've already started to feel a little frustrated with SOME of the little caches I've looked for. I've found a couple that were excellent and made me smile. But when an Altoids tin is just buried in a huge area of ivy, that's not so hot. Creativity is entertaining. It's especially bad when that tin in the ivy is rated by the hider as "easy." I've hidden a couple of caches too. When I do, I try to be creative or to draw people to see something of interest (preferably both). Isn't that the point? Isn't that where a lot of the fun is supposed to come from? Stats are fun too, of course, but if they're a big concern, then you're missing the point. IMHO, of course.

Link to comment

It isn't the size that matters it's how and where you place it that matters! <_<

 

I keep hearing that.

 

And yet, it's micros that are threatened with extinction in this thread, not larger caches, no matter how lame they are.

 

And why is that? I think it's been amply demonstrated that if you don't like micros it's easy enough to avoid them. So what would push people to spend so much time and energy on a crusade against something that can be so easily ignored?

 

Some maintain that it's not micros per se, but just lame micros. That's pretty subjective. A rating system has been proposed, but really, what would that do? What kind of a rating do you think a person who doesn't like micros is going to give a micro? And what will we do with that information? If a cache scores low enough it must be archived? Oh I can see this whole rating system abused from day one.

 

Others complain about micros placed in locations that could host larger caches. That's just too bad, because I hope there's nothing that anyone can ever do about it. You see, if a person places a cache within GC.com's guidelines and gets that cache approved and listed, everyone else who would like to hide on that site has to learn to live with disappointment. I've found that time and liquor can cure all wounds.

 

It's also been suggested that it be possible to issue a challenge to the owners of micros, in effect that if someone is able to site a larger cache at the same location the micro will be archived in favor of the larger cache. Do you people ever listen to yourselves? I'd go along with that when they make it possible for us to challenge ANY lame cache, regardless of size. In the meantime, if you approached me with that offer, I'd invite you to urinate up a braided binding device.

 

So, really, why all the rancor about micros? Well, you can never speak in absolutes, but I can tell you what it boils down to most of the time:

 

Numbers. There, I said it. Numbers. But not the way you think. The people who defend micros have been called number-ho's, that they are artificially inflating their stats by logging thousands of lamp post skirt micros. Well, I guess that's possible, but certainly not in this area. If you logged all the Wally World caches in my area you'd boost your count by maybe 5. And even if you did go on massive lame urban micro binges, seeing how high you can push your numbers in as short a time as possible, who cares?

 

Ah, who cares indeed? There's the rub. The people who are really incensed by all this are by and large people who feel that their numbers are being threatened by these uppity newcomers. There's a word in the forums for people who are that worried about their numbers, people who's enjoyment of caching depends on others' numbers. I can't think of it right now, but it'll come to me. They even came up with their own little trademarked name for what they call the current state of caching, and they use that trademarked name to denigrate the numbers of anyone who started caching after a self-determined date, thereby ensuring their own elitist exclusivity for all time. "YOUR numbers will never mean as much or be as important as MY numbers, no matter what kind of caches you hunt, because I started caching in the Golden Age of Camelot and you started in the Post-Industrial micro-laden slums."

 

Somewhere in the middle are the rest of us, made up of cachers who like micros, or don't like micros. Cachers who will hit all the caches in a given area over time or who will actively filter the ones they don't like. Cachers who will seek out only those caches they think are worth a long hike for and cachers who will actively seek out TBs or GeoCoins. The only thing most of us have in common is that we truly DON'T CARE what kinds of caches others are hiding or seeking, we are enjoying what we are doing.

 

My only personal concern with this whole debate is that if micros do get banished to Waymarking.com it will pave the way for puzzles, mysteries and offsets to be similarly exiled, and eventually the whole game will be defined by discovering Tupperware filled with McCrap.

Link to comment
My only personal concern with this whole debate is that if micros do get banished to Waymarking.com it will pave the way for puzzles, mysteries and offsets to be similarly exiled, and eventually the whole game will be defined by discovering Tupperware filled with McCrap.

:o:D<_<:angry:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

What we need is a user-compiled rating system for all caches. That way the cream can rise and the stank can sink. The problem isn't micros, it's not knowing which micros suck before wasting an hour on them. If the FTF can say, "this one's really great" and give it five stars, or "thanks for placing the cache, SL, yawn" and give it 1 star, those of us who follow after can at least figure out which are worth the trip.

 

Terracaching. The solution to your suggestion. A user rating system isn't likely here. Terracaching is built on it.

 

edit for spelling

Edited by hikergps
Link to comment

Thank you CheshireFrog.

 

New rules - only logs which are long and say what I want to say can be posted in the forums.

 

Or maybe only caches that I like will be allowed; the rest must be archived by Tuesday.

 

Anyway, thanks again CheshireFrog.

Link to comment

No do not ban micros. I went to a very interesting spot this last weekend that was a micro. One of those beautiful places fairly close to home that I never knew existed.

 

If you are in it for the numbers you don't care where the cache is. OTOH if you are looking for historical or scenic places then it is your responsibility to read the cache pages and go to the most interesting ones. So I only do one to three caches a day but I decided after the first couple of finds that quality was better than quantity.

 

One hint: If you find a historical or scenic cache that is interesting you can bet that hider has more interesting caches. If you find a lame parking lot micro then that hider will likely have many more lame micros.

 

As for the lamest cache? I don't mind being rude. The peer pressure is good for the sport. It was a light pole off the highway that truckers pulled off to rest. The area was littered with gallon milk jugs full of trucker urine. Why anyone would hide any thing there was beyond me. This was the point where I decided that it was worth the time to read cache pages and search out the historical and scenic places.

 

So how about some peer pressure? Put your real feelings in the logs and don't try to be so nice. Let other cachers know this site has nothing to offer except a cache. Maybe a new acronym? NTOEAC

Link to comment

I don't think its the size of the cache thats the problem, it's where they are placed.

 

It me its more about the location than the cache itself. From what I've seen so far, here in Toronto, we dont really have the problem yet. Most cachers are placing quality caches.

 

But bush Burger King hides, arent those on private property? How are these getting published?

Link to comment

I don't think its the size of the cache thats the problem, it's where they are placed.

 

It me its more about the location than the cache itself. From what I've seen so far, here in Toronto, we dont really have the problem yet. Most cachers are placing quality caches.

 

But bush Burger King hides, arent those on private property? How are these getting published?

 

Why don't you look those up and send an email to the publisher of the cache in question?

Link to comment
A user rating system isn't likely here.

 

Jeremy has already said otherwise...

 

Was this an announcement, or a comment in a topic started by someone else? I've done some searches but can't locate it. If you have a link or topic title that would be most appreciated.

Link to comment

I didn't view the OP as just another " I hate micros thread." I won't even get into my opinion of micros.

 

If history can be an indicator I think I can with some relative assuredness predict that in the probably not too distant future we will see Groundspeak stop publishing them.

 

What evidence/information/data do you have to support this?

Link to comment
A user rating system isn't likely here.

 

Jeremy has already said otherwise...

 

Was this an announcement, or a comment in a topic started by someone else? I've done some searches but can't locate it. If you have a link or topic title that would be most appreciated.

Start reading Jeremy's comments here and continue on until you get to Markwell's proposal. I don't know when this will happen but many cachers in our area have already started making their own favorites lists.

Link to comment
A user rating system isn't likely here.

 

Jeremy has already said otherwise...

 

Was this an announcement, or a comment in a topic started by someone else? I've done some searches but can't locate it. If you have a link or topic title that would be most appreciated.

Start reading Jeremy's comments here and continue on until you get to Markwell's proposal. I don't know when this will happen but many cachers in our area have already started making their own favorites lists.

 

Thanks. The work firewall won't let me view it, I'll have to take a gander at it tomorrow. Appreciate the link.

Link to comment

I've found more lame full-size caches than lame micros. Possibly because there aren't so many micros around in Europe (outside major cities anyway), and the US ones I found were selected using bookmark lists and recommendations plus research into locations. I must say that my top 10 list of caches would probably include several micros.

 

It's ironic that I often read threads where people say that the main point of geocaching is to get people to interesting locations, and that the find is incidental. Then the next thread suggests that the size of the container is a major factor and (for some unspecified reason), smaller ones are always inferior.

 

Let's accept that there are several variants of the game being played, and that certain types of cache are meant for a particular variant. I propose that, rather than a "quality" measure, we allow the cache owner to use a new attribute to identify the type of game his cache is primarily aimed at.

Examples:

  • "Numbers" type (cache and grab)
  • Challenge
  • Walking route
  • Treasure
  • Series
  • ...there are probably a couple more

Although this seems to overlap with some of the existing attributes, it is more to the point: so you can immediately filter out caches that are aimed at those playing a different game. My "lame" micro is now no longer lame, as you know that it's to be avoided unless you're after the numbers. My "micro in the woods" shouldn't disappoint either, as it's marked as a "challenge". When I have the kids with me, I can just target the "Treasure" caches and swap bugs and toys. I won't inadvertently find a cache that is part of a series and spoil my chances of having a day bagging the whole series.

 

Has this been proposed before?

 

HH

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...