The End Of Micros?

[CoyoteRed]

So why then is it whenever someone starts a rant like this, it’s always directed at micros?

 

Because of the high number of lame caches that are also micros?

 

As to your assertion that micros draw more fire because so many of them are lame, well, that would be an opinion, wouldn't it?

 

Yet another person with reading comprehension issues. It's really tough to have a decent conversation when the person you're having the conversation with can't even repeat back what one said.

 

I don't find that the majority of micros are lame, at least not in my area. I have found areas where the number of lame caches where quite high and most of those were micros.

 

As for opinion, everyone's opinions are their own. Just because you say your cache is not lame that is supposed to somehow magically change my opinion of your cache? I don't think so. I form my own opinion, thank you, and if my opinion of your cache is low is that my fault? It seems to be as if you saying, "it doesn't matter what you think of my cache, here's is the opinion you should have on it."

Edited June 16, 2006 by CoyoteRed

[+briansnat]

It would be interesting to see, if someone could run such a search, who the top, say, 50 posters are and the difference between their average # of posts and that of the next 50.

 

I suspect that less than 50 set the tone of the whole forum.

 

Someone can run such a search and pretty easily, too.

 

The top 50 posters, in order, are:

briansnat,Renegade Knight,Team GPSaxophone,Jeremy,Stunod,uperdooper,sbell111,The Leprechauns,Sparky-Watts,Mopar,Keystone,Markwell,welch,tirediron,BlueDeuce,Criminal,Jamie Z,TotemLake,carleenp,rusty_tlc,Marky,Alan2,Miragee,AtlantaGal,TeamK-9,JMBella,Prime Suspect,radioscout,sept1c_tank,Snoogans,CoyoteRed,JohnnyVegas,Webfoot,robert,woof n lulu,mtn-man,Deego,Lazyboy & Mitey Mite,umc,embra,Sputnik 57,BassoonPilot,Ambrosia,wildearth2001,New England n00b,robertlipe,Neo_Geo,Cache Viking,GEO*Trailblazer 1 and Divine

 

They average 4,900 posts per.

 

The next 50 average 2252 posts per, and are:

 

The Cheeseheads,El Diablo,TrailGators,Planet,Torry,Seamus,georgeandmary,Halden,evergreenhiker!,pdxmarathonman,GOT GPS?,ju66l3r,fly46,leatherman,ClydeE,cachew nut,PDOP's,CYBret,AuntieWeasel,Doc-Dean,peter,Simply Paul,wimseyguy,RichardMoore,flask,EraSeek,The Hokesters,TEAM 360,avroair,kealia,Anonymous',2oldfarts (the rockhounders),IV_Warrior,woodsters,CompuCash,Stuey,Pipanella,fizzymagic,CO Admin,Team DEMP,Team Cotati,Ladycacher,MissJenn,Pharisee,Milbank,ralann,Tahosa and Sons,sTeamTraen,clearpath and rutson

 

I think RK and I might skew those average posts per numbers a bit.

[+Renegade Knight]

So why then is it whenever someone starts a rant like this, it’s always directed at micros?

Because a micro has a greater chance of achieving a high LQ, (Lameness Quotient) than a regular container. Of the caches I've found, roughly 15% of the micros have been what I would consider to be lame, while only 1% of the regular size have been lame....

 

Look back to your finds and answer this.

 

Is the 15% ratio because it's a micro, or because of the location? If it's location do the locations you find micros in tend to be the locations that really could only support a micro?

 

My opinion based on the what makes for a lame cache debates is that lame spots tend to be urban and those tend to support micros over traditional caches thus it's not the micro itself so much as the spot. Lame spots are still going to get caches placed because they are what's left for urbanites to place a cache in if they are going to place one at all.

 

It would take sheer cache placing brilliance to turn a lame spot into a good cache.

 

Lets see if your lame ratio matches my unscientific theory.

Edited June 16, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+TrailGators]

Where is this thread going? Jeremy already said that he's not going to get rid of micros. The bottomline is that some people like larger caches that are not challenging to find and some like a challenge. Seems like there is room for all of us out there.....

Edited June 16, 2006 by TrailGators

[blocko1000]

I dont hate all micros but I like most hate lame micros. I dont mind a lame regular cache as long as the tupperware, ammo can jar etc.. is appropriate for the area. Here in Reno, Nv. we have an epidemic of lame micros on our hands. I found a 35 mm film canister out in the desert with nothing but sagebrush all around for miles. Why? Why not a can of some kind way out there. Magnetic key holders are a problem as well. I found one stuck up under a gutter drain. You have to kneel in the street and reach up under and get it. Why? It was titled "Anudder Micro". I wrote in the log "anudder stinker" "great view of the gutter and drain. I have found many more like these and they stink. No reason for them except to try and populate an area with caches.

I have placed only one cache and it was a micro. But, it had great cammo and was not a film canister. If you read the logs you can see from the logs that people actually liked it. They liked that it was clever, had some originality and thought put into it. I will never place another micro as far as I can see and will try not to hunt them as well unless I know it had some thought put into it.

Just my opinion and it should be yours.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The OP's topic was The End of Micros, and Jeremy said

The physical nature of a micro means that it is a cache, regardless of the argument of whether a cache is lame or not. The idea that it would be spun off to another web site is an unnecessary worry.

so what more need be said?

 

I know he's a busy man, but I love it when he posts, it resolves so many issues!

[+Team Cotati]

It would be interesting to see, if someone could run such a search, who the top, say, 50 posters are and the difference between their average # of posts and that of the next 50.

 

I suspect that less than 50 set the tone of the whole forum.

 

Someone can run such a search and pretty easily, too.

 

The top 50 posters, in order, are:

briansnat,Renegade Knight,Team GPSaxophone,Jeremy,Stunod,uperdooper,sbell111,The Leprechauns,Sparky-Watts,Mopar,Keystone,Markwell,welch,tirediron,BlueDeuce,Criminal,Jamie Z,TotemLake,carleenp,rusty_tlc,Marky,Alan2,Miragee,AtlantaGal,TeamK-9,JMBella,Prime Suspect,radioscout,sept1c_tank,Snoogans,CoyoteRed,JohnnyVegas,Webfoot,robert,woof n lulu,mtn-man,Deego,Lazyboy & Mitey Mite,umc,embra,Sputnik 57,BassoonPilot,Ambrosia,wildearth2001,New England n00b,robertlipe,Neo_Geo,Cache Viking,GEO*Trailblazer 1 and Divine

 

They average 4,900 posts per.

 

The next 50 average 2252 posts per, and are:

 

The Cheeseheads,El Diablo,TrailGators,Planet,Torry,Seamus,georgeandmary,Halden,evergreenhiker!,pdxmarathonman,GOT GPS?,ju66l3r,fly46,leatherman,ClydeE,cachew nut,PDOP's,CYBret,AuntieWeasel,Doc-Dean,peter,Simply Paul,wimseyguy,RichardMoore,flask,EraSeek,The Hokesters,TEAM 360,avroair,kealia,Anonymous',2oldfarts (the rockhounders),IV_Warrior,woodsters,CompuCash,Stuey,Pipanella,fizzymagic,CO Admin,Team DEMP,Team Cotati,Ladycacher,MissJenn,Pharisee,Milbank,ralann,Tahosa and Sons,sTeamTraen,clearpath and rutson

 

I think RK and I might skew those average posts per numbers a bit.

 

Not as much as I do.

[+KBI]

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.

Bad logic. Your analogy implies that if 95% of cachers don't like a particular cache type, then the remaining 5% must therefore be immature, stupid, or somehow less worthy that CoyoteRed. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it inherently wrong -- even if you are in the majority. Most people can't stand anchovies on pizza -- but pizza places still offer anchovies, don't they? Instead of criticizing the tastes of others, why not simple avoid what you don't like and leave the rest of us alone?

 

 

Don't let "well, somebody though it was entertaining" be an excuse for garbage to be acceptable.

The term "garbage" is subjective, CR, and the term "acceptable" implies that someone like me might even care in the slightest whether you 'approve' of my hides. I DON'T care what you think. CoyoteRed, if I hide a cache, and only ONE person ever finds it and is entertained by it, then it was worth doing. Let the rest avoid it if they don't like it!

 

Lead by example! If you think some hides are garbage, then by all means you should endeavor not to continue the trend -- but if "somebody thought" the so-called "garbage" hide was entertaining, then why not be happy for them instead of belittling them?

 

 

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.

I agree 100%, but "entertainment value" is a pretty subjective measure, is it not?

 

Funny you should say that, BTW. When I tried to put some unique entertainment value into one of my hides, your response was not only to flame me for it, but to further insist that it (and all others like it) be banned.

[+TotemLake]

CheshireFrog @ Jun 15 2006, 11:56 AM) *

So why then is it whenever someone starts a rant like this, it’s always directed at micros?

 

Spend some time, since we don't have tools available to us to do it, scanning who posts here and how often, you'll find that there are VERY few geocachers here (as a percentage of the whole) and those here post basically the same thing every time.

 

'I hate micros' is one of the running themes.

 

That's not a troll, by the way, just my perception of fact that I believe in part answers his question!

 

It would be interesting to see, if someone could run such a search, who the top, say, 50 posters are and the difference between their average # of posts and that of the next 50.

 

I suspect that less than 50 set the tone of the whole forum.

 

Anyway, it's natural that folks that think alike stick together, that's the nature of forums, so once you know basically how those top 50 posters think (their stated likes and dislikes) you can pretty well predict how any given thread will go!

 

Then, contemplate the tremendous power those 50 top posters have, collectively. To anyone coming to the forums that doesn't know better those voices might very well dictate the game. A newbie reading these forums will certainly come away thinking micros must be lame, 'cause 'everybody' on here says they are!

 

Therefore, 'micros are lame' threads will show up far more often than 'I like micros'... you have to be totally new, stupid or flameproof to open a thread here that goes against the likes and desires of those top 50 or so posters!

Sadly sir, your opinion of the power in these forums just because someone is in the top 50 is misplaced. My posts numbers merely reflect that I chat a lot on line. Nothing less, nothing more. If nothing else, I will have a persuasive debate and will defend my opinion, which is all that it is. Do I sway decision based on how much I post? I don't think so and I never believed I ever did. People with far fewer posts have a better grasp of how to do that without being so verbose.

 

By the way, I consider the part I bolded to be inflammatory, and serves nothing more than to

[+briansnat]

I suspect that less than 50 set the tone of the whole forum.

 

Anyway, it's natural that folks that think alike stick together, that's the nature of forums, so once you know basically how those top 50 posters think (their stated likes and dislikes) you can pretty well predict how any given thread will go!

 

Then, contemplate the tremendous power those 50 top posters have, collectively. To anyone coming to the forums that doesn't know better those voices might very well dictate the game. A newbie reading these forums will certainly come away thinking micros must be lame, 'cause 'everybody' on here says they are!

 

Therefore, 'micros are lame' threads will show up far more often than 'I like micros'... you have to be totally new, stupid or flameproof to open a thread here that goes against the likes and desires of those top 50 or so posters!

 

You're assuming that the top 50 posters are a monolith who walk in lock step with each other and agree on everything. Looking at the names on the list, I see a very wide range of opinions on a variety of subjects.

New England N00b has no problem with cemetery caches, while Alan2 thinks they are totally inappropriate. I like Garmin, Johnny Vegas likes Magellan, Criminal thinks pocket caches are dumb, Snoogans thinks they are peachy. Coyote Red dislikes lame micros while Sbel111 doesn't think they are lame. Mopar is not diligent about logging online while CarleenP thinks its an important part of the game.

 

Because most of the top 50 earned that "distinction" due to longetivy here, you'll tend to find their opinions skewed towards traditional geocaching, but not always. You name the subject you're going to find people in that top 50 with opposing views.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

It would be interesting to see, if someone could run such a search, who the top, say, 50 posters are and the difference between their average # of posts and that of the next 50.

 

I suspect that less than 50 set the tone of the whole forum.

 

Someone can run such a search and pretty easily, too.

 

The top 50 posters, in order, are:

briansnat,Renegade Knight,Team GPSaxophone,Jeremy,Stunod,uperdooper,sbell111,The Leprechauns,Sparky-Watts,Mopar,Keystone,Markwell,welch,tirediron,BlueDeuce,Criminal,Jamie Z,TotemLake,carleenp,rusty_tlc,Marky,Alan2,Miragee,AtlantaGal,TeamK-9,JMBella,Prime Suspect,radioscout,sept1c_tank,Snoogans,CoyoteRed,JohnnyVegas,Webfoot,robert,woof n lulu,mtn-man,Deego,Lazyboy & Mitey Mite,umc,embra,Sputnik 57,BassoonPilot,Ambrosia,wildearth2001,New England n00b,robertlipe,Neo_Geo,Cache Viking,GEO*Trailblazer 1 and Divine

 

They average 4,900 posts per.

 

The next 50 average 2252 posts per, and are:

 

The Cheeseheads,El Diablo,TrailGators,Planet,Torry,Seamus,georgeandmary,Halden,evergreenhiker!,pdxmarathonman,GOT GPS?,ju66l3r,fly46,leatherman,ClydeE,cachew nut,PDOP's,CYBret,AuntieWeasel,Doc-Dean,peter,Simply Paul,wimseyguy,RichardMoore,flask,EraSeek,The Hokesters,TEAM 360,avroair,kealia,Anonymous',2oldfarts (the rockhounders),IV_Warrior,woodsters,CompuCash,Stuey,Pipanella,fizzymagic,CO Admin,Team DEMP,Team Cotati,Ladycacher,MissJenn,Pharisee,Milbank,ralann,Tahosa and Sons,sTeamTraen,clearpath and rutson

 

I think RK and I might skew those average posts per numbers a bit.

What am I, chopped liver?

[+Corp Of Discovery]

The number of posts a person has means just as much as the number of caches someone has found. Nothing. It's what they say or the integrity of how they cache that matters to me.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

It would be interesting to see, if someone could run such a search, who the top, say, 50 posters are and the difference between their average # of posts and that of the next 50.

 

I suspect that less than 50 set the tone of the whole forum.

 

Someone can run such a search and pretty easily, too.

 

The top 50 posters, in order, are:

briansnat,Renegade Knight,Team GPSaxophone,Jeremy,Stunod,uperdooper,sbell111,The Leprechauns,Sparky-Watts,Mopar,Keystone,Markwell,welch,tirediron,BlueDeuce,Criminal,Jamie Z,TotemLake,carleenp,rusty_tlc,Marky,Alan2,Miragee,AtlantaGal,TeamK-9,JMBella,Prime Suspect,radioscout,sept1c_tank,Snoogans,CoyoteRed,JohnnyVegas,Webfoot,robert,woof n lulu,mtn-man,Deego,Lazyboy & Mitey Mite,umc,embra,Sputnik 57,BassoonPilot,Ambrosia,wildearth2001,New England n00b,robertlipe,Neo_Geo,Cache Viking,GEO*Trailblazer 1 and Divine

 

They average 4,900 posts per.

 

The next 50 average 2252 posts per, and are:

 

The Cheeseheads,El Diablo,TrailGators,Planet,Torry,Seamus,georgeandmary,Halden,evergreenhiker!,pdxmarathonman,GOT GPS?,ju66l3r,fly46,leatherman,ClydeE,cachew nut,PDOP's,CYBret,AuntieWeasel,Doc-Dean,peter,Simply Paul,wimseyguy,RichardMoore,flask,EraSeek,The Hokesters,TEAM 360,avroair,kealia,Anonymous',2oldfarts (the rockhounders),IV_Warrior,woodsters,CompuCash,Stuey,Pipanella,fizzymagic,CO Admin,Team DEMP,Team Cotati,Ladycacher,MissJenn,Pharisee,Milbank,ralann,Tahosa and Sons,sTeamTraen,clearpath and rutson

Actually, that list above is only accurate if you insist upon averaging over the past 4.5 years (or more) of the forum's existence. Thus, the list, as shown, does not at all accurately reflect the most active posters over the past 6 or 12 months, much less over the past two months. In fact, some of the accounts listed above have long been inactive, and some have even been banned from the forums, and thus can hardly be defined as "active" in any sense of the word.

 

Alabama didn't ask for active, and I didn't sell it as such. In fact, no one made any claims whatsoever - just that those were the top 50 posters, no more, no less.

[+sbell111]

...Because most of the top 50 earned that "distinction" due to longetivy here, you'll tend to find their opinions skewed towards traditional geocaching, but not always. You name the subject you're going to find people in that top 50 with opposing views.

I totally disagree.

 

Actually, that list above is only accurate if you insist upon averaging over the past 4.5 years (or more) of the forum's existence. ...

It also ignores posts to the 'old' forums, but who cares, I didn't have any big numbers there.

[+suemac]

I don't normally chime in on the micro thing 'cause I see it as in irresolvable issue - those with strong opinions just ain't gonna be moved. Wanted to make the following comments, however...

 

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 see no difference between hiking a mile and finding a 35mm in a palm tree (and I detest palm tree hides!) and hiking a mile to find an ammo can under a pile of sticks, pine straw or palmettos. No difference in the degree of challenge or interest to that kind of hide. As a matter of fact, I would probably prefer the palm tree 'cause at least then I wouldn't be stumbling around in circles in the woods with bad satellite coverage, spiders, ticks, etc. I don't cache for the trades, so there's no difference to me in the size of the container.

 

For me, caches can be:

• about the journey - how you get there, what you see on the way - includes puzzle caches 'cause then the 'how you get there' becomes how you solve the puzzle
   
  
• about the find - good camo, hard to find or retrieve, amusing, brain-twisting
   
  
• about a smiley on your Found page
  

I greatly prefer good finds and journeys, but will stop for smileys, too.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Because most of the top 50 earned that "distinction" due to longetivy here, you'll tend to find their opinions skewed towards traditional geocaching, but not always. You name the subject you're going to find people in that top 50 with opposing views.

I totally disagree. ...

 

I disagree with your disagreement, but I also disagree with BrianSnat but only because we don't agree on what our next hat will be. Maybe that Tilly is worth a look, oh wait they ain't in the top 50 posters...I guess I can't check it out after all.

[+sbell111]

I just wasted 30 minutes of my life searching ebay for a new hat thanks to that other thread.

 

I don't even like hats.

[+Team Dromomania]

It wasn't that long ago I kept reading in the forms about the "lame" ammo cans in the woods.

 

Of all the cachers I've met in the field I have yet to find one who said they hated micros so much that they stopped looking for them. There may be a very very few on the forums who'd like to see them go but I think it's going to be highly unlikely. They're here to stay. At least we have a choice about what kinds of caches to search and how we can expand the ways the game can be played.

[Clan Riffster]

Look back to your finds and answer this.

 

Is the 15% ratio because it's a micro, or because of the location?

I should've qualified my math;

Those 15% were mostly found early in my geocaching career. Once I learned who to ignore, the trend reduced significantly. As some have pointed out, perceptions vary between individuals. I certanly can't set the bar for what should be called "lame" by others, I can only define for myself what is lame. You hit the nail on the head with your question about location, but for me it's not all inclusive. For instance; If I go to the bushes behind our local Burger King and find a film cannister, it's gonna be lame, in my eyes. No way to fix it. However, if I paw through those same bushes and find an ammo can filled with high end swag, the LQ drops considerably. Lameness for me is mostly about location, but sometimes about content. Bring me to a waterfall out in the middle of the mountains, or a cypress swamp bristling with gators, and I'll thank you, even if there is nothing more than a film cannister. However, I'll thank you more if there's an ammo can. Combine a crappy container with a crappy location, and I'll call it as I see it.

[Dan&Chris]

I would rather do a cache that takes me somewhere I would have never found on my own, and I prefer a swag filled cache, but micros are also great for us because we work midnights and don't always cache when you "normal" folks do. "Microspews" are mostly always available, whereas lots of places are closed to us during our nocturnal ventures. I would be sad if there were no more of them! Dan is so fascinated by the fact we can locate such a tiny thing, he does not care where it takes us. It's all good, Geocaching=fun!

Edited June 17, 2006 by Dan&Chris

[+Pat-N-Barbie]

I have also heard from other cachers who dont like micros.

Im always hearing about urban cache micros in seedy sections of some towns.

I agree with that and ill just go to find these at certain times of the day and maybe not with my wife and kids.

We hid #61 in the Dalmations series that had to be 1/1 so its not in a very thoughtful place but hidden none the less.

We or I collected several TB's and coins to place in a regular cache but I worry about where to hide it.

I dont want it to be so easy there is no thought but I want people to enjoy the place where it is hidden when I place it.

I dont usually worry to much about micros or regular caches myself I just question the safety of the hide when its near a railroad track or very close to a road. I believe it needs to be something you can take your family to for the most part.

So I guess im for micros in certain settings but I dont like them when they are hidden just so someone can have a hide.

[+sbell111]

Right on target, BrianSnat!

[+gordlacey]

I've found 2 caches so far, and both were micros. The first cache was fairly each to find, and while it wasn't anything special in terms of location, it was my first cache, and one in a series of caches hidden around the city at various hockey arenas.

 

The second cache was hidden in a park near where I live. I didn't find it the first time, so I had to go back to look for it again. I kept going over the area in my mind, wondering where it could be. I went back a week later and it was exactly where I thought it had to be; under a bench stuck to the metal post going into the ground. I've been back to that park 5 times since, and it's all because of that cache. I've walked past that place many times, but I hadn't thought to stop and sit on the bench. The last time I was there I watched some ducks play in the pond while a squirrel ran up and down some trees. I wouldn't have experience that if someone hadn't hidden a micro there.

 

Now that I've found two caches I've started thinking about where I can hide my first. It'll be a small cache, with a theme, I'm just trying to find the right spot for it.

 

I'm glad those micros were hidden and listed on geocaching.com. Those two finds are hopefully the start of many, and I'm already looking for ways to contribute to this sport/hobby. Sometimes a micro is all that's needed to get someone hooked - please try to remember that; we all have to start somewhere, and for some of us that "somewhere" is a micro hidden in a tree outside an arena, and for others it's a "lame" ammo filled with McToys.

 

Gord

[darwinmay]

I'm fine with micros, IF PLACED RIGHT. If you have to walk any significant distance to it, it'd better not be a bison tube or film canister.

 

If the cache takes me to a great location.... I'm usually ok with whatever it is. However, I believe that the cache should be a regular if the area allows it.

 

I also believe that micros have their place in the city-there is a stealth aspect to most of them that make finding the caches both more exciting and more difficult, and there aren't a WHOLE lot of places you can place a big cache in an urban area.

[+baloo&bd]

I'm fine with micros, IF PLACED RIGHT. If you have to walk any significant distance to it, it'd better not be a bison tube or film canister.

 

It's hidden. You found it. Signed the log. It's placed right.

 

I really don't get what the fascination is with tupperware and old ammo boxes and the adversity to small plastic bottles or metal tubes other than possibly the latter generally offers more of a challenge.

 

Are you all really trying to say that a 1/2 mile or more hike is more enjoyable if you get to look at a broken Mater car, whistle or super ball? And that without them, it was not worth it?

 

Someone said it should be the largest container an area can support, do we need to start finding 50 Gallon drums?

 

In all these argume...excuse me...discussions I have heard reasons for caching boiled down to three reasons: You are in it for the locales/hike, the challenge or the numbers. How does the size of the cache affect any of these?

Edited June 21, 2006 by baloo&bd

[CoyoteRed]

Someone said it should be the largest container an area can support, do we need to start finding 50 Gallon drums?

 

I believe you got that from someone on the opposite side of the argument misquoting someone who advocates placing a regular if the area will allow it. "A larger container" is a lot different that "a regular." It's amazing how this argument keeps getting brought up.

 

Oh, and there are plenty of folks who like to rifle through the trades to see what's in there, they like to write in a regular-sized logbook, and trade hitch hikers. So, yes, there is room for regulars, as well.

[+baloo&bd]

Oh, and there are plenty of folks who like to rifle through the trades to see what's in there, they like to write in a regular-sized logbook, and trade hitch hikers. So, yes, there is room for regulars, as well.

 

No one claimed otherwise, however if it is a regular, great, if it is a micro, great. Both work.

[CoyoteRed]

Oh, and there are plenty of folks who like to rifle through the trades to see what's in there, they like to write in a regular-sized logbook, and trade hitch hikers. So, yes, there is room for regulars, as well.

 

No one claimed otherwise, however if it is a regular, great, if it is a micro, great. Both work.

 

Well, in general, yes. But if there is room for a regular wouldn't it be better to accommodate those that like those, as well? Sure, there are some who like a harder-to-find cache, but on the same difficulty scale a micro-lover can ignore the everything in a regular cache and simply sign the log. It doesn't work the other way around, though.

[+sbell111]

The cache owner gets to make the decision on where the cache is hidden, what size the cache is, the method of hide, etc.

 

Get over it.

[+baloo&bd]

[ Sure, there are some who like a harder-to-find cache, but on the same difficulty scale a micro-lover can ignore the everything in a regular cache and simply sign the log. It doesn't work the other way around, though.

 

Why wouldn't it work the other way around?

 

Also of note, "micro-lovers" don't seem to have such an adversion to the other sizes and gladly find and log them. Those not liking micros also seem to, in general, gladly log and find them, just choose to complain about them.

[+ar_kayaker]

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.

 

I think this idea has some merrit, though you'd have to be careful how it was implemented so you did have people rating caches for freinds/enemies based on whose cache it was. Maybe something that gives a 1-5 rating in several areas then averages the result the way the terrain/difficulty program works?

 

The areas of consideration could be something like "camo appearance" "cleverness" "challenge" & "location (scenic)"

 

Just my two cents....

[+Jhwk]

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.

 

I think this idea has some merrit, though you'd have to be careful how it was implemented so you did have people rating caches for freinds/enemies based on whose cache it was. Maybe something that gives a 1-5 rating in several areas then averages the result the way the terrain/difficulty program works?

 

The areas of consideration could be something like "camo appearance" "cleverness" "challenge" & "location (scenic)"

 

Just my two cents....

 

no, no, no.

 

No. You can just read the logs if you want to know how good it is.

TNLNSL = DPM = boring old cache (your results may vary).

Long flowing esoteric logs = great cache or cacher with no life.

 

go try terracaching or something.

 

I like caches, I don't care what kind. If it is near my house, then I will find it.

[CoyoteRed]

[ Sure, there are some who like a harder-to-find cache, but on the same difficulty scale a micro-lover can ignore the everything in a regular cache and simply sign the log. It doesn't work the other way around, though.

 

Why wouldn't it work the other way around?

 

Well, because there is seldom any trinkets to trade, a full-sized logbook to sign or peruse, or room for a hitch hiker.

 

Let's consider what we're talking about here; a location that could easily handle a regular, the container is a generic micro-sized container and not something custom made or location specific, and if changing the size would not change the difficulty, then why not place a regular?

[+sbell111]

[ Sure, there are some who like a harder-to-find cache, but on the same difficulty scale a micro-lover can ignore the everything in a regular cache and simply sign the log. It doesn't work the other way around, though.

Why wouldn't it work the other way around?

Well, because there is seldom any trinkets to trade, a full-sized logbook to sign or peruse, or room for a hitch hiker.

 

Let's consider what we're talking about here; a location that could easily handle a regular, the container is a generic micro-sized container and not something custom made or location specific, and if changing the size would not change the difficulty, then why not place a regular?

Why are you making this assumption?

[+tozainamboku]

It's not the size, or even the location. I think some people have the impression that the more money spent, the better the cache.

 

Good cache = Ammo Can ($5) + Log Book ($1) + Geocache Sticker ($2.50) + Pen ($0.99) + Trade Items ($5)

 

Bad cache = Film Can ($0) + Paper for log ($.10) + Bring your own pen

 

Let's be honest and just call the people who hide lame micros "CHEAP".

[+sbell111]

It's not the size, or even the location. I think some people have the impression that the more money spent, the better the cache.

 

Good cache = Ammo Can ($5) + Log Book ($1) + Geocache Sticker ($2.50) + Pen ($0.99) + Trade Items ($5)

 

Bad cache = Film Can ($0) + Paper for log ($.10) + Bring your own pen

 

Let's be honest and just call the people who hide lame micros "CHEAP".

What do we call people who hide a rusty coffee can full of broken McToys?

 

I've sold some micros for more than your quoted cost for a 'good cache'.

Edited June 21, 2006 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

[ Sure, there are some who like a harder-to-find cache, but on the same difficulty scale a micro-lover can ignore the everything in a regular cache and simply sign the log. It doesn't work the other way around, though.

Why wouldn't it work the other way around?

Well, because there is seldom any trinkets to trade, a full-sized logbook to sign or peruse, or room for a hitch hiker.

 

Let's consider what we're talking about here; a location that could easily handle a regular, the container is a generic micro-sized container and not something custom made or location specific, and if changing the size would not change the difficulty, then why not place a regular?

Why are you making this assumption?

 

Because this is scenario I'm using. I would have thought it obvious that if the container was some sort of one-off, custom job designed to fit just so where muggles stand within inches of it, or look right at it, and not know it for what it is, then you wouldn't have the flexibility of changing the container to a larger size.

 

In other words, if it doesn't have to be smaller, why not make it a regular?

[CoyoteRed]

I've sold some micros for more than your quoted cost for a 'good cache'.

 

But we're not talking about those kinds of micros. Heck, we're not even talking about those kinds of caches.

[+sbell111]

Because this is scenario I'm using. I would have thought it obvious that if the container was some sort of one-off, custom job designed to fit just so where muggles stand within inches of it, or look right at it, and not know it for what it is, then you wouldn't have the flexibility of changing the container to a larger size.

 

In other words, if it doesn't have to be smaller, why not make it a regular?

But we're not talking about those kinds of micros. Heck, we're not even talking about those kinds of caches.

Perhaps if you are qualifying your statements, you could share the qualifiers with the rest of the class. Edited June 21, 2006 by sbell111

[+baloo&bd]

Well, because there is seldom any trinkets to trade, a full-sized logbook to sign or peruse, or room for a hitch hiker.

 

Let's consider what we're talking about here; a location that could easily handle a regular, the container is a generic micro-sized container and not something custom made or location specific, and if changing the size would not change the difficulty, then why not place a regular?

 

OK, however there is no "need" for the larger cache. The micro fits the requirements for geocaching.

 

Maybe I have gotten too far off my original point. There is room for both and, from what i have seen in the Chicago area, a healthy mix with about 40% being micros within 125 miles of my house which includes and goes beyond Chicago to the east.

 

If we limit every cache to being spectacular, it would be great for the finds, but they would start to become few and in between. We are also up against some of our counties starting to either require a permit or worse, totally disallowing caches. While I won't even pretend to presume it is that great a factor, I have to think that at least in some small part of their bureaucratic brains they see these tupperware containers strewn all about their forest preserves.

 

There's room for both, there will always be hiders that hide both. Yes, economics plays a part. So does convenience. I just don't see why the call to eliminate micros, which many of the people who take your point of view believe should be done.

Edited June 21, 2006 by baloo&bd

[CoyoteRed]

OK, however there is no "need" for the larger cache. The micro fits the requirements for geocaching.

 

Yes, but only the bare minimum. All I'm saying is if the cache could be a regular, why not make it so?

[+baloo&bd]

OK, however there is no "need" for the larger cache. The micro fits the requirements for geocaching.

 

Yes, but only the bare minimum. All I'm saying is if the cache could be a regular, why not make it so?

 

Because some, apparently many, tend more toward the utilitarian way of doing this.

 

We probably will agree to disagree, however thankfully there is room for us both.

[CoyoteRed]

OK, however there is no "need" for the larger cache. The micro fits the requirements for geocaching.

 

Yes, but only the bare minimum. All I'm saying is if the cache could be a regular, why not make it so?

 

Because some, apparently many, tend more toward the utilitarian way of doing this.

 

We probably will agree to disagree, however thankfully there is room for us both.

 

That is certainly something I can agree with!

[+Team Cotati]

The cache owner gets to make the decision on where the cache is hidden, what size the cache is, the method of hide, etc.

 

Get over it.

 

All within the limits and bounds of the guidelines..........of course.

[+Pushkin]

It's really sad what micros have become. When geocaching first started, people hid regular caches in interesting places where they could go without being muggled, and they hid micros in other interesting places where regular caches just couldn't go. But then the numbers game really came into play and people started putting micros EVERYWHERE, some were put in places where a regular could easily go, others were put in places where no one in the right mind would of even dreamed of putting a cache a year ago. Micros, AND NANO CACHES are being hidden for numbers and numbers only. It's good to hear that there is talk of getting rid of them, they've hurt the game enough.

[+CheshireFrog]

It's really sad what micros have become. When geocaching first started, people hid regular caches in interesting places where they could go without being muggled, and they hid micros in other interesting places where regular caches just couldn't go. But then the numbers game really came into play and people started putting micros EVERYWHERE, some were put in places where a regular could easily go, others were put in places where no one in the right mind would of even dreamed of putting a cache a year ago. Micros, AND NANO CACHES are being hidden for numbers and numbers only. It's good to hear that there is talk of getting rid of them, they've hurt the game enough.

 

You must not have read the whole thread, particularly the post where Jeremy said:

 

The physical nature of a micro means that it is a cache, regardless of the argument of whether a cache is lame or not. The idea that it would be spun off to another web site is an unnecessary worry.

 

So while you may be happy to hear talk of getting rid of them, that's all it is: Talk.

[+horsegeeks]

It's really sad what micros have become. When geocaching first started, people hid regular caches in interesting places where they could go without being muggled, and they hid micros in other interesting places where regular caches just couldn't go. But then the numbers game really came into play and people started putting micros EVERYWHERE, some were put in places where a regular could easily go, others were put in places where no one in the right mind would of even dreamed of putting a cache a year ago. Micros, AND NANO CACHES are being hidden for numbers and numbers only. It's good to hear that there is talk of getting rid of them, they've hurt the game enough.

 

"When geocaching first started". Geez, you must have cached with Dave Ulmer....neat.

[+Bill & Tammy]

It's really sad what micros have become. When geocaching first started, people hid regular caches in interesting places where they could go without being muggled, and they hid micros in other interesting places where regular caches just couldn't go. But then the numbers game really came into play and people started putting micros EVERYWHERE, some were put in places where a regular could easily go, others were put in places where no one in the right mind would of even dreamed of putting a cache a year ago. Micros, AND NANO CACHES are being hidden for numbers and numbers only. It's good to hear that there is talk of getting rid of them, they've hurt the game enough.

 

I think a probably more accurate assessment is that the early geocaches followed in some manner the precedent set by Ulmer, however as the game progressed and moved into urban environments the micro developed. Funny thing, most folks live in cities. It would naturally follow that when such a person does a search for nearby caches they would probably see quite a few micros in their proximity. My area is more rural so most caches that are near are more of the traditional ammo can hides.

[+Loch Cache]

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.

 

All this talk of hating micros makes me want to run out and place one as lame as I can. Then I can get flamed and say, "Hey, I am within the guidelines."

 

Seems the OP was really proposing a different method of dealing with micros. Rather than trying to eliminate them, learn to live with them and manage them.

 

Loch Cache

Edited June 22, 2006 by Loch Cache

[+The Jester]

It's really sad what micros have become. When geocaching first started, people hid regular caches in interesting places where they could go without being muggled, and they hid micros in other interesting places where regular caches just couldn't go. But then the numbers game really came into play and people started putting micros EVERYWHERE, some were put in places where a regular could easily go, others were put in places where no one in the right mind would of even dreamed of putting a cache a year ago. Micros, AND NANO CACHES are being hidden for numbers and numbers only. It's good to hear that there is talk of getting rid of them, they've hurt the game enough.

I've been to the original cache site - it's not that interesting a place, a wide spot on a country road with not much of a view. I've been to a number of the early hide (first year) and not all of them are in "interesting places". And if they were all so muggle-proof, why have some many been muggled?

 

A lot of the caches been placed now - in lame or "wouldn't think of it a year ago" places - are done because most of the interesting places are already taken. Or at least the easily gotten to ones, I've thought of putting in a cache that has a great view of Mt Rainer and the Cascades, but being that it's three pitches up a moderate rock climb, I can't see very many people ever logging it. I want to place caches that are found and enjoyed.

 

And which is more interesting, an ammo can tossed behind a tree, covered with a couple of sticks; or the micro hidden at the same tree in a hole made by a woodpecker? An ammo can stuck in a mostly rotten stump; or a micro cleverly hidden in a hole in branch that you can see but you need to find the piece of filshing line to retrieve it? Sure, I like to look thru trade items, but given the choice between that in "lame" ammo can hide and a cleverly hidden/camo'd micro, I'll take the micro.

 

I WAS around when micro's were first being used. What you call lame now was darn hard to find then. We even struggled to find regulars back then. But with better units (oh, how I was happy when I switched to a unit that read down to feet instead of .01 miles) and experience things have gotten "easier" (just look at some of the difficulty ratings of some of the oldies, it was a different world back then). So I can say that micros have NOT hurt the game.

 

As to micros and nanos only being hidden for the numbers, I say HA! A well hidden/camo'd micro will take so much more time than a regular (in general) that there is no way you can say it just for numbers. ANY easy cache - of any size - could be said to be "just for numbers". Be careful of such blanket statements, you can't prove them.

 

Well, enough for tonight.