The End Of Micros?

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

While you may BELIEVE this, it's not a documented fact, and for this argument to work, you'd have to prove such.

 

Conversely the opposite is true, as well. Erring on the side of placing a micro instead of regular in the hopes to satisfy more folks would be assuming there are more people who would prefer it be a micro instead of regular. Actually, that's not really accurate either. You'd be making the assumption that you'd be disappointing fewer people by placing a micro than placing a regular. There are some that don't care either way.

 

If you're looking to quantify this then look at the percentages of micros over larger caches. Of course Fizzy or somebody could correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you think that since micros aren't already a majority that more people would rather place, and hunt, a larger cache?

 

How do you know this? Do you have statistics showing this? I would be willing to bet that NO single cache size is a majority, and that in many areas, micros are indeed a plurality.

 

But then, I'm not making that argument, you are. And without statistics from Groundspeak, it's yet another ad ignorantiam.

Edited June 24, 2006 by ParrotRob

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

For the sake of discussion, let's say Mr. Hider is going to put effort into his hide and not hide a lame cache. He will choose a good container (for the size he will pick later), fill it appropriately, choose a great location, and hide it well (both regulars and micros can be hidden well). Everything is equal up to this choice:

 

(1)Mr. Hider hides a regular.

(2)Mr. Hider hides a micro.

 

Which would you prefer?

 

A better question would be, "what would be best for the community?"

 

It seems a lot of posters are trying to make decisions based on their own preference, what's in it for them, and not thinking about the community as a whole.

 

Agreed. Some people are even going so far as to presume to tell others what size cache they should place for their own hides. Can you BELIEVE the gall?

 

Even some of the analogies--not this one--is basing the hiding preference on what's in it for the hider. Shouldn't it be based on what's in it for the finder?

 

Not at all. I cache to please me. I don't cache to please YOU. To assume other people do things to please you is the absolute pinnacle of egotism.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Ditto what Mudfrog said. (and CR for that matter)

 

I like cache of all sizes, and great micros are just that, great. There's a fellow in our area who almost exclusively hides micros, and they are very well done.

 

Unfortunately, a LOT of the micros I find are not done out of creativity, but out of cheapness and or laziness. That's just my experience, but it's holds true more often than not.

 

One more note- The red/blue tie analogy is VERY weak. We're not talking about varying colors of camo on otherwise identical micros. We're talking about totally different functionality of two cache sizes. A more appropriate comparison would flip flops to hiking boots. Both are footwear, but they serve different purposes.

 

Then you completely missed the point. The point of the analogy is that of choice. I am free, as the cache hider, to place a cache as *I* see fit, not to please YOU, CoyoteRed, Clan Riffster, or anyone else but me. And you, as a finder, are perfectly free to NOT find my cache.

 

By the way, my cache is an ammo can if that makes you happy. Not because it was better, but because that's what I CHOSE to hide. My next one will probably be a micro, though. Probably buy the container from CR

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

One more note- The red/blue tie analogy is VERY weak.

 

I think the analogy is very telling. It may very well be a telling clue on how someone thinks.

 

Funny you should see it that way. Personally, I see telling OTHERS what size is "best" to hide as "it's all about me".

[CoyoteRed]

I don't remember electing you to make that judgement. Don't you mean "what would be best for CoyoteRed?"

 

Now that's simply facetious and disingenuous.

 

To explain, if that were the case why should I care what folks over 300 miles away do? That's about the extent of our range.

 

Or maybe it's not about me, but the hobby I love. I want to keep it healthy and this is one avenue of doing that.

[+TrailGators]

This thread has gotten totally absurd. We have a hypothetical situation of everything else being equal that a regular size cache would always be prefered over a micro. Any attempt to argue that someone would still prefer a micro or even have no preference to size is met with ridicule or additional restrictions to the hypothetical.

 

Everthing else being equal I am certain that most geocachers would prefer a traditional cache to a puzzles. I will continue to hide puzzle because I know there are other cachers that like solving puzzles as much as I do. I will continue to hide micros where I think it is appropriate, because I know that there are other cachers that like the challenge and the variety of finding micros even away from urban areas.

 

Yeah, but everything else being equal, people would rather find an ammo can than your micro, dadgumit.

We have had people hike fake snakes behind rocks with a bison tube in the belly of the snake. They are hilarious! I would much rather find one of those over an ammo box!

[CoyoteRed]

And without statistics from Groundspeak, it's yet another ad ignorantiam.

 

Wrong, again. Answer: Pocket Queries and create your own.

 

Taking only physical caches:

Cache types:

245 (15.9%) Multi-cache

1198 (77.9%) Traditional Cache

94 ( 6.1%) Unknown Cache

 

Containers:

16 ( 1.0%) Large

428 (27.8%) Micro

34 ( 2.2%) Not chosen

33 ( 2.1%) Other

802

(52.2%) Regular

220 (14.3%) Small

4 ( 0.3%) Virtual

 

This is taken from a complete listings PQ and include some 1500 plus caches within 150 miles of our home.

 

Clearly, regulars alone out number all over sizes combined. We have no idea to the true number of smalls because that size came in late and there are some still marked as micro and regular that actually fit the small size. Even if this reduced the size of the pie for regulars, it will do the same for micros making its pie even smaller than it's mere quarter or so.

 

So, even massaging the numbers a few percentage points to take care of mis-sized caches, you still clearly have a larger-than-micro preference.

 

...for our area.

 

That's not to say other places will have different numbers. I'm sure there are places "notorious" of micros the number could very well be flipped. Let's take one of the most famous micro hot-spots, Jacksonville, Florida:

 

Containers:

13 ( 0.7%) Large

948 (50.7%) Micro

80 ( 4.3%) Not chosen

30 ( 1.6%) Other

615 (32.9%) Regular

182 ( 9.7%) Small

 

Clearly, they like their micros, but it was a host site of a GW event. The whole idea was to have a massive number of easy to place, maintain, and find caches. So it takes this kind of concerted effort to raise the number of micros to this level.

 

If I use the whole area I've accumulated:

 

Containers:

42 ( 0.8%) Large

1947 (36.4%) Micro

156 ( 2.9%) Not chosen

174 ( 3.3%) Other

2289 (42.8%) Regular

736 (13.8%) Small

5 ( 0.1%) Virtual

 

Note this includes all of SC, a good chunk of GA, all of Western NC, and a good portion of North East FL, including Jax. Still, even with artificially high numbers because of Jax, it's clear larger-than-micro is still a favorite.

[CoyoteRed]

Even some of the analogies--not this one--is basing the hiding preference on what's in it for the hider. Shouldn't it be based on what's in it for the finder?

 

Not at all. I cache to please me. I don't cache to please YOU.

 

You mean me as a finder of one of your caches? I guess this says it all about your attitude and motivation.

 

Not that I think I'm actually reading a statement based on what was quoted, but one of two things are apparent here. Either you're not reading and understanding what is written or you really don't care how well a finder enjoys a cache you've placed.

[CoyoteRed]

I am free, as the cache hider, to place a cache as *I* see fit, not to please YOU, CoyoteRed, Clan Riffster, or anyone else but me.

 

Oh, I guess I should have read this post to have gotten my answer.

[+KBI]

So let me see if I understand this correctly...

There is no need for you to understand anything. I was speaking to someone else.

I you want a private conversation, maybe you should use the PM feature.

 

The "someone else" to whom you refer had the same reaction to your strange reasoning that I did. I know -- I talked to him.

 

I wasn't willing to let such a wildly illogical (and publicly posted) statement go unchallenged. It would seem that you have now chosen for some reason not to defend your strange reasoning. Oh well. I tried.

[+KBI]

I think the analogy is very telling. It may very well be a telling clue on how someone thinks.

 

Why would someone choose any particular color of tie over another if both would be aesthetically pleasing?

Uh ... exactly how many ties do YOU wear simultaneously, CR?

[CoyoteRed]

It would seem that you have now chosen for some reason not to defend your strange reasoning. Oh well. I tried.

 

Still wrong. Try keeping up with the thread and you will see I addressed it with the appropriate person, i.e. not you.

[+KBI]

And why is that a bad thing? Why is reviewing something someone wrote and discussing each point something to avoid? I'd much prefer that to your normal reply, which is to give a vague answer, not address something specifically asked of you, and wild statements of twisting words and such without references, and then insulting them.

 

I'm only trying to make it clear what I'm replying to.

 

You might have missed a post.

No, I didn't miss it. But I'm not asking Fizzy, I'm asking you. Obviously you've run out of logical replies and now you just avoid me by pointing me to someone elses post.

 

Don't run CR, answer the question if you can. And then tell me why it's bad when I quote and reply that way, but it's perfectly acceptable when you do it?

One, I linked to Fizzy's post as my answer. I would have thought that obvious. You know, it's how you break down the other person's post into multiple quotes, take statements out of context and use "well-disguised logical fallacies and misrepresentations."

But that's NOT what you originally said, CR. You said:

If you still "debate" the way you used to then as an example I could point to any post where you've taken another person's post and dissected it into multiple quotes and "refuted" it point by point.

The only complaint in that statement is the implication that the point-by-point thing is somehow bad in itself. One presumes that if what you really meant was that Mushtang was making logical fallacies -- or even that he was making arguments with which you disagreed -- that you might have specifically refuted said fallacies or arguments. You didn't.

 

You didn't disappoint as I did go back and read your response to Clan Riffster and sure enough, you twist a little here, jump to conclusions there, and point out useless angles.

Oh, c'mon now, don't be a Fizzy! All Fizzy ever seems to manage is "Your logic is bad (but I won't/can't explain why I think so)." You can do better than that, CR! SHOW us the twist! SHOW us the jumped conclusion! SHOW us the useless angles! If you CAN'T specifically illustrate the so-called "well-disguised logical fallacies and misrepresentations," then all you're really doing is making more FizzyNoise.

 

 

Now, if you would like to discuss micros, fine.

Near as I could tell he WAS discussing micros until you started attacking HIM.

[CoyoteRed]

I think the analogy is very telling. It may very well be a telling clue on how someone thinks.

 

Why would someone choose any particular color of tie over another if both would be aesthetically pleasing?

Uh ... exactly how many ties do YOU wear simultaneously, CR?

 

Who cares? Try reading the whole post.

[CoyoteRed]

But that's NOT what you originally said, CR. You said:

If you still "debate" the way you used to then as an example I could point to any post where you've taken another person's post and dissected it into multiple quotes and "refuted" it point by point.

The only complaint in that statement is the implication that the point-by-point thing is somehow bad in itself. One presumes that if what you really meant was that Mushtang was making logical fallacies -- or even that he was making arguments with which you disagreed -- that you might have specifically refuted said fallacies or arguments.

 

ROFL!

 

Try contemplating why I put the word "refuted" in quotes. Oh, just so you don't get confused, I'm not asking why it's in the previous sentence, but in the above quote.

[+KBI]

I don't remember electing you to make that judgement. Don't you mean "what would be best for CoyoteRed?"

 

Now that's simply facetious and disingenuous.

 

To explain, if that were the case why should I care what folks over 300 miles away do? That's about the extent of our range.

That's a good point, CR. Why SHOULD you care what folks over 300 miles away do? In fact, why should you care what size container just got placed TWO BLOCKS from you? Don't like it? Don't hunt it!

 

Or maybe it's not about me, but the hobby I love. I want to keep it healthy and this is one avenue of doing that.

So what makes YOUR definition of "healthy" more important than MY definition of "healthy?" I think things are pretty great just the way they are.

 

If it's 'not about you,' as you claim, then why can't you do a better job of embracing the wide variety of caching experiences that exists and continues to evolve and expand instead of trying to impose your own opinions on others?

 

[EDIT: Editing makes posts even postier!! (Turned a k into a g)]

Edited June 24, 2006 by KBI

[+KBI]

I think the analogy is very telling. It may very well be a telling clue on how someone thinks.

 

Why would someone choose any particular color of tie over another if both would be aesthetically pleasing?

Uh ... exactly how many ties do YOU wear simultaneously, CR?

Who cares? Try reading the whole post.

I did read the whole post. That was just the biggest laugh. The rest wasn't worth responding to.

[Mushtang]

Now, if you would like to discuss micros, fine.

 

We have yet another example of how CoyoteRed shuts down when he runs out of logical replies. He makes a bogus claim that something I'm doing is a bad thing, even though it's something he himself does regularly, but won't (can't) explain why it's unacceptable so he refuses to address it.

 

To paraphrase CR, "I've already pointed out that I think you're wrong, if you want to know WHY I think you're wrong you should go back and read it again. This time try to understand the WHY on your own, or read my mind, or something because I don't have time to be bothered with people that actually hold me to what I have to say."

 

Whatever. Okay, on to micros. How on earth can you take the fact that since there are more regular caches hidden in an area to be proof that people prefer to find that size? The only thing that says to be is that people have hidden more of that size.

 

Maybe they've hidden more because a lack of creativity in your area leads to most caches being ammo cans in the woods covered by sticks. Maybe you have a super creative bunch there that has hidden regular caches in fantastic ways, and just haven't gotten around to using their creativity on micros yet.

 

Can we use your logic on cache types too? There are WAY more regular than multi, so does that mean that the people who hide multi caches are wrong, and should hide regulars from now on because that's what people in your area clearly like to find???

[+KBI]

But that's NOT what you originally said, CR. You said:

If you still "debate" the way you used to then as an example I could point to any post where you've taken another person's post and dissected it into multiple quotes and "refuted" it point by point.

The only complaint in that statement is the implication that the point-by-point thing is somehow bad in itself. One presumes that if what you really meant was that Mushtang was making logical fallacies -- or even that he was making arguments with which you disagreed -- that you might have specifically refuted said fallacies or arguments.

 

ROFL!

 

Try contemplating why I put the word "refuted" in quotes. Oh, just so you don't get confused, I'm not asking why it's in the previous sentence, but in the above quote.

Exactly. The "refuted" to which you refer was Mushtang's point-by-point answers to another persons post. By putting the word in quotes you vaguely seem as if you're about to call his arguments into question ... but then you choose (or are unable) to list any specific examples of invalid Mushtang arguments. FizzyNoise. The complete lack of any such discussion on your part made it pretty clear to me that your only complaint was the point-by-point quoting itself. If what you said wasn't what you meant, then maybe you should have made your statement a bit more clear.

 

I specifically asked you to produce specific counterarguments where you've claimed to see specific bad logic. I STILL haven't seen any response. FizzyNoise.

[+Miragee]

Uh . . . instead of trying to keep up with this silly discussion, I'm going caching.

 

And, I'm taking an ammo can loaded with swag with me, as well as a Lock-n-Lock, and a couple of waterproof match containers.

[+KBI]

It would seem that you have now chosen for some reason not to defend your strange reasoning. Oh well. I tried.

Still wrong. Try keeping up with the thread and you will see I addressed it with the appropriate person, i.e. not you.

Still wrong. Apparently you decided it WAS me.

[+KBI]

By the way, I'm not sure whether to be proud or disappointed to discover that you've apparently decided to take me off the legendary CoyoteRed 'Ignore' List.

 

Sounds like yet another weak (and fallacious) substitute for responding directly to the other person’s actual argument. That's almost as impressive as putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU ANYMORE LALALALALALALA" -- otherwise known as putting folks on your "ignore" list. Not that YOU would ever think such a move would convince anyone to support your position -- right, CR?

Just curious -- What made you change your mind?

[+tozainamboku]

In fact it may be micros are a better choice in that it is less likely that a muggle would call the bomb squad if he found a micro.

 

This is very similar to the "land manager very much preferring virtual caches" argument.

 

Also, considering the number of bomb scares compared to caches placed, not to mention bomb scares that weren't caches at all, I think the argument doesn't hold water.

 

The bomb squad was a throw away line. Just another example of how doing what's best for the community would lead to unneccessary restrictions on what cache could be placed.

[+alexrudd]

This thread has gotten totally absurd.

Yeah, but don't they all?

We have a hypothetical situation of everything else being equal that a regular size cache would always be prefered over a micro. Any attempt to argue that someone would still prefer a micro or even have no preference to size is met with ridicule or additional restrictions to the hypothetical.

That wasn't my intent. Previously it was brought up that we have no way of knowing whether most geocachers prefer regulars or micros. I myself prefer regulars (although accept micros), and wanted to see why people would prefer a micro instead.

 

Everthing else being equal I am certain that most geocachers would prefer a traditional cache to a puzzles. I will continue to hide puzzle because I know there are other cachers that like solving puzzles as much as I do. I will continue to hide micros where I think it is appropriate, because I know that there are other cachers that like the challenge and the variety of finding micros even away from urban areas. I may question why someone else places a cache in a particular location or uses a particular container and may even say something in my log.[emphasis added] However, as long as the cache meets the guidelines for listing on Geocaching.com, I will accept the answer that hider feels that there is someone would like the cache. Not every cache has to win a popularity contest.

Exactly. I'll hunt micros and regulars, and I like both. I prefer finding a regular, but there are plently of times when a micro is best. However, there are time when a micro is hidden where a regular would do better. Those types of hide annoy me, and it would be great to understand why a cacher would choose to hide a micro over a regular.

[+thedeadpirate]

Everthing else being equal I am certain that most geocachers would prefer a traditional cache to a puzzles. I will continue to hide puzzle because I know there are other cachers that like solving puzzles as much as I do. I will continue to hide micros where I think it is appropriate, because I know that there are other cachers that like the challenge and the variety of finding micros even away from urban areas. I may question why someone else places a cache in a particular location or uses a particular container and may even say something in my log. However, as long as the cache meets the guidelines for listing on Geocaching.com, I will accept the answer that hider feels that there is someone would like the cache. Not every cache has to win a popularity contest.

 

Exactly.

 

I don't understand why certain people can't understand that some of us actually have our own preferences. We don't all like the same thing. We don't all need to like the same thing. Diversity is the spice of life.

 

If I wish to create a cache that is really only designed for a very small target audience and which I really only expect 2 or 3 finds on it, then that is my prerogative. That is assuming it meets the guidelines for placement. Maybe I am wierd, sadistic person whose drive in life is to cause people to pull their hair out and scream expletives in my general direction. Then it is my choice whether or not I want to place a nano cache deep in the bush on the top of a high mountain. It may never get a find, but it is my choice as a hider to place it. You never know though, there may be that handful of people that are just as twisted as I am that will hunt it.

 

The point is that neither I nor anyone else should have to poll the general caching community to find out what type or size of cache to place. I can and will place caches I like.

 

And the whole idea of the hider should put the largest size cache that the area can support is just wrong. The hider should place whatever size AND type cache that the HIDER feels is appropriate. The SEEKER should seek any size OR type that the seeker feels is appropriate to him/her. Period!

[Mushtang]

However, there are time when a micro is hidden where a regular would do better. Those types of hide annoy me, and it would be great to understand why a cacher would choose to hide a micro over a regular.

Obviously to know why a specific hider did anything you'd have to ask him. We can only tell you why we might do something ourselves. And yes, I realize this is exactly what you were asking, I don't think you were asking us what someone else thinks.

 

It's been a fun thread, and we've all gotten our point of view across.

 

I'll just say that it doesn't bother me when someone asks why someone else did something such as hide a micro when a regular would fit. But it annoys the ever living snot out of me when it's suggested that someone hiding that micro (for whatever the reason) would be WRONG to make that choice, and that the person judging the hider thinks they're a better cacher because they have humanity's best interests at heart instead of just being out to have fun.

 

There are different ways to have fun finding, hiding, and talking about geocaching. I try to do as much of all three as I can.

Edited June 25, 2006 by Mushtang

[Clan Riffster]

Once again we have a shining example of why kids should not be allowed on the computer without adult supervision;

He makes a bogus claim that something I'm doing is a bad thing

Has anyone in here made any mention that hiding micros is a bad thing? For those of you that either cannot, or will not see it, that's a textbook example of someone twisting the facts simply so they can continue an argument. Several folks have offered reasonable and diverse explanations for why an ammo can can be a better hide than a micro, all other things being equal. Miragee offered some great insight as to why folks might have to hide a micro. So far, the only argument I've seen for deliberately hiding a micro is to increase the level of challenge for those who choose to seek it. Am I correct in this observation? Are there any other reasons why it would be better to hide a micro in an area that would support an ammo can? I'm sure there's more than just the single reason, I just haven't seen it posted yet.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Hi Riff, first let me say that I haven't been reading this thread. I saw your name and your post. So I'm responding to the question "are there any other reasons why it would be better to hide a micro in an area that would support an ammo can? I have a number of decon and micro hides along the Withlacoochee River basin, mostly in the Green Swamp. Some of them were ammo cans. I'm tired of replacing them. Hurricanes, floods. This stuff gets old. CR likes to tell me I should tether them, but last year the Withla was 14 feet above flood for over 5 months (30 feet over for a while). I don't think any tether would work. So those hides are cheap expendable micros. The ammo cans are on higher ground.

I'm not fond of the phrase "area could support an ammo can". I've yet to see a cypress or palmetto offer to pay for one.

[+norsehawk]

If I wish to create a cache that is really only designed for a very small target audience and which I really only expect 2 or 3 finds on it, then that is my prerogative. That is assuming it meets the guidelines for placement. Maybe I am wierd, sadistic person whose drive in life is to cause people to pull their hair out and scream expletives in my general direction. Then it is my choice whether or not I want to place a nano cache deep in the bush on the top of a high mountain. It may never get a find, but it is my choice as a hider to place it. You never know though, there may be that handful of people that are just as twisted as I am that will hunt it.

 

Mabye not a nano... a micro tho... I am evil, I like micros, I like tricky micros, I like challenging micros, I like unique micros, once you have seen an ammo can, you have seen the basis of all ammo cans.

 

Before it was stolen, I had a matchstick container in the mouth of a plastic alligator, hid it near water where real gators are known to live (its florida, its water, there are gators) The first few finds were great to read, the comments from other geocachers who had found it before it was stolen at the most recent geoevent I attended were great. I have other unique caches in the works along the same lines. I found a small toy animal as swag in a cache, that small toy animal will soon be a cache, once I repaint it to look more normal and blend in a bit.

 

An ammo can wouldn't work in that situation, nor the gator one. I plan to remake the gatorcache and hide it somewhere much farther out of the way so it doesn't get stolen again It ain't gonna be an ammo can (tho I have one of those ready to hide too)

 

That said, yes, micros can be quite lame, if no real thought is put into them, if its a well thought out one that was made to be challenging, I love em. My favorite cache i have found was a mystery cache where the final was a micro.

[+alexrudd]

Once again we have a shining example of why kids should not be allowed on the computer without adult supervision;

Hey! I'm insulted. And I think Mushtang is too, but for the opposite reason.

 

CR likes to tell me I should tether them, but last year the Withla was 14 feet above flood for over 5 months (30 feet over for a while).

Do ammo cans sink or float? I've never tried to find out...

[+horsegeeks]

It's Saturday, Don't you guys ever geocache?

[+Isonzo Karst]

Ammo cans float. If tethered with rope, in a flood they'll swing and swing and swing in the current until they fray the rope to breaking. The nylon strap on a decon does the same thing. Leaving the snap behind. Ammos and decons somewhere between the posted coords and the Gulf of Mexico.

[+thedeadpirate]

It's Saturday, Don't you guys ever geocache?

 

I do, but yesterday was one of those days where I tried for something other than a lamppost hide. I am out of commission for a few days. But when I recover, I think I'll be back to some park and grabs for a while.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

And without statistics from Groundspeak, it's yet another ad ignorantiam.

 

Wrong, again.

 

No, absolutely right, yet again. You found and ran PQ's for THREE areas. You counted a couple thousand out of a QUARTER MILLION caches. You used THREE samples. SMALL ones. And one of those three refuted your claim that micros were not a majority.

 

So clearly your original claim, as I said before, was a complete ad ignorantiam.

 

Next?

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

And without statistics from Groundspeak, it's yet another ad ignorantiam.

 

Wrong, again. Answer: Pocket Queries and create your own.

 

Taking only physical caches:

Cache types:

245 (15.9%) Multi-cache

1198 (77.9%) Traditional Cache

94 ( 6.1%) Unknown Cache

 

Containers:

16 ( 1.0%) Large

428 (27.8%) Micro

34 ( 2.2%) Not chosen

33 ( 2.1%) Other

802

(52.2%) Regular

220 (14.3%) Small

4 ( 0.3%) Virtual

 

This is taken from a complete listings PQ and include some 1500 plus caches within 150 miles of our home.

 

Clearly, regulars alone out number all over sizes combined. We have no idea to the true number of smalls because that size came in late and there are some still marked as micro and regular that actually fit the small size. Even if this reduced the size of the pie for regulars, it will do the same for micros making its pie even smaller than it's mere quarter or so.

 

So, even massaging the numbers a few percentage points to take care of mis-sized caches, you still clearly have a larger-than-micro preference.

 

...for our area.

 

That's not to say other places will have different numbers. I'm sure there are places "notorious" of micros the number could very well be flipped. Let's take one of the most famous micro hot-spots, Jacksonville, Florida:

 

Containers:

13 ( 0.7%) Large

948 (50.7%) Micro

80 ( 4.3%) Not chosen

30 ( 1.6%) Other

615 (32.9%) Regular

182 ( 9.7%) Small

 

Clearly, they like their micros, but it was a host site of a GW event. The whole idea was to have a massive number of easy to place, maintain, and find caches. So it takes this kind of concerted effort to raise the number of micros to this level.

 

If I use the whole area I've accumulated:

 

Containers:

42 ( 0.8%) Large

1947 (36.4%) Micro

156 ( 2.9%) Not chosen

174 ( 3.3%) Other

2289 (42.8%) Regular

736 (13.8%) Small

5 ( 0.1%) Virtual

 

Note this includes all of SC, a good chunk of GA, all of Western NC, and a good portion of North East FL, including Jax. Still, even with artificially high numbers because of Jax, it's clear larger-than-micro is still a favorite.

 

By the way, it's also clear that "anything other than regular" is still a favorite, too, since all of the other categories put together total more than regular. That's the same asinine conclusion you arrived at comparing one size container to all the other ones.

 

But then, the bottom line is you STILL don't have enough evidence or statistics to back up any of your claims. Ad ignorantiam, indeed.

[+horsegeeks]

It's Saturday, Don't you guys ever geocache?

 

I do, but yesterday was one of those days where I tried for something other than a lamppost hide. I am out of commission for a few days. But when I recover, I think I'll be back to some park and grabs for a while.

 

Oh no, get well soon.

[+vree]

this 6 page thread feels longer than the 20 page "new numbers game" thread.

 

so painful, yet i can't. look. away. it's a car wreck.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Even some of the analogies--not this one--is basing the hiding preference on what's in it for the hider. Shouldn't it be based on what's in it for the finder?

 

Not at all. I cache to please me. I don't cache to please YOU.

 

You mean me as a finder of one of your caches? I guess this says it all about your attitude and motivation.

 

Not that I think I'm actually reading a statement based on what was quoted, but one of two things are apparent here. Either you're not reading and understanding what is written or you really don't care how well a finder enjoys a cache you've placed.

 

Read the logs on my hide, why don't you? You've already shown you're not above dragging one's history into the open - funny how you forgot to this time.

 

I hid things that interest ME in a can that interested ME in a location that interested ME. Everyone that's found it has liked it. How in the WORLD is THAT possible?

Edited June 25, 2006 by ParrotRob

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

So far, the only argument I've seen for deliberately hiding a micro is to increase the level of challenge for those who choose to seek it. Am I correct in this observation?

 

No, you're dead wrong. But what else is new.

 

Are there any other reasons why it would be better to hide a micro in an area that would support an ammo can? I'm sure there's more than just the single reason, I just haven't seen it posted yet.

 

Yes you have. Or did you miss the whole "because the hider wanted to" bit? Or maybe you DID see it and dismissed free will as a legitimate motivation, much like your buddy with the same initials.

 

What "reasons" can YOU offer as to why it would be better to hide an ammo can in an area that would support a micro?

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Hi Riff, first let me say that I haven't been reading this thread. I saw your name and your post. So I'm responding to the question "are there any other reasons why it would be better to hide a micro in an area that would support an ammo can? I have a number of decon and micro hides along the Withlacoochee River basin, mostly in the Green Swamp. Some of them were ammo cans. I'm tired of replacing them. Hurricanes, floods. This stuff gets old. CR likes to tell me I should tether them

 

Yeah, CR likes to tell a lot of people what they SHOULD do.

[Mushtang]

Once again we have a shining example of why kids should not be allowed on the computer without adult supervision;

He makes a bogus claim that something I'm doing is a bad thing

Has anyone in here made any mention that hiding micros is a bad thing?

The "something I'm doing" I mentioned would be "hiding a micro where a regular sized cache could go". Not just hiding a micro. And YES, CoyoteRed said it pretty clearly that someone hiding a micro where a regular will go has made the WRONG choice.

 

I asked him about it here (a couple of pages earlier in this thread). And he answered me here.

 

Or am I twisting his words "the WRONG choice"? If he was actually trying to say it was a GOOD thing please tell me how.

 

For those of you that either cannot, or will not see it, that's a textbook example of someone twisting the facts simply so they can continue an argument.

I guess if you're going to ASSume that what I said meant something else... then you can claim I'm twisting facts all day long. Sort of like you do normally.

 

Several folks have offered reasonable and diverse explanations for why an ammo can can be a better hide than a micro, all other things being equal.

I agree totally. They CAN be.

 

Miragee offered some great insight as to why folks might have to hide a micro. So far, the only argument I've seen for deliberately hiding a micro is to increase the level of challenge for those who choose to seek it. Am I correct in this observation? Are there any other reasons why it would be better to hide a micro in an area that would support an ammo can? I'm sure there's more than just the single reason, I just haven't seen it posted yet.

No. Not correct at all. There have been other reasons posted in this thread, you're just not paying attention I guess. For those of you that either cannot, or will not see it, that's a textbook example of someone ignoring posts simply so they can continue an argument.

 

The number one reason I've seen in this thread for hiding a micro when a larger cache would fit, is that the hider WANTED to. They decided that it was time for them to hide a micro first, and they found the location second. And since there are no rules saying anything about cache size vs. available space, they put the micro where they found a spot.

 

Oh no, I just realized that if CoyoteRed thinks it's wrong then he might soon be calling for a ban on micros hidden in spots where a larger size would fit. It wouldn't be the first time for something like that. He's suggested that other kinds of caches he doesn't like be banned, even though evidence was given that a LOT of other people enjoyed them.

Edited June 25, 2006 by Mushtang

[Jackson123]

I agree that full caches are better, but in Washington, DC, we are EXTREMELY limited in where we can place caches. 95% of the city parks are run by the National Park Service, and don't even think about placing an ammo box near a government building. I recently placed 7 caches, 3 small, but "traditional" caches and 4 micros. The key with micros is to make them interesting. Mine all have a spy theme. They are placed in areas that have to do with real-world espionage. For example, I put one outside the house, where John Wilkes Booth planned the Lincoln assasination, one near spot where Aldrich Ames marked a mailbox to signal his russian handlers, and one outside the restruant where soviet agents recruited spies during WWII. Unfortunately in DC, it is either Micros or no caching at all.

[+Romans3:23]

My kids love the larger caches because of the "stuff" they can trade out. I for one enjoy all of them. I like the larger ones mainly for TB transportation. But, I also love the challenge of micros. I think it's so cool to find those that are out in plain view. I don't want either to dominate. I'm hoping that Groundspeak can find a way to keep a balance. I'm getting ready to hide my first two caches. I have the caches ready and places scoped out. One is a micro the other is a regular filled with kids toys.

[+fizzymagic]

if CoyoteRed thinks it's wrong then he might soon be calling for a ban on micro in spots where a larger size would fit. It wouldn't be the first time for something like that.

Please give specific evidence to support this claim. Where, in this thread, is there any place that CR has said anything to imply that he would advocate such a ban? As usual, you are twisting another's words. The particular fallacy in which you are engaging is called the "strawman" fallacy, in which you impute to your opponent an argument that he has not made. Use of the strawman fallacy is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. So either put up or shut up and apologize for a completely inappropriate personal attack.

 

In fact, since you are so dead set against letting CR have his own opinion about whether micros or full-size caches are better, please give us all some specific ways in which his having an opinion that differs from you on this subject hurts you personally. Since you requested exactly the same information from others in another thread, I feel confident that you will be able to comply with that request here.

 

(Obligatory aside: I do not agree with CR on this issue. I just find the kind of dishonest intellectual bullying that he has been subjected to here distasteful. Please do not attribute any opinion on the preference for micros over regular sized caches to me, since I have not stated any such preference.)

 

(Obligatory second aside: Watching Mushtang dodge and weave the above questions should make for amusing reading for all, and provide ample illustration of the hypocrisy at work here.)

Edited June 25, 2006 by fizzymagic

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

if CoyoteRed thinks it's wrong then he might soon be calling for a ban on micro in spots where a larger size would fit. It wouldn't be the first time for something like that.

Please give specific evidence to support this claim. Where, in this thread, is there any place that CR has said anything to imply that he would advocate such a ban? As usual, you are twisting another's words. The particular fallacy in which you are engaging is called the "strawman" fallacy, in which you impute to your opponent an argument that he has not made. Use of the strawman fallacy is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. So either put up or shut up and apologize for a completely inappropriate personal attack.

 

In fact, since you are so dead set against letting CR have his own opinion about whether micros or full-size caches are better, please give us all some specific ways in which his having an opinion that differs from you on this subject hurts you personally. Since you requested exactly the same information from others in another thread, I feel confident that you will be able to comply with that request here.

 

(Obligatory aside: I do not agree with CR on this issue. I just find the kind of dishonest intellectual bullying that he has been subjected to here distasteful. Please do not attribute any opinion on the preference for micros over regular sized caches to me, since I have not stated any such preference.)

 

(Obligatory second aside: Watching Mushtang dodge and weave the above questions should make for amusing reading for all, and provide ample illustration of the hypocrisy at work here.)

 

My goodness, that's a mighty fine post there! Intellectual dishonesty. I knew there was an apt description for what I was reading here.

 

Still shaking my head over the tie thing...

 

Second best post is this:

I have to wonder if some folks place caches for themselves rather than for the community. Just where is "how well is the community going accept and enjoy this cache" on their list of priorities?

 

The best hiders out there do it for the sake of, and enjoyment of, the people they are hiding for. The argument of "because I like micros" is weak, cause YOU ain't hunting the darned micro under a lamp post! Conceited cache owners are the worst kind, IMHO.

 

I shall reiterate, much like fizzy, that I haven't said I'm against all micros. I'm for creative caches, regardless of size. I hide micros when it will add to the hide, and I can't place a larger cache. I hide the largest cache that the area can support, because I'm a realist and know a LOT of cache finders would like to trade goodies, leave travel bugs, or perhaps put more than their initials in their log. And I hide my caches for THEM, not me.

[Mushtang]

if CoyoteRed thinks it's wrong then he might soon be calling for a ban on micro in spots where a larger size would fit. It wouldn't be the first time for something like that.

Please give specific evidence to support this claim. Where, in this thread, is there any place that CR has said anything to imply that he would advocate such a ban? As usual, you are twisting another's words. The particular fallacy in which you are engaging is called the "strawman" fallacy, in which you impute to your opponent an argument that he has not made. Use of the strawman fallacy is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. So either put up or shut up and apologize for a completely inappropriate personal attack.

 

In fact, since you are so dead set against letting CR have his own opinion about whether micros or full-size caches are better, please give us all some specific ways in which his having an opinion that differs from you on this subject hurts you personally. Since you requested exactly the same information from others in another thread, I feel confident that you will be able to comply with that request here.

 

(Obligatory aside: I do not agree with CR on this issue. I just find the kind of dishonest intellectual bullying that he has been subjected to here distasteful. Please do not attribute any opinion on the preference for micros over regular sized caches to me, since I have not stated any such preference.)

 

(Obligatory second aside: Watching Mushtang dodge and weave the above questions should make for amusing reading for all, and provide ample illustration of the hypocrisy at work here.)

 

First, the dodge:

 

If you're going to quote me, quote the entire paragraph at the very least. I'm going to do it for you in my reply to make it easier to show others how you need to take things out of context and create false claims to debate against since you can't debate the facts.

 

My entire paragraph is:

Oh no, I just realized that if CoyoteRed thinks it's wrong then he might soon be calling for a ban on micros hidden in spots where a larger size would fit. It wouldn't be the first time for something like that. He's suggested that other kinds of caches he doesn't like be banned, even though evidence was given that a LOT of other people enjoyed them.

I think that you purposely left off the part where I said that he'd done it with other kinds of caches, so you could then claim that I said he'd done it in this thread. And you accuse ME of twisting words???

 

It's very interesting that you're arguing against something that I never said (that he'd said something in THIS thread), and in doing so claim that I'm using a strawman, since that's what a strawman is.

 

Now that I've proven that you've created a strawman fallacy yourself, do I get the apology you demanded from me for doing the same thing? I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

 

Then, the weave:

 

You wanted me to link you to the place in this thread where he'd said it. Well, I can't, since he didn't say it in this thread. However, I'm happy to link you and quote where he said it in a different thread. What he said can be found here. And what he said was:

Logging requirements is a tangent in the evolution of the hobby that should eliminated just like code word caches, moving caches, and more.

He was discussing a type of cache where the owner requires something of the finder in addition to signing the log. He didn't like them, and suggested that they be ELIMINATED, just like other kinds of caches that are no longer allowed on the site.

 

So, when I said he might call for a ban on something because he didn't like it, and then claimed he'd done something like that before, that's what I was talking about.

 

Is this amusing for all yet? If not, I'll keep going.

 

Another dodge:

 

You claim that I'm dead-set on CoyoteRed having an opinion on this topic. I think it's your turn to provide to me a link where I suggested he shouldn't have an opinion that differs from mine.

 

Another weave:

 

He'll have opinions all day long, and tell us about a lot of them. I'm happy to discuss his opinions with him. But when he says that peoples differing opinions are wrong, that's when I get defensive. And I cannot say how his having a differing opinion might hurt me, since it would not. This is another strawman of yours. Do I get a second apology for this one?

 

I think that's ample demonstration of the hypocrisy at work here for one post.

Edited June 25, 2006 by Mushtang

[+tozainamboku]

The best hiders out there do it for the sake of, and enjoyment of, the people they are hiding for. The argument of "because I like micros" is weak, cause YOU ain't hunting the darned micro under a lamp post! Conceited cache owners are the worst kind, IMHO.

 

I shall reiterate, much like fizzy, that I haven't said I'm against all micros. I'm for creative caches, regardless of size. I hide micros when it will add to the hide, and I can't place a larger cache. I hide the largest cache that the area can support, because I'm a realist and know a LOT of cache finders would like to trade goodies, leave travel bugs, or perhaps put more than their initials in their log. And I hide my caches for THEM, not me.

 

I for one will continue to hide the kinds of caches I like to find. Hiding what most people want to find or what a few people here in forum want to find will reduce the variety of caches and leave some people unable to find the kind of caches they enjoy finding. We have a big variety of cache hides because most people hide what they like to find, and this supports different people who cache for a variety of reasons. Certainly there are some people that have a sadistic streak and will hide hard to find needle-in-the-haystack micros where you'd expect a regular sized cache. Strangely, there seem to be plenty of people who are willing to seek these out. These people may be a minority, but they want something a bit more challenging even it is sometime frustrating. I find the argument that you should hide the largest cache an area can support because a LOT of finders prefer large caches weak because there are finders who will go hunt a darned micro in a lamp post. If we always hid the lowest denominator type cache there would be no puzzle caches, there would be no multi-caches, and there would be no terrain 5 caches.

Edited June 25, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+fizzymagic]

You wanted me to link you to the place in this thread where he'd said it. Well, I can't, since he didn't say it in this thread. However, I'm happy to link you and quote where he said it in a different thread.

 

So your only evidence for your claim that he is about to call for banning micros in locations that would support something else is that he might have done something similar in another thread on an entirely different subject? In that case, I was wrong. Your argument wasn't just a strawman, but an ad hominem attack as well. Which is even less honest, if possible. How sad. You'd think somebody who claims to be so committed to arguing things logically would make some minimal effort to do so himself, and not try to argue via character assassination.

 

He'll have opinions all day long, and tell us about a lot of them. I'm happy to discuss his opinions with him. But when he says that peoples differing opinions are wrong, that's when I get defensive. And I cannot say how his having a differing opinion might hurt me, since it would not.

 

In another thread, you clearly stated that nobody had the right to complain about fraudulent logs unless the logs directly hurt them. So, using your own standards, I am asking you to show how CR's opinions directly hurt you or else stop complaining about them. If his opinions aren't hurting you, then why are you spending so much energy and time attacking both them and their holder?

 

So put up or shut up. Since you are on record telling people they can't complain about something unless it directly hurts them, please show us how CR's opinions directly hurt you or quit complaining.

 

I think that's ample demonstration of the hypocricy at work here for one post.

 

It's spelled "hypocrisy."

 

That petard starting to feel a little tight?

[+The Jester]

(I'm not going to try and quote everybody for all the comments I'm making, I only have so much time, so you can figure it out yourselves.)

 

I have no problem with CR or anyone else having an opinion different than mine. I only object when they try and make it policy for everyone. To me, the feel of what CR and others have said, is that everyone SHOULD place the largest container the area will support. I don't remember which thread it was in (I think it was CR who put it forth), but the idea of a challenge (if I can place a larger container, the previous hider should archive theirs) certainly seems to be to "force" others to comply with their opinion.

 

The whole arguement around "all things being equal" is, IMO, bogus. At each cache site there is no way all things can be equal. Earlier I asked about a couple of hide choices (they were taken from real caches I've found). How can a tree with a bunch of holes which can hold a micro safely hidden (it's very hard to see unless you are looking for it) and no good place for a regular except under sticks 'behind' it have anything equal between the two? One is a lame, easy, just-like-a-hundred others; the other is clever and interesting. The ways of hiding a micro or a regular are too different for "everything being equal".

 

One of my most recent hides is a nano in a place that could hold a micro, or a small, or a regular. The micro would have been a fairly common hide (around here at least, maybe a 2 or 2.5 difficulty); the small or regular would have been another "Ho hum, another cache under a ..." type cache (not quite lame, it would be out of sight but probably only 1.5 difficulty). But I wanted to place a more difficulty hide (4 diff). Nope, I didn't want to please everybody in the community, I wanted to place something for those that look for tough hides and that's what I did. You don't like that sort of hide? Don't hunt it, but also don't tell me that I chose the wrong size!

 

As to stats about which type of caches are most liked. The number of caches of each type is irrelevant - that only show which is popular with hiders. It's the number of logs for each cache that tell the story. Those nice hikes into a good view and cache (which is what I was out doing today, but then yesterday I was hunting the more urban caches) probably have fewer logs then the a lot of the so-called lame miros. But even the number of logs won't tell the whole story. You'd have to look at how long the cache has been there. There was a micro hidden a little while ago outside the local REI store. Within 2 hours there were four logs. Mountain Marsh (the oldest in WA) was placed 5/28/2000 and has 149 logs. If you look at the logs per day the micro had a score of 48, while Mountain Marsh had a score of .068 - which was more popular? (The micro has now been out about 72 days with 30 logs = .416 - still better by 7 - and actually Mountain Marsh only had 143 at the time the micro was hid - hmm, 30 finds vs. 6 for the same time period - which is more popular?)

But then you are going to have to actually count the "good" logs (descriptive) and the "bad" logs (TNLN) to see how popular each cache is, and then list the number logs of each type for each type of cache... Aren't statistics fun! "If the increase in the decrease in the increase of cache hides continues at it's current rate, by 2030 there won't be any caches left in the world" (a touch of humor, not to imply anything in the real world)

 

"For the good of the community" - interesting phrasing. Without actually commiting to saying his opionion was that, the implication was very clear that it was his. If that wasn't what was meant, then whose opinion ("place what you want/choose" or "place the largest container possible") is "for the good of the community? For myself, I favor the less restrictive "choice" rather than the more restrictive "largest" way for the community.

 

Good night America. That's the way I see it, Saturday, June 24.

[+The Jester]

You wanted me to link you to the place in this thread where he'd said it. Well, I can't, since he didn't say it in this thread. However, I'm happy to link you and quote where he said it in a different thread.

 

So your only evidence for your claim that he is about to call for banning micros in locations that would support something else is that he might have done something similar in another thread on an entirely different subject? In that case, I was wrong. Your argument wasn't just a strawman, but an ad hominem attack as well. Which is even less honest, if possible. How sad. You'd think somebody who claims to be so committed to arguing things logically would make some minimal effort to do so himself, and not try to argue via character assassination.

 

BTW, he said "might" not "will" - I think it called irony.

 

And attacking someone for spelling has nothing to do with the discussion. I know I don't spell well at all, I "flunked" English 12 years in a row.