So What Is Your Definition Of A "lame Cache"?

[+Sparrowhawk]

I sometimes see people complaining about "Lame caches".

 

Doesn't seem like there is a concensus as to what REALLY constitutes a lame cache.

 

So here is a poll:

 

What are the top 3 lameness factors that make for a lame cache for you?

 

My own top 3 "lameness" factors:

 

3: nano-caches

 

2: Badly or non-maintained caches, no owner response whatsoever

 

And the number one lame-cache factor for me:

 

1: Boring location, nothing really new or unique to discover or learn

[+SG-MIN]

I think number 1 is the only one... If a cache doesn't take you some place you want to be, or make you do something you want to do, it is lame. Granted our opinions vary, but honestly who wants to visit a mundane intersection in a residential area to grab a micro.

 

Before micro fans beat me down, I have found some awsome micros in awsome areas, that were all park and grabs.

 

Now, some nanos are cool to, if the search is worth it.

[+Deliveryguy428]

Lame guardrail keycontainers, the bigger the highway, the more likely someone will put a stupid one there.

[+Miragee]

Llama cache . . .

 

A cache hidden in a guard rail next to a chainlink fence bordering trolley tracks . . . with no parking nearby on the narrow, busy street.

 

A cache hidden in a very difficult-to-access suburban alley cammoed by an icky, black-plastic trash bag.

 

A micro cache hidden below a Shopping Center sign next to a very busy and noisy freeway up the hill from a homeless person's bed.

 

A micro-cache hidden somewhere in the ivy at the back of the busy "dog park." I never did find that one and refuse to go back . . . nor do I look for that hider's other caches after experiencing some of their other chosen cache locations.

[+briansnat]

And the number one lame-cache factor for me:

 

1: Boring location, nothing really new or unique to discover or learn

 

That's it for me. A cache placed in an area that makes me ask "WTH did the owner bring me here for?" is lame (to me).

 

Though a poorly (to me) maintained cache is somewhat disappointing (to me) and slimy contents and a wet logbook are unpleasant (to me), as long as the cache is in an interesting (to me) area or it was a pleasant (to me) walk to get there, its not lame (to me). Similarly, an ammo box stocked with great (to me) swag next to the 7-Eleven dumpster would be lame (to me).

 

How's that PR?

Edited June 16, 2006 by briansnat

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Hooboy - I can't believe the mods are going to let yet another of these threads go on, but since they are here goes!

 

Quality being in the mind of the finder, it's a tough question, so here's my nebulous and ill-defined answer to what may even be an impossible question for a group to answer.

 

Since I don't think we'll ever define lame, I'll take it in reverse and give my idea of quality:

 

To me a quality cache is one that makes me laugh (as in DOH! I can't believe that - now THAT's a cool (container / location / hide method)), one that makes me glad to have found it, that I remember years later, that is discussed and admired by geocachers sitting around a campfire.

 

I know that doesn't help, but there it is!

Ed

Edited June 16, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+StarBrand]

Boring/useless/unpleasant location is #1

 

#2 is micro needle-in-a-hay-stack in an area that could easily support a bit larger cache with some trading room. These tend to beat-up mother nature pretty badly.

[+madajb]

Any cache I couldn't find is, by definition, a lame cache.

 

-ajb

[+JoGPS]

There are no lame caches, someone had fun hiding it and someone will have fun finding the cache

 

There are no lame caches on lame cachers and forum posters that want to tell me how to play the game

 

Joe

[+Mary&Dave]

There's an exception to every rule. One of the greatest caches in my area starts with, of all things, a lamp post skirt at a strip mall.

 

A lame cache is a result of poor planning and lack of maintenance. Don't fill your backpack with cache containers to hide under bushes on a trail you never plan to hike again. Don't fill your glove box with film cans and altoids tins to leave in parks that you'll probably never visit again. There are too many waterlogged containers full of unmaintained geo-trash, soggy film cans tossed in bushes, and rusted out altoids tins. Don't make another.

 

A lame cache is also one that is placed without regard for the site's guidelines. "Uh, yeah, sure I got permission to hide this at the truck loading dock at Walmart." "But I used a blunt object, not a pointy one to dig this hole!" Also, if you have to hide your cache with a "don't get caught" note, not because you fear the cache might get stolen, but because the cacher might get caught and questioned for being something that they maybe shouldn't be, you might want to think twice about that cache placement.

[+Stephanie2427]

There have only been a couple of caches I've hunted that I thought were lame. They were hidden in prickly bushes. I don't understand why someone would think it's funny or entertaining for people to get scratched and pricked. The one and only cache that ticked me off I ended up calling off the hunt when both me and my 10yr old daughter were bleeding. I drove past the cache site just yesterday and not a soul around and thought for half a second about looking for it again. But decieded it was to lame.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

1: Boring location, nothing really new or unique to discover or learn

This is the only one on your list that makes sense. Just because a cache is small, large, nano, regular, or whatever doesn't make it lame. If I find an ammo can hidden in the ivy behind a trash dumpster, it's lame. I might find an altoids tin next to a waterfall in a small park. That's cool.

Edited June 16, 2006 by Team GPSaxophone

[+niraD]

Doesn't seem like there is a concensus as to what REALLY constitutes a lame cache.

Doesn't everyone agree that a lame cache is one made of brocaded fabric with a metallic sheen that comes from inwoven metal threads? Oh, wait, that's a lamé cache...

 

Anyway, I've found interesting (i.e., not lame) caches that were nano caches, badly maintained, at a boring location, guardrail hides, and/or lamppost skirt hides. I've also found boring (i.e., lame) caches that fit one or more of those categories.

[+Renegade Knight]

Lame cache = I didn't have fun.

 

If I'm having a crappy day and black clouds hang over head raining and making life miserable. I don't care how good the cache would have been otherwise it's going to be a crappy cache.

 

Vice versa is also true.

 

Edit:

Actually read the OP.

 

1) I didn't have fun.

2) Everybody can find the #(*^%$* cache except me.

3) Repeat 1 and 2.

Edited June 16, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+AuntieWeasel]

Like...pretty much everybody, I suppose...I used to think a cache rating system was a really good idea. But looking back on it, it doesn't work that way.

 

I mean, yeah...my taste is for medium long hikes in beautiful places. I'm terribly grateful whenever a new one of those pops up near me, and I'd like to give those hiders a "huzzah!" and a thank you for some great memories.

 

But some of my favorite and most memorable caches were crap caches. Because I learned something new about myself (see? I do NOT melt when I get wet!) or discovered a new part of my state or saw a kind of hide for the first time (that was totally lame by the 10th time) or did something fun on the way or enjoyed the company I was keeping or saw an animal/thing on the side of the road/bizarre weather pattern. The point is, you go someplace new in a playful frame of mind, and all kinds of interesting things happen.

[+ravens3]

[The point is, you go someplace new in a playful frame of mind, and all kinds of interesting things happen.

 

I've gotta agree here. It's not about numbers, it's about the experience, whether urban or rural, large cache or micro. We've probably had to most fun with a cache that we found, but couldn't sign because we were too stoopid to figure it out.

 

Even the "lamest" of caches appeal to someone. My suburban-dwelling nephews (who only get to geocache with their ex-hippy aunt) simply love the "hide in plain sight" urban and suburban caches that make me feel like a voyeur. For me, it's about the view and being outdoors. For my son, if he can't find a new bird to add to his life list, it's lame. For the dog, the ideal geocache one where she gets to roll around in something wet and smelly. Better her than me.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Lame caches to me are icky ones. I dont want to go where Im likely to encounter someone else's bodily fluids/ waste. That includes dogs as well as humans. I dont care for dumpster caches, especially on a hot Arizona day when the stink factor is particularly high. I dont care for trashy areas either. Good caches for me include scenic ones, or ones that were entertaining in some other way. It the site is pretty, but boring, and the cache hunt exciting because of its uniqueness or whimsy, then Im just as happy as if the cache was boring, but the site spectacular.

 

Thats the human perspective. My dog thinks any cache is exciting, as long as she gets a car ride and a chance for a hot dog/ pizza/ smoothie/ ice cream later.

[+Hoppingcrow]

"Lame" is a cache I found within five minutes, a cache that didn't make me think on some level. "Lame" is a cache in a spot I will be unable to picture in my mind when I get home to write the log. "Lame" is a number without meaning or significance. "Lame" is a cache I can only dignify with a terse log, "Found it."

 

"Lame" is a geocaching shrug: "Okay, that's over with. How do I get to the next one on the list?"

[+Deliveryguy428]

Your right when their is a chance I am going to get run over on the side of a highway that is not a lame cache at all...

[+carleenp]

I don't know.... I guess it is the whole bad container and bad location and I didn't have fun thing. The problem is that I really haven't found any caches where I didn't have fun. First, I tend to avoid ones where I doubt I will like them, or I save them for times when they are covered by snow to make them more interesting. Next, where I do find bad containers in bad locations, often I am with friends and the company still makes it fun. I remember a few where I thought the whole thing was so bad that I can't imagine why such a container and location was used (e.g slimy baggie under a dumpster or in a sewer grate), but then I was so amused over the badness of it, that I had fun (plus I was with friends). And I think I even used the word "lame" for those. So in the end, I guess some of those were "lame," but yet since "lame" includes a lack of fun for me, maybe not.....?

Edited June 17, 2006 by carleenp

[+Totem Clan]

"Lame" is a cache I found within five minutes, a cache that didn't make me think on some level. "Lame" is a cache in a spot I will be unable to picture in my mind when I get home to write the log. "Lame" is a number without meaning or significance. "Lame" is a cache I can only dignify with a terse log, "Found it."

 

"Lame" is a geocaching shrug: "Okay, that's over with. How do I get to the next one on the list?"

Oh Crow, I bow before your intellect. How many words were said before your post, but not all of them said so well.

[+AuntieWeasel]

I remember a few where I thought the whole thing was so bad that I can't imagine why such a container and location was used (e.g slimy baggie under a dumpster or in a sewer grate), but then I was so amused over the badness of it, that I had fun (plus I was with friends).

Yeah. That's what I was trying to get across. I've done caches so awful and stupid, my autobiography would be diminished without them.

[+JohnnyVegas]

For me

Number one---Gaurd rail caches (I even hid one on a gaurd rail that was called "Just a Lame little cache"

Number two---Any cache rated a 1 for difficulty that I can not find

Number three---Any cache that is placed in a location that may damage the enviroment.

Edited June 17, 2006 by JohnnyVegas

[+thedeadpirate]

Not really lame, but highly annoying (to me) are caches that are improperly rated. Especially frustrating are terrain ratings of 1 that are really 2 or up.

 

Of course, again this is really perspective. What I may think is a difficulty 3, more experienced cachers may consider it a 1. It's all perspective.

[+carleenp]

I remember a few where I thought the whole thing was so bad that I can't imagine why such a container and location was used (e.g slimy baggie under a dumpster or in a sewer grate), but then I was so amused over the badness of it, that I had fun (plus I was with friends).

Yeah. That's what I was trying to get across. I've done caches so awful and stupid, my autobiography would be diminished without them.

 

Yep!

 

One of those in particular stands out for me. It was at night and a very slimy baggie with a magnet in it, stuck inside a sewer grate, and in an industrial/commerce area that we were not really confortable being in after dark. I would have skipped it, but I needed it to be sure that a milestone cache would coincide at the same cache a day or two later with friends. After digging through slimy wet leaves in there, and who knows what else, and then signing the slimy log, I shook my hands wildly to get the icky stuff off, and got in the car and commented on just how horrible it was. I even said I might make my first DPM log! But in the end I just logged "found it."

 

Funny thing is, I got enjoyment out of whining about it at the time, then telling the story to friends while on that group milestone hunt, and later in various conversations. And now here.... So for as bad as that thing was, I can't really call it "lame" because I just saw a dictionary definition of lame that said: "pathetically lacking in force or effectiveness" and I also include lack of fun in my definition. Well, that one served a purpose and effected some fun for me no matter how much I would advise against placing such a thing!

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I like caching for the different experiences I get from it. They could be good or they could be bad. Either way I experience something. Therefore no cache is lame to me.

[+DocDiTTo]

I don't know that I'd consider any cache lame. I know what I like to hunt and what I don't, but that doesn't make the cache itself lame. Yes, there are poorly done caches that don't use a proper container, or aren't hidden in a very good spot (whatever that is) but "lame" isn't really a definitive word. I enjoy hunting quick 1/1 caches if I'm running around at night with a friend or two. Sure, the caches are usually nothing spectacular but the company is, so it's still fun. And an easy guardrail hide to a newbie is just as exciting as an ammo can on top of a mountain is to me. I can't say that caches I don't find are lame, usually they're quite the opposite. Even poorly done caches can serve as an GOOD example of how NOT to hide a cache. You'll never get people to agree on what defines a lame cache. Just read this thread for proof of that.

[+boda]

Why does it matter what I think is lame? I go out and cache and what I like doesn't have to affect what anyone else likes. I have a cache that people I respect have praised in their logs. Yet, people go for the nearby "lame" lamp post hides. Which is the lamest: my cache or the lamp posts. Probably mine despite the logs. (It's a micro - GASP) It really doesn't matter. Go place a few caches and go find a few caches and have fun. Don't worry about what the crowd thinks, it'll drive you bat.....

 

BTW, my TV is on but I'm not really watching, but I heard the narrator talk about a "cache placed in a jar and buried in a cave." These were the Dead Sea Scroll caches. Disregard the burying part, some of these were probably lame.