Will Micro"s Kill Our Sport

June 28, 2006

With the great explosion in micro’s, I think there is much damage being done to our sport. Look up the definition of a cache anywhere, on geocaching.com, on Michigan Geocaching.org or anywhere else, and you will see that a micro doesn’t fit the basic definition. Micro’s were only to be used where it was impossible to put out a true cache.

If you read the forums on our state site, or on GC or on several other state sites, you see more and more discussion about states or area’s of states where it just isn’t worth caching, primarily because of the vast number of micro’s. I certainly don’t want to see Michigan on that list. I know that in certain parts of Florida and California we just put our GPS away, and we are not alone.

Let’s look at why micro’s are becoming so prevalent.

1, They are cheap. To put out a good well stocked cache in a good container can cost about $10-$20 bucks, where a film canister with a scrap of paper costs nothing.

2, They are much easier to hide. You can hide a tiny thing almost anywhere, but to hide something larger takes more effort and thought.

3, It feeds on itself. A new cacher goes out caching, finds mostly micro’s and thinks that is what a cache is, therefore that person starts putting out micro’s.

What is wrong with micro’s.

1, One of the reasons I like this sport, is that it is truly a family sport and many people cache with their kids or grandkids. The little ones aren’t very interested, in a film container. They like finding something with treasures.

2, They just seem to lend themselves to, cheap and dirty instant caches. Is it really necessary for every Wal-Mart in the country to have one in the parking lot. I at least seem to have no difficulty finding a Wal-Mart without a set of coordinates.

3, There just seem to be many more poor micro caches than regular.

4, The first micro I found in a lamppost I thought was cute, but once you’ve found a lamppost, do you need to find any more?

I should say that I am not dead set against micro’s in general, and have done some very good ones. I have also done some really poor regular caches. But it seems there are many more poor micro’s than regulars.

I should also state that my favorite type of cache is one that takes me someplace interesting, or teaches me something, or takes me to a beautiful place.

What can be done to save our sport:

1, Maybe our reviewers should get tough on micro’s. Ask questions like, is there really no place for a regular cache nearby, is there a reason to even put this one out?

2, Maybe we are not too far from needing a rating system. Something like what you see on companies or products. One to five stars, rated not by the placer, but by the finders. Having the ability to search for “X” stars or above in pocket query’s, to weed out poor caches.

3, Maybe they will have to go the way of the virtual’s.

6.5k · June 28, 2006

No.

June 28, 2006

Some people like them, others hate them. The tools are there to ignore them if you want to. So long as people keep logging them, people will keep placing them.

June 28, 2006

If you don't like micros, you don't have to hunt or hide them. My family likes to find a mix - cleverly placed micros and larger containers. Our 8 year old actually enjoys the lampposts. We pull up and let her use her special "stealth mode" to retrieve. I guess if that's all there was we'd probably lose interest, but putting some in the mix doesn't bother me.

Edited June 28, 2006 by FamilyDNA

9.4k · June 28, 2006

Can't you just filter them out? I don't especially like to find them either so I don't. There's plenty of caches to find that aren't micros.

Edited June 28, 2006 by Jeremy

24.7k · June 28, 2006

There are more of all kinds of caches, not just micros.

Some of the better caches languish becasue there are too many other good caches as well.

The only real change needed is to be more selective in choosing which caches to find. The days of finding them all are over, now you can focus on what you like and have plenty to seek.

June 28, 2006

this has been discussed at great length here recently. it takes a little more work to try to weed out some of these caches, but hopefully if enough people stop hunting them, more people will stop placing them.

i love gsak and ignore lists. it's like mixing chocolate with peanut butter.

11.3k · June 28, 2006

If you filter them out, use a Terrain filter as well, otherwise you will miss the opportunity to find this cache in this location.

9.4k · June 28, 2006

If you filter them out, use a Terrain filter as well, otherwise you will miss the opportunity to find this cache in this location.

I don't mind missing a cache or two. I do not require a cache to hike to a great view.

2.3k · June 28, 2006

I dont think micros will ruin the sport you can do a micro right and make it fun, I just think its lame when people go and hide like 10-20 micros in a day just to get their numbers up but you can always fallow the golden rule if you dont like um dont hunt um.

38.2k · June 28, 2006

Some people like them, others hate them. The tools are there to ignore them if you want to. So long as people keep logging them, people will keep placing them.

I don't think I've met anyone who hates micros. They hate lousy caches. It's just that the overwhemling majority of lousy caches seem to be micros.

Edited June 28, 2006 by briansnat

June 28, 2006

oh nevermind. why the quotes between the O and S?

9.1k · June 28, 2006

With the great explosion in gladware, I think there is much damage being done to our sport. Look up the definition of a cache anywhere, on geocaching.com, or anywhere else, and you will see that gladware doesn’t fit the basic definition. Gladware was only to be used for temporary storage of leftover food, not to put out a true cache.

If you read the forums on our state site, or on GC or on several other state sites, you see more and more discussion about states or area’s of states where it just isn’t worth caching, primarily because of the vast amount of gladware. I certainly don’t want to see my state on that list. I know that in certain states we just put our GPS away, and we are not alone.

Let’s look at why gladware is becoming so prevalent.

1, They are cheap. To put out a good well stocked cache in a good container like an ammo box can cost about $10-$20 bucks, where gladware comes in packages at the grocery store that cost next to nothing.

2, They are much easier to hide. You can hide a tiny thing like a sandwich-sized gladware almost anywhere, but to hide something larger like my ex-wife's body takes more effort and thought.

3, It feeds on itself. A new cacher goes out caching, finds mostly gladware and thinks that is what a cache is, therefore that person starts putting out gladware.

What is wrong with gladware.

1, One of the reasons I like this sport, is that it is truly a family sport and many people cache with their kids or grandkids. The little ones aren’t very interested, in a gladware container filled with wet trinkets. They like finding something with DRY treasures.

2, They just seem to lend themselves to, cheap and dirty instant caches. Is it really necessary for every park in the country to have one right next to the parking lot. I at least seem to have no difficulty finding a parking lot without a set of coordinates. I would rather hike a mile into the woods to find an ammo box than find a gladware by the parking lot.

3, Gladware *always* cracks and leaks. They are terrible cache containers.

4, Unlike micros, which can be filtered out if you don't like them, there is no filter for gladware. It is just a regular size cache. No way to distinguish between a nice, dry, roomy ammo box and a crappy gladware.

I should say that I am not dead set against gladware in general, and have stored some very good sandwiches in them. I have also done some really poor ammo box caches. But it seems there are many more poor gladwares than ammo boxes.

I should also state that my favorite type of cache is one that takes me someplace interesting, or teaches me something, or takes me to a beautiful place, REGARDLESS OF THE CACHE'S SIZE.

What can be done to save our sport:

1, Maybe our reviewers should get tough on gladware. Ask questions like, can't you spend some change on a real container, is there a reason to even put this one out?

2, Maybe we are not too far from needing a rating system. Something like what you see on companies or products. One to five stars, rated not by the placer, but by the finders. Having the ability to search for “X” stars or above in pocket query’s, to weed out poor caches.

3, Maybe they will have to go the way of the virtual’s. Bring on Gladwarecaching.com!

June 28, 2006

Oh lookit that, a thread about micros. How novel.

June 28, 2006

As I had discussed in a previous thread here: The end of micros? I was concerned we could see a move to curtail micros along the lines of the OP's argument questioning thier legitimacy and viability as caches. Personally, the only real problem I have with them is when a regular sized cache could be placed instead. I can understand the frustration in relation to this as I was discouraged to find numerous caches on a recent trip were micros where an ammo can or larger could have been easily implemented. One that I absolutely despised was an altoid tin at a rest stop where a really big cache could have been used because of the dense wooded that it was placed on the edge of and it would have been perfect for moving along TB's as well if it were bigger.

However, if you are looking at this because of the limited ability of micros holding swag I can tell you I am also very, very frustrated at seeing nicely stocked new caches degrade rapidly in to recepticles for pocket trash.

I think cache rating would be helpful, and I do think it would work, just look at the seller's rating system used on eBay. They are usually spot on as to what you can expect.

2.3k · June 28, 2006

Isn't there a way to put these topics on an ignore list? I see a track this topic option, but not an ignore one.

My question is, if you do away with micros, then what in the world would you talk about in the forums?

Do you realize that the forums have been relatively quiet since the closing of "that other micro topic"? And within a few minutes, the new micro topic has more posts than quite a few of the other ones that have been going for a few days.

I say MicroPostSpew™ is what's killing this sport. Let's ban the word micro from the forums! Down With MicroPostSpew™!!!!!

June 28, 2006

With the great explosion in gladware, I think there is much damage being done to our sport. Look up the definition of a cache anywhere, on geocaching.com, or anywhere else, and you will see that gladware doesn’t fit the basic definition. Gladware was only to be used for temporary storage of leftover food, not to put out a true cache.

If you read the forums on our state site, or on GC or on several other state sites, you see more and more discussion about states or area’s of states where it just isn’t worth caching, primarily because of the vast amount of gladware. I certainly don’t want to see my state on that list. I know that in certain states we just put our GPS away, and we are not alone.

Let’s look at why gladware is becoming so prevalent.

1, They are cheap. To put out a good well stocked cache in a good container like an ammo box can cost about $10-$20 bucks, where gladware comes in packages at the grocery store that cost next to nothing.

2, They are much easier to hide. You can hide a tiny thing like a sandwich-sized gladware almost anywhere, but to hide something larger like my ex-wife's body takes more effort and thought.

3, It feeds on itself. A new cacher goes out caching, finds mostly gladware and thinks that is what a cache is, therefore that person starts putting out gladware.

What is wrong with gladware.

1, One of the reasons I like this sport, is that it is truly a family sport and many people cache with their kids or grandkids. The little ones aren’t very interested, in a gladware container filled with wet trinkets. They like finding something with DRY treasures.

2, They just seem to lend themselves to, cheap and dirty instant caches. Is it really necessary for every park in the country to have one right next to the parking lot. I at least seem to have no difficulty finding a parking lot without a set of coordinates. I would rather hike a mile into the woods to find an ammo box than find a gladware by the parking lot.

3, Gladware *always* cracks and leaks. They are terrible cache containers.

4, Unlike micros, which can be filtered out if you don't like them, there is no filter for gladware. It is just a regular size cache. No way to distinguish between a nice, dry, roomy ammo box and a crappy gladware.

I should say that I am not dead set against gladware in general, and have stored some very good sandwiches in them. I have also done some really poor ammo box caches. But it seems there are many more poor gladwares than ammo boxes.

I should also state that my favorite type of cache is one that takes me someplace interesting, or teaches me something, or takes me to a beautiful place, REGARDLESS OF THE CACHE'S SIZE.

What can be done to save our sport:

1, Maybe our reviewers should get tough on gladware. Ask questions like, can't you spend some change on a real container, is there a reason to even put this one out?

2, Maybe we are not too far from needing a rating system. Something like what you see on companies or products. One to five stars, rated not by the placer, but by the finders. Having the ability to search for “X” stars or above in pocket query’s, to weed out poor caches.

3, Maybe they will have to go the way of the virtual’s. Bring on Gladwarecaching.com!

ROFLMAO!

Good one Lep!

June 28, 2006

With the great explosion in gladware, I think there is much damage being done to our sport. Look up the definition of a cache anywhere, on geocaching.com, or anywhere else, and you will see that gladware doesn’t fit the basic definition. Gladware was only to be used for temporary storage of leftover food, not to put out a true cache.

If you read the forums on our state site, or on GC or on several other state sites, you see more and more discussion about states or area’s of states where it just isn’t worth caching, primarily because of the vast amount of gladware. I certainly don’t want to see my state on that list. I know that in certain states we just put our GPS away, and we are not alone.

Let’s look at why gladware is becoming so prevalent.

1, They are cheap. To put out a good well stocked cache in a good container like an ammo box can cost about $10-$20 bucks, where gladware comes in packages at the grocery store that cost next to nothing.

2, They are much easier to hide. You can hide a tiny thing like a sandwich-sized gladware almost anywhere, but to hide something larger like my ex-wife's body takes more effort and thought.

3, It feeds on itself. A new cacher goes out caching, finds mostly gladware and thinks that is what a cache is, therefore that person starts putting out gladware.

What is wrong with gladware.

1, One of the reasons I like this sport, is that it is truly a family sport and many people cache with their kids or grandkids. The little ones aren’t very interested, in a gladware container filled with wet trinkets. They like finding something with DRY treasures.

2, They just seem to lend themselves to, cheap and dirty instant caches. Is it really necessary for every park in the country to have one right next to the parking lot. I at least seem to have no difficulty finding a parking lot without a set of coordinates. I would rather hike a mile into the woods to find an ammo box than find a gladware by the parking lot.

3, Gladware *always* cracks and leaks. They are terrible cache containers.

4, Unlike micros, which can be filtered out if you don't like them, there is no filter for gladware. It is just a regular size cache. No way to distinguish between a nice, dry, roomy ammo box and a crappy gladware.

I should say that I am not dead set against gladware in general, and have stored some very good sandwiches in them. I have also done some really poor ammo box caches. But it seems there are many more poor gladwares than ammo boxes.

I should also state that my favorite type of cache is one that takes me someplace interesting, or teaches me something, or takes me to a beautiful place, REGARDLESS OF THE CACHE'S SIZE.

What can be done to save our sport:

1, Maybe our reviewers should get tough on gladware. Ask questions like, can't you spend some change on a real container, is there a reason to even put this one out?

2, Maybe we are not too far from needing a rating system. Something like what you see on companies or products. One to five stars, rated not by the placer, but by the finders. Having the ability to search for “X” stars or above in pocket query’s, to weed out poor caches.

3, Maybe they will have to go the way of the virtual’s. Bring on Gladwarecaching.com!

Hilarious! Well done, Mr. L!

I'll take a well hidden bison tube with a dry logsheet over a cracked gladware container with wet or moldy logbook and swag any day! Lately, I've been seeing a whole lot more cheap, disposable, non-watertight gladware containers than ammo cans or lock'n'locks.

June 28, 2006

I should say that I am not dead set against micro’s in general, and have done some very good ones. I have also done some really poor regular caches. But it seems there are many more poor micro’s than regulars.

I don't think I've met anyone who hates micros. They hate lousy caches. It's just that the overwhemling majority of lousy caches seem to be micros.

I agree. I also think the "don't hunt 'em if you don't like 'em" argument isn't as strong as one might think. People hide caches similar to ones that they find--how else are they going to learn? Case in point: I am just now going to place my first cache and I've got almost 99 finds. One of the main reasons I've waited so long is so that I would know what constitutes a good cache. (The other reason being that I moved alot while in the military.) But I've got friends who I've just gotten into geocaching and they already want to hide some, unfortunately some of their ideas of what caches should be like are local Micro TRASH. No good location and no creativity. Even if the location isn't exactly great I can enjoy it if it is an interesting container, or a particularly challenging hide. But there are a TON of micros in my area--even in areas that would easily support a regular cache. This means that when I want to find something closer to home I don't have much of a choice on what I can hunt.

The real thing to look for is not how many micros there are (percentage wise) compared to other caches, but at what rate they are gaining on regular caches. However, bad caches, micro or not, proliferate bad caches!

With all that said, some of the best I've done yet have been devious micros or nanos!

June 28, 2006

i love gsak and ignore lists. it's like mixing chocolate with peanut butter.

I have to write that down.

20.7k · June 28, 2006

Rather than bore you with a long thesis on why I hate another thread about micros, I will merely ask you to do a search and read the last three or four threads on this topic. (You shouldn't have to go back more than a week or two.)

I will be happy to show you the graph of non-micro caches in the Chicago area over time. You will note that it continues to show steady growth, proving that micros aren't killing the "sport".

9.1k · June 28, 2006

What this thread needs is for someone to post the graph of non-micro caches in the Chicago area over time.

That, and more cowbell.

June 28, 2006

No way was the thread to say all micro's are bad. And to Jeremy, it's not possible to filter out the really lame micro's and preserve the rest.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of a finders rating system. What would be wrong with that idea. That would give us something to filter on. But I hold to my comment that an effort should be made to keep this a sport that interests the whole family, to lose that would be a major loss.

JAMES

P.S. I also believe in better containers, and better cache maintenance.

June 28, 2006

What this thread needs is for someone to post the graph of non-micro caches in the Chicago area over time.

That, and more cowbell.

I put my pants on just like the rest of you--one leg at a time. Except once my pants are on...

definitely more cowbell!

5.6k · June 28, 2006

No way was the thread to say all micro's are bad. And to Jeremy, it's not possible to filter out the really lame micro's and preserve the rest.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of a finders rating system. What would be wrong with that idea. That would give us something to filter on. But I hold to my comment that an effort should be made to keep this a sport that interests the whole family, to lose that would be a major loss.

JAMES

P.S. I also believe in better containers, and better cache maintenance.

And it's not possible to filter out the really lame regular's and preserve the rest.

The only "problem" I see with a rating system, is the finders that like that sort of cache will rate it high, while those that don't like it will rate it low - it would tend to average out. Then we'd see threads complaining about lamppost hides that had too high a rating (the finders to whom that's new rated them too high for the everyone else)...

18.9k · June 28, 2006

Some micros are well done and necessary. Most aren't. Banning them won't accomplish the desired result of less lame caches because there are lame ones of all sizes. Place more tradtional sized ones in your area and that too will lead to more.

I hunt the local micros but when traveling I will often filter them out. They are not really killing anything from my vantage point.

Best we can do as a group is educate new cachers and point out what truely makes a cache interesting.

June 28, 2006

The only "problem" I see with a rating system, is the finders that like that sort of cache will rate it high, while those that don't like it will rate it low - it would tend to average out. Then we'd see threads complaining about lamppost hides that had too high a rating (the finders to whom that's new rated them too high for the everyone else)...

That, and nobody will want to be the "meanie" that tells someone their cache really stinks with a low rating.

June 28, 2006

2, They are much easier to hide. You can hide a tiny thing like a sandwich-sized gladware almost anywhere, but to hide something larger like my ex-wife's body takes more effort and thought.

SPLORT!!

Has anyone logged FTF yet?

9.1k · June 28, 2006

2, They are much easier to hide. You can hide a tiny thing like a sandwich-sized gladware almost anywhere, but to hide something larger like my ex-wife's body takes more effort and thought.

SPLORT!!

Has anyone logged FTF yet?

She allowed basically anyone to log her. That's why she was archived.

9.4k · June 28, 2006

No way was the thread to say all micro's are bad. And to Jeremy, it's not possible to filter out the really lame micro's and preserve the rest.

There's no way to filter out the really lame normal sized geocaches either, so it really isn't a micro issue.

Some progress has been made in using Collaborative Filtering to determine, as an individual, which caches you may like based on other people's interest. Once we get the details sorted out better I'll have something to show you guys. In the meantime a look over the logs of each cache can often give you a feel of a cache. If you like the logs you can bookmark it and make a custom query of caches instead of the firehose attack that an everything query can generate.

3.9k · June 28, 2006

Oh lookit that, a thread about micros. How novel.

This is really weird, but until today, I had never heard of a "micro". What is a "micro"? Why is there a thread about them? Is it something to do with space aliens or spies or conspiracies or something?

3.2k · June 28, 2006

But I hold to my comment that an effort should be made to keep this a sport that interests the whole family, to lose that would be a major loss.

Somehow I can't follow this logic. I work with scouts, both cub and boy, and they enjoy the hunt. The cubs enjoy the trinkets, at first, however seeing the same broken mctoy, refrigerator magnet from an auto dealer, etc they lose interest in the swag. Both groups do however enjoy the hunt.

As to keeping it interesting for the whole family, we better start hiding them in XBox's, because that's the only way to keep most of the older teenagers involved. Keep some woodworking and BBQ ttols in there for some of us older kids and a six pack for the NRA guys.

You're not going to please everyone and, like I said earlier, many lose interest in picking through someone elses trash rather quickly.

9.3k · June 28, 2006

Micros are the spawn of Satan and those folks who hide them should be beaten with live gerbils.

20.7k · June 28, 2006

1.2k · June 28, 2006

I think for every Micro topic in this forum I will place a micro as inspiration to these wonderful threads. Thanks for contributing.

1.4k · June 28, 2006

As I've said in another thread, it's my fault or the hider's fault and not the container size's fault when a caching experience ends up mediocre

In terms of more participants, micros are not killing our sport, due to the proliferation of caches in urban areas. Caches large enough to hold trinkets are still out there, both in the city and out on the trails, so the game isn't getting killed, IMHO.

People have offered solutions for the "my fault" part, using filtering tools, ignoring certain types, etc. so I won't elaborate that here.

As for the hider's fault, people should take their time hiding caches, not just for the sake of hiding. It's especially bad when hiding a cache while the novelty of the game hasn't worn off yet, because there are TOO MANY ideas in their minds. Also, I :) when people boast about find-to-hide ratios, because it risks motivating lame hides by people who might not know better.

June 28, 2006

Micros are the spawn of Satan and those folks who hide them should be beaten with live gerbils.

Will there never be an end to this denigration of gerbils?

June 28, 2006

You're not going to please everyone and, like I said earlier, many lose interest in picking through someone elses trash rather quickly.

Interesting area for discussion......

Do you think the scouts would be more interested in the regular-size caches if they didn't contain so much garbage, if there was generally a neat little variety of stuff to dig through?

When I started caching there was generally a 'better' level of stuff in the caches (and most caches were of tradeable size themselves).

As the sport has grown, the level of quality trading seems to have dropped proportionally to the rising number of caches hidden (all sizes). The garbage trading could be a big factor in the micro explosion.

Anyway, this is the reason I end up TNLNSL on other caches so much myself. I love to trade, but there usually isn't anything interesting or 'good' (or often even clean!) anymore.

I am almost always disappointed when I do maintenance visits on my own regular-sized caches. The 8 or so decent (and individually bagged for dryness) $1-2 each items that I have to re-start each cache with periodically end up degenerating into about 25 paper business cards (non-laminated), about 65 cents in US change, a couple tiny army men and lizards, one or two used McToys, and a couple marbles. And some of these are literally filthy. WTF?

So when placing caches, who wants to spend the time and money to stock a good cache for cachers to enjoy, then after a while you get logs that the cache should be replenished since it is full of junk. Like it is MY fault for not running out there after every 3-4 cachers visit it and put out more of "the good stuff". Argh!

I'm holding off on hiding another regular because I can't afford to run more than 3 Dollar Stores (regular caches) at a time

If trades were generally better in the larger caches out there (ie: a majority of cachers start trading responsibly), do you think would that lead to less micros being hidden in the future?

June 28, 2006

I should say that I am not dead set against gladware in general, and have stored some very good sandwiches in them.

nice.

June 28, 2006

No way was the thread to say all micro's are bad. And to Jeremy, it's not possible to filter out the really lame micro's and preserve the rest.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of a finders rating system. What would be wrong with that idea. That would give us something to filter on. But I hold to my comment that an effort should be made to keep this a sport that interests the whole family, to lose that would be a major loss.

JAMES

P.S. I also believe in better containers, and better cache maintenance.

And it's not possible to filter out the really lame regular's and preserve the rest.

The only "problem" I see with a rating system, is the finders that like that sort of cache will rate it high, while those that don't like it will rate it low - it would tend to average out. Then we'd see threads complaining about lamppost hides that had too high a rating (the finders to whom that's new rated them too high for the everyone else)...

There are "affinity" rating systems that get around this problem. The Netflix system is one example. They'll tell you that folks who liked this movie also liked that one. Once you've done a few ratings so the program has something to compare to, the recommendations get fairly good. A system like that would allow folks who like micros to rate them high and generate recommendations for others who like similar hides, without generating recommendations for those caches for folks who dislike that kind of hide.

8.9k · June 28, 2006

The only "problem" I see with a rating system, is the finders that like that sort of cache will rate it high, while those that don't like it will rate it low - it would tend to average out. Then we'd see threads complaining about lamppost hides that had too high a rating (the finders to whom that's new rated them too high for the everyone else)...
That, and nobody will want to be the "meanie" that tells someone their cache really stinks with a low rating.

Please read my suggestion.

Interesting how these conversations are so cyclic. Anybody remember programming in BASIC?

10 = BAD

20 No it doesn't. Any cache can be bad. Any cache can be good.

30 Don't hunt them.

40 But I wouldn't mind hunting a good one.

50 I can't tell what the good ones are.

60 Let's allow a rating system

70 I don't want anyone rating my cache.

80 Nothing gets done.

90 Someone finds a micro and doesn't like it because it's in a bad location

100 GOTO step 10

Here it is in a nutshell:

≠ "lame"
"Lame" is a factor of a particular cacher's enjoyment of the experience, and is therefore a personal decision.
It is possible to TRY and quantify caches based on a simple binary like/dislike and aggregate the data to provide a list of "well-liked" caches.

And the biggest point of all:

This suggestion has been around since before April of 2002 - over 4 years. Any nothing has yet been done.

Now Jeremy has hinted that the Top 10% list might go into action, but that was in late 2004. Just now, he's hinted at a "Collaborative Filtering to determine, as an individual, which caches you may like based on other people's interest" - first I've heard of it.

Can we let the thread die now?

Edited June 28, 2006 by Markwell

9.1k · June 28, 2006

Now Jeremy has hinted that the Top 10% list might go into action, but that was in late 2004. Just now, he's hinted at a "Collaborative Filtering to determine, as an individual, which caches you may like based on other people's interest" - first I've heard of it.

I think he's talking about the same thing? And an Amazon.com-like system is not a new concept in the forums. "If you liked this cache recommended by Markwell, you may also enjoy these other caches on Markwell's favorites list, several of which are also on The Leprechauns' favorites list." Isn't that the idea of Top 10% lists?

See this post which I turned up when I searched for "Amazon" as the keyword, and Jeremy as the author. Let me know if I've out-Markwelled Markwell, or if you were truly just reacting to the term "Collaborative Filtering." You are correct in saying that today was the first appearance of that term. I like collaborative filtering. I like it a lot.

8.9k · June 29, 2006

I'm not sure the Collaborative Filtering is the same as I've proposed. Jeremy would be the one to answer, but it sounds more like "people who purchased this item also purchased" - just substituting "purchase" with "recommended". And that is decidedly different.

I'll be interested in seeing what they've got proposed.

10.1k · June 29, 2006

Micros are the spawn of Satan and those folks who hide them should be beaten with live gerbils.

Will there never be an end to this denigration of gerbils?

He used de n word!

June 29, 2006

I looked at that thread

"See this post which I turned up when I searched for "Amazon" as the keyword, and Jeremy as the author."

and there is a lot to be said for that discussion. I think personally that there is a way for local groups to help promote great caches in their local area while we wait for Groundspeak to develope a site wide system. I live in Texas and in a town several hours away from San Antonio. We have family there, so go caching in SA fairly often. They have a caching group that has annual awards ceromonies and catagories of caches... and on the caches that they give prizes to, they have a logo that the cache owner posts on the cache site saying something like "Best of SA caches for best Multi-cache". It would help if they had a list that you could go to to see the prize winners... and, not all great caches are on the list, but if you're on a business trip and want to hit the highlights... it would be a good place to start.

But, I have long thought that a way to review the quality of a cache would be nice... one of the prize winners from SA in 2004 was made by a cacher with over 3000 finds... and owns a ton... and in her caches are stacks of sticky notes for log books. Terrible, bad placement, bad containers... and no way of knowing it until we were already there. I personally leave reviews that say what I think about a cache (I must say, I am polite, but if a cache is a micro and is listed as a small...), cause right now, that's what I use to determine if a cache is worth going to... The first cache that I recently placed has gotten wonderful reviews and if it hadn't, I would have done what was necesary to make it better. So, in the end, maybe what we need is "truth in reporting" when we leave comments in the find box rather than being so polite with a TFTC!

Just my lil ol opinion...

Edited June 29, 2006 by Wile E. Dragonfly

June 29, 2006

With the great explosion in ammo boxes, I think there is much damage being done to our sport. Look up the definition of a cache anywhere, on geocaching.com, or anywhere else, and you will see that ammo boxes don’t fit the basic definition as they represent war, terror and violence. Ammo boxes were/are only to be used for military purposes and wartime activity, not to put out a true cache.

If you read the forums on our state site, or on GC or on several other state sites, you see more and more discussion about states or area’s of states where it just isn’t worth caching, primarily because of the vast amount of ammo boxes. There have even been instances where local police had to blow up an "ammo box geocache" because it looked so much like a terrorist bomb. I certainly don’t want to see my state on that list. I know that in certain states we just put our GPS away, and we are not alone.

Let’s look at why ammo boxes are becoming so prevalent.

1. They are cheap. To put out a good well stocked cache in a good container like an a kevlar lined, stainless steel box can cost about $100-$200 bucks or quality, fireproof tupperware, where ammo boxes are cheap in any Army/Navy surplus store (check out the Howard Blake TB Hospital Cache, $14.99 for a HUGE ammo box, big enough to hold the largest Travel Bugs.)

2. They are much easier to hide. You can hide an olive colored ammo box almost anywhere, but to hide something larger like my last 5 years tax returns (2 inches thick per year) takes more effort and thought.

3. It feeds on itself. A new cacher goes out caching, finds mostly ammo boxes and thinks that is what a cache is, therefore that person starts putting out war weary ammo boxes.

What is wrong with ammo boxes?

1. One of the reasons I like this sport, is that it is truly a family sport and many people cache with their kids or grandkids. The little ones aren’t very interested, in an ammo box that's been to Korea, Vietnam or Iraq filled with trinkets laden with gun powder and lead. They like finding something with CLEAN treasures.

2. They just seem to lend themselves to, cheap and dirty instant caches. Is it really necessary for every park in the country to have one right next to the parking lot. I at least seem to have no difficulty finding a parking lot without a set of coordinates. I would rather hike a mile into the woods to find a tupperware container than find an ammo box under a tree in the parking lot.

3. Ammo Boxes represent war and violence. They promote the dark side of human behavior. They are terrible cache containers.

4. Unlike micros, which can be filtered out if you don't like them, there is no filter for ammo boxes. It is just a regular size cache. No way to distinguish between a nice, dry, roomy tupperware container and a camo green ammo box.

I should say that I am not dead set against ammo boxes in general, and have stored some very good rounds of ammo in them as I enjoy Trap and Skeet shooting. I have also done some really poor ammo box caches, some chained to a railroad car. But it seems there are many more poor ammo box than tupperware caches.

I should also state that my favorite type of cache is one that takes me someplace interesting, or teaches me something, or takes me to a beautiful place, REGARDLESS OF THE CACHE'S SIZE.

What can be done to save our sport:

1. Maybe our reviewers should get tough on ammo boxes, we should be a "peace loving group." Ask questions like, can't you spend some change on a real container, is there a reason to even put this one out?

2. Maybe we are not too far from needing a rating system. Something like what you see on companies or products. One to five stars, rated not by the placer, but by the finders. Having the ability to search for “X” stars or above in pocket query’s, to weed out poor caches.

3. Maybe they will have to go the way of the virtual’s. Bring on warcontainercaching.com!

5.6k · June 29, 2006

With the great explosion in ammo boxes, I think there is much damage being done to our sport. Look up the definition of a cache anywhere, on geocaching.com, or anywhere else, and you will see that ammo boxes don’t fit the basic definition as they represent war, terror and violence. Ammo boxes were/are only to be used for military purposes and wartime activity, not to put out a true cache.

...

I almost posted the same thing when I first saw this thread, but thought it too much trouble. Thanks!

9.1k · June 29, 2006

I looked at that thread

"See this post which I turned up when I searched for "Amazon" as the keyword, and Jeremy as the author."

and there is a lot to be said for that discussion. I think personally that there is a way for local groups to help promote great caches in their local area while we wait for Groundspeak to develope a site wide system. I live in Texas and in a town several hours away from San Antonio. We have family there, so go caching in SA fairly often. They have a caching group that has annual awards ceromonies and catagories of caches... and on the caches that they give prizes to, they have a logo that the cache owner posts on the cache site saying something like "Best of SA caches for best Multi-cache". It would help if they had a list that you could go to to see the prize winners... and, not all great caches are on the list, but if you're on a business trip and want to hit the highlights... it would be a good place to start.

The sponsor of the awards should put the winning caches on a shared bookmark list that is marked public so that it appears on the cache pages. That tool is available today. The "favorites" solution will likely be just a customized extension of bookmark lists.

June 29, 2006

i like micros but then i'm not normal it seems

June 29, 2006

Because no cache would not be considered lame by at least one person in the Geocaching comunity, I demand a ban on all Geocaches. I say we close down the website, round up and throw away all the caches in the world just to make the whinning minority happy. Face it Micros and crappy regular caches are here to stay. Some people like to hunt bison tubes in rock piles, or go through a dumpster to find a cache. If you like it great, I don't but I am not going to call for a ban on micros in rock piles. The biggest thing I hate is a cache I can not find. New rule all new caches being placed must be atleast four feet high, four feet wide and two feet deep. they must be placed just off the side of the road but must have a back trail to them for those who like to hike. I'm going to stop now because I could go on and on but in the end it will not make any differance. once this slips off the first page someone else will start a new thread about the evil micros, and the result there will be the same as all the other threads before this one. Hay maybee we should just start a thread called micro bashing and pin it so we don't get all these new threads about micros.

Will Micro"s Kill Our Sport

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment