Will Micro"s Kill Our Sport

[Clan Riffster]

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

Can we require that they be painted day glow orange?

[+horsegeeks]

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

 

Yes you are normal. More normal than the few folks that dislike them and write about it endlessly

[CoyoteRed]

Hmm...

 

Another thread about micros. Weren't we told in that last thread there isn't a problem with micros? Aren't we being told in this thread there isn't a problem with micros? Haven't we been told in just about every single thread in recent history complaining about micros there isn't a problem with micros?

 

Yet, here we are again. Yet, again here we are with the exact same mantra.

 

At least I'm glad more folks are recognizing it's not micros, per se, that we're actually complaining about, but lame caches.

 

However, the issue and the question stands, why are micros getting such a bad rap and what can we do about it? Do we continue to bury our heads in the sand and loudly proclaim "there is no problem," or do we attempt to figure out a solution?

[+SixDogTeam]

The question posed in the topic title is moronic.

[+baloo&bd]

Do we continue to bury our heads in the sand and loudly proclaim "there is no problem,"

 

Half right, no need to bury our heads.

 

There isn't a problem, just a handful of people whining. Don't like micros, filter them out. Find a lame micro, log a note to that effect and don't log it.

 

If micros, lame or otherwise were so despised, they would fade away. It is only a select number here on the forums that seem to complain.

 

Being in the Chicago area, we have our share of lame caches. Many are "regular" size. Rating systems won't work, because as proven here, they are subjective and for the most part worthless.

 

Go back and read the threads and look at the unique posters, not the number of messages, and you will find that even the majority of forum poster have no issue with micros, lame or otherwise. Micros more than meet the requirements. Move on to a real issue.

Edited June 29, 2006 by baloo&bd

[+wimseyguy]

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

Can we require that they be painted day glow orange?

 

I believe that Safety Orange is the preferred color name.

This isn't a micro and does require some puzzle solving skills, so please forgive me for posting off topic.

[+Team Cotati]

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

 

Yeah, I sometimes wish that someone would start a new and refreshing thread about the best GPSr.

[+fishingfools]

For every micro you don't hunt, I gonna find 3

 

oh and I gotta fever, a fever for more cowbell!

[+bobbyfrass]

 

Yeah, I sometimes wish that someone would start a new and refreshing thread about the best GPSr.

 

My vote's for the Garmin GPSMap 60csx!

[+C&C+COMPANY]

thinking about getting a 60csx....time to upgrade

[+tozainamboku]

I'm suprised the ice cream analogy has been made yet - so here goes:

 

With the great explosion in ice cream flavors, I think there is much damage being done to ice cream. Look up the definition of ice cream anywhere, on geocaching.com, on Michigan Geocaching.org or anywhere else, and you will see that raspberry swirl doesn’t fit the basic definition. Unusual flavors were only to be used where it was impossible to find chocolate or vanilla or there were ingredients left over after you baked a pie and made preserves.

 

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 eating ice cream, primarily because of the vast number of unusual flavors. 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 spoons away, and we are not alone.

 

Let’s look at why unusual flavors are becoming so prevalent.

1, They are cheap. To make out a good chocolate or vanilla ice cream can cost about $10-$20 bucks to import quality chocolate or real vanilla, where raspberry swirl made with raspberries you picked yourself from one of these locations costs nothing.

2, They are much easier to sell. You can make up a catchy name (especially if you are Ben & Jerry’s) but to sell plain old vanilla or chocolate takes more effort and thought.

3, It feeds on itself. A new cacher goes out for ice cream, finds mostly funny flavors and thinks that is what ice cream is, therefore that person starts making the same unusual flavors they have seen.

 

What is wrong with unusual ice cream flavors.

1, One of the reasons I like ice cream, is that it is truly a family desert and many people eat ice cream with their kids or grandkids. The little ones aren’t very interested in new and different flavors especially with berries or coffee. They like the vanilla or chocolate they are familiar with. And vanilla or chocolate are better with birthday cake than other flavors.

2, They just seem to lend themselves to, cheap and dirty instant flavors. Is it really necessary to make an ice cream flavor for every kind of fruit or vegetable you can find in a Wal-Mart Superstore? I at least seem to have no difficulty buying fruits and vegetables at Wal-Mart without getting them in the ice cream section.

3, There just seem to be many more poor unusual flavors of ice cream than regular. You can’t mess up chocolate or vanilla too much.

4, The first raspberry swirl I tasted I thought was cute, but once you’ve tasted raspberry swirl, do you need to taste any more?

 

I should say that I am not dead set against unusual ice cream flavors in general, and have tasted some very good ones. I have also had some really poor vanilla and chocolate ice cream. But it seems there are many more poor unusual flavors than regulars.

 

I should also state that my favorite type of ice cream is one that has a rich creamy texture and is not so cold as to give me an ice cream headache when I eat it.

 

What can be done to save ice cream:

1, Maybe our reviewers should get tough on unusual ice cream flavors. Ask questions like, is there really no place for chocolate or vanilla 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 ice cream maker, but by the ice cream eaters. Having the ability to search for “X” stars or above in pocket query’s, to weed out poor ice cream flavors.

3, Maybe they will have to go the way of the sherbets and frozen yogurts.

[+ajayhawkfan]

No, but non-stop talking about micros will kill the forum.

[+tozainamboku]

No, but non-stop talking about micros will kill the forum.

 

These threads are what keeps the forums alive. They really show that people are passionate about geocaching that they have all kinds of opinions about how to improve the sport or how it is going in the wrong direction. And its fun to ridicule some of their ideas - so long as we refrain from personal attacks. As CR points out - the fact that many people perceive a problem with micros - even if there isn't one - means that the geocaching community needs to address the issue. It sounds from Jeremy's responses in this thread that some kind of collaborative filtering/cache rating system is in the works that may make it easier to find the kinds of caches you like.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

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.

 

Yes, but now you're forcing people to READ the CACHE DESCRIPTION. Horrors. Don't you know that some people just like to download coordinate lists and run off without doing their homework? Don't you think that asking people to do something ridiculous like actually READING THE CACHE PAGE is forcing YOUR way of caching on THEM? How DARE you tell someone how else to play the game!!!

 

(Me either, but that's the reaction I got to the same suggestion)

[+AtoZ]

I think the horse is DEAD. But some folks just want to keep wacking it.

LOL

 

By the way some folks like the hunt and thus a micro gives them a real pleasure as you don't see where the cache is from 50feet away. So like anything geocaching is many things to many people. So if you don't like micros don't do micros.

 

Cheers

[+B & Lela]

As others have posted I also think that it has to do with the quality of the cache. I have placed nine caches out in my short Geocaching career. Of that seven are micros. But, my containers have thought and care into them. Some may be inside real pine cones or under a hollowed out stump. Again its all about the quality of the cache. My micro caches will get you to city parks, walking trails, or even a tree park. The problem is when people just mindlessly place caches (of any size). If people would just think a little bit more before placing a cache then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Edited June 29, 2006 by B & Lela

[+Mudfrog]

My opinion and it's not worth squat to most!

 

We have found a few caches in our day and know what we like of course. For us, regular size caches are usually more fun to find. For one thing, i like having a nice size logbook that's easy to handle and write in. We like having the possiblity that we might come across an interesting geocoin, travelbug, or even on very rare occasions, nice swag! Ok, ok, i know this last one is farfetched for sure but it does happen from time to time. It's also easy to see that kids enjoy finding the "bigger" treasure as well.

 

I agree with others in thinking that the largest container that an area can support should usually be placed. Micros certainly have their place and we have enjoyed a bunch of em but i think that most everyone would agree that when you compare micro vs regular placement, that there are many more micros that are oftened just thrown out there with hardly any thought put into them.

 

Yes we tend to like regular size caches better, but you know what? ,,, we still have fun finding micros too and i sure don't see them as killing our game.

[+JDandDD]

Not killing our game at all. Any type of cache can be lame. Can't believe the number of times I've gone to a regular cache hidden in a stump in an ugly area only to find the person didn't bother to go 50 ft further for a great view. One of the best cache I did was a bison in a fence in downtown Toronto. Great spot, terrific hidam and no other way to do it. Its how the cache is placed that makes it not the type.

 

Now as for gladware, I think that should be tupperware and ice cream should be frozen yogurt.

[+Glenn]

It isn't the size of the cache that determines if it is a good or bad cache. As a rule a majority of micros do tend to be bad and a majority of larger caches tend to be good. But, if size was the determining factor then finding a good cache to hunt would be easy. If more geocachers would use the bookmark feature, include comments in the bookmark, and make their bookmarks public (including setting them to show on the cache pages) it would help everyone find the caches that they would enjoy hunting.

[+sbell111]

I miss the old days. It used to be that all geocaching analogies were about coffee beans. These extraneous analogies are harmful to the "sport".

[+wandererrob]

I think the horse is DEAD. But some folks just want to keep wacking it.

LOL

 

It's like the gift that keeps on givin'

[+Jhwk]

So, to get back on topic, will Micro's Kill Our Sport? No.

 

I gotta a fever, and the only prescription, is MORE COWBELL!

[+Hokers]

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.

 

Forget GPS the Movie, I want GPS the Game (playable over X-Box Live of course).

 

Actually finding new places in Oblivion is a bit like using a GPS, you have a compass and as you get closer the icon gets darker. Yes, I'm a nerd.

[+bobbyfrass]

So, to get back on topic, will Micro's Kill Our Sport? No.

 

I gotta a fever, and the only prescription, is MORE COWBELL!

 

Bruce Dickinson digs this thread!

[+Markwell]

Being in the Chicago area, we have our share of lame caches. Many are "regular" size. Rating systems won't work, because as proven here, they are subjective and for the most part worthless.

 

I'm amazed at this statement.

 

In our old ChicagoGeocaching.com days, we had a voting system that recommended caches in categories and regions. Without a doubt, the caches that showed up as favorites in these categories were well recommended caches that everyone came to a consensus on as being "good".

 

This is what that page looked like:

 

Ratings CAN work - but again:

[+sbell111]

In our old ChicagoGeocaching.com days, we had a voting system that recommended caches in categories and regions. Without a doubt, the caches that showed up as favorites in these categories were well recommended caches that everyone came to a consensus on as being "good".

 

This is what that page looked like:

<SNIP>

In my opinion, your example shows why ratings won't work, since you needed five different ratings categories to make them useful.

[+CheshireFrog]

I think the horse is DEAD. But some folks just want to keep wacking it.

LOL

 

By the way some folks like the hunt and thus a micro gives them a real pleasure as you don't see where the cache is from 50feet away. So like anything geocaching is many things to many people. So if you don't like micros don't do micros.

 

Cheers

 

You sound like you might be interested in the coin I'm having made.

 

[+Renegade Knight]

Hmm...

 

Another thread about micros. Weren't we told in that last thread there isn't a problem with micros? Aren't we being told in this thread there isn't a problem with micros? Haven't we been told in just about every single thread in recent history complaining about micros there isn't a problem with micros?

 

Yet, here we are again. Yet, again here we are with the exact same mantra.

 

At least I'm glad more folks are recognizing it's not micros, per se, that we're actually complaining about, but lame caches.

 

However, the issue and the question stands, why are micros getting such a bad rap and what can we do about it? Do we continue to bury our heads in the sand and loudly proclaim "there is no problem," or do we attempt to figure out a solution?

 

That's a very good post from an angle that can't be answered with the normal "shut up and don't seek them" angle. Now I'm going to have to do some thinking.

[+CheshireFrog]

I agree with others in thinking that the largest container that an area can support should usually be placed. Micros certainly have their place and we have enjoyed a bunch of em but i think that most everyone would agree that when you compare micro vs regular placement, that there are many more micros that are oftened just thrown out there with hardly any thought put into them.

 

I really can't agree with that.

 

How many times have you been in the woods, found a decent cache, and then found another EXACTLY 528' further down the trail, under a conspicuous pile of rocks easily visible from 50 yards? On closer inspection you find a Cool Whip tub with 3 quarter machine bendy figures, a Teeny Beanie Baby and two Finding Nemo McToys. Everything is soaked, the Beanie Babies have started to mold, and there's no pencil in there. The only thought that went into this hide was making sure to observe the .1 mile rule. If you've never seen this, I can provide you with a bookmark list.

 

Also, how come the "biggest container the terrain will support" rule is only ever invoked against micros? If I'm out on the trail and find a medium Lock & Lock, should I write the owner and ask why he didn't place an ammo can? Or if I find a 5.56 ammo can in a location where a .50 cal would fit, is this grounds to challenge the owner to remove his cache?

[+Team Cotati]

No, but non-stop talking about micros will kill the forum.

 

Dude!! You couldn't kill this place with a hydrogen bomb.

[+TrailGators]

Hmm...

 

Another thread about micros. Weren't we told in that last thread there isn't a problem with micros? Aren't we being told in this thread there isn't a problem with micros? Haven't we been told in just about every single thread in recent history complaining about micros there isn't a problem with micros?

 

Yet, here we are again. Yet, again here we are with the exact same mantra.

 

At least I'm glad more folks are recognizing it's not micros, per se, that we're actually complaining about, but lame caches.

 

However, the issue and the question stands, why are micros getting such a bad rap and what can we do about it? Do we continue to bury our heads in the sand and loudly proclaim "there is no problem," or do we attempt to figure out a solution?

 

That's a very good post from an angle that can't be answered with the normal "shut up and don't seek them" angle. Now I'm going to have to do some thinking.

OK here's a possible "solution!"

This is just an idea......but what if we had a Gong button for caches!

It could be kind of like the old Gong Show!

So if you found a lame cache you could simply "GONG" it by clicking on a Gong button on the cache page! Then if a cache got 5 GONGS from 5 different "finders" then it gets an official "GONG" attribute! Then you could set your PQs to not download any GONGed caches!

Edited June 29, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Jhwk]

Hmm...

 

Another thread about micros. Weren't we told in that last thread there isn't a problem with micros? Aren't we being told in this thread there isn't a problem with micros? Haven't we been told in just about every single thread in recent history complaining about micros there isn't a problem with micros?

 

Yet, here we are again. Yet, again here we are with the exact same mantra.

 

At least I'm glad more folks are recognizing it's not micros, per se, that we're actually complaining about, but lame caches.

 

However, the issue and the question stands, why are micros getting such a bad rap and what can we do about it? Do we continue to bury our heads in the sand and loudly proclaim "there is no problem," or do we attempt to figure out a solution?

 

That's a very good post from an angle that can't be answered with the normal "shut up and don't seek them" angle. Now I'm going to have to do some thinking.

OK here's a possible "solution!"

This is just an idea......but what if we had a Gong button for caches!

It could be kind of like the old Gong Show!

So if you found a lame cache you could simply "GONG" it by clicking on a Gong button on the cache page! Then if a cache got 5 GONGS from 5 different "finders" then it gets an official "GONG" attribute! Then you could set your PQs to not download any GONGed caches!

SO if me and my geocaching peeps really hated on someone, we could kill all of their caches, no prob.

 

great idea.

[+bobbyfrass]

I may like the Gong idea. It has some problems, but I might like where it's going. Can you "un-gong" the cache if the owner makes it so that it isn't so lame anymore?

[+TrailGators]

I may like the Gong idea. It has some problems, but I might like where it's going. Can you "un-gong" the cache if the owner makes it so that it isn't so lame anymore?

If it gets "GONG"ed I'm hoping they would archive it and release a better cache!

[+TrailGators]

I also think GC would have to limit the number of GONGs that each cacher would get so the system would not be abused by some! Maybe you would only be allowed to GONG like 3 caches per month or something like that.

[+bobbyfrass]

Use your GONG wisely, grasshopper!

[+RussellM]

Micro's have a specific purpose, they are used when a traditional cache would be muggled, wouldn't fit, etc. I have found some interesting micros and can see the point. That being said, I don't think that they should be used where a traditional cache is would work. I don't think they will ruin the sport however. If you don't like them, don't find them.

[+Miragee]

I like the GONG idea!

 

I can think of several I would give the GONG attribute to right now!

[+bobbyfrass]

(whispering) If you hide it, they will come.

[+TrailGators]

I created a new topic for discussing the GONG idea here since it is off-topic for this thread!

[+Mudfrog]

I agree with others in thinking that the largest container that an area can support should usually be placed. Micros certainly have their place and we have enjoyed a bunch of em but i think that most everyone would agree that when you compare micro vs regular placement, that there are many more micros that are oftened just thrown out there with hardly any thought put into them.

 

I really can't agree with that.

 

How many times have you been in the woods, found a decent cache, and then found another EXACTLY 528' further down the trail, under a conspicuous pile of rocks easily visible from 50 yards? On closer inspection you find a Cool Whip tub with 3 quarter machine bendy figures, a Teeny Beanie Baby and two Finding Nemo McToys. Everything is soaked, the Beanie Babies have started to mold, and there's no pencil in there. The only thought that went into this hide was making sure to observe the .1 mile rule. If you've never seen this, I can provide you with a bookmark list.

 

Also, how come the "biggest container the terrain will support" rule is only ever invoked against micros? If I'm out on the trail and find a medium Lock & Lock, should I write the owner and ask why he didn't place an ammo can? Or if I find a 5.56 ammo can in a location where a .50 cal would fit, is this grounds to challenge the owner to remove his cache?

 

You do bring up a point. Largest isn't a good choice of wording, as trying to do it can't possibly work in the first place. I should have said that in my opinion, it's "usually" better to use a larger container when possible. Of course there are times when a micro is better suited no matter what the location, such as, if the cache has a theme or something like that. My reasons for placing a larger container that an area can support were given in my reply above what you quoted. Two of those being, my preference for an easier to use logsheet and that i like the possiblity of finding more in a cache than just a logscroll. Again, this is my preference and im not speaking for everyone else.

 

Microcaches aren't the enemy! But i do think it's their nature (mainly low or no cost) that tends to get more of them put out more lamely than other types of caches. To throw out a micro just because you can doesn't make for a good reason to do so.

 

As far as the cool whip bowls go,,, those, along with gladware, other cheap plasticware, coffee cans, wooden boxes, etc,,, just aren't suitable for caching in most areas. They very rarely keep out moisture and make for a cache that isn't going to hold up. This too takes fun out of the cache finding experience!

[+bobbyfrass]

As far as the cool whip bowls go,,, those, along with gladware, other cheap plasticware, coffee cans, wooden boxes, etc,,, just aren't suitable for caching in most areas. They very rarely keep out moisture and make for a cache that isn't going to hold up. This too takes fun out of the cache finding experience!

 

Let's face it, dumpsters make the best cache containers. They are larger than any old ammo can and can hold all kinds of swag (which muggles will add to, of course). This will please almost everybody--it's large enough for those who hate micros, and urban enough for those who like PNG's. Most of them are fairly waterproof. They are sturdy. And they can't easily be moved or stolen.

 

I think I'm on to somethin'....

[+CheshireFrog]

It's a little known fact that the 1948 Roswell aliens did not look like the skinny, large eyed aliens so popular on TV. They actually had black cylindrical bodies, about 2" long, and had flat, gray heads. Due to their unique physical characteristics they can only mate in bushes outside of Burger Kings, and thus Earth is the only planet outside their own that can support life as they know it. This is what led them to Earth in the first place.

 

For years everything was fine, but in 2004 they were subjected to bizarre new behavior on the part of their human hosts. Since around mid-2004, every time a human discovers one of these aliens they rip their head off and scrawl words on their entrails. This has led the aliens to declare an all out war on humans. they have developed a doomsday weapon on their homeworld and are now awaiting deliverey of it.

 

So you see, Micros will kill our sport, but only as a side effect of killing every single human.

[+TrailGators]

As far as the cool whip bowls go,,, those, along with gladware, other cheap plasticware, coffee cans, wooden boxes, etc,,, just aren't suitable for caching in most areas. They very rarely keep out moisture and make for a cache that isn't going to hold up. This too takes fun out of the cache finding experience!

 

Let's face it, dumpsters make the best cache containers. They are larger than any old ammo can and can hold all kinds of swag (which muggles will add to, of course). This will please almost everybody--it's large enough for those who hate micros, and urban enough for those who like PNG's. Most of them are fairly waterproof. They are sturdy. And they can't easily be moved or stolen.

 

I think I'm on to somethin'....

Plus they get maintained once a week!

[CoyoteRed]

The argument about larger caches having nothing but junk in them reminds me of an old put down. Someone calls you fat, you respond with "I may be fat, but you're ugly. I can lose weight, but you'd still be ugly."

 

Larger caches with junk can fairly easily be upgraded to a cache with no junk and by a finder to boot! A typical micro has no such option.

 

Granted, there's not much of an option with a leaky container other than replace the container and add new swag, but at least the next finder will have something to find better than you did.

[+bobbyfrass]

Well, I'm fat and ugly. I don't know how that's relevant though.

[+baloo&bd]

A typical micro has no such option.

 

Nor is such an option ever needed.

[+MountainMudbug]

I placed a micro/small in a high tourist area some time ago. Cachers were determined to leave travel bugs and trades at the cache, and every time I visited for maintenance the container was buried within several gallon size ziplocs with lots of trades. I took all the excess stuff away but it kept happening. Eventually someone took the container and it was just a mass of ziplocks. So I took the hint and converted the cache to a regular. I didn't want a regular cache there at the time, but I got over it because that's what the caching community wanted.

 

(More recently it was suggested I make the same now-regular cache a micro because a couple travel bugs went missing (that never happens, right?) so you can't please anybody, apparently)

[+Harry Dolphin]

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.

 

Forget GPS the Movie, I want GPS the Game (playable over X-Box Live of course).

 

Änglamarken

Best I can do.

[+Clan X-Man]

Does anyone else feel a certain sense of Deja Vu? I swear this is like an ice pick to the brain.

 

X