Will Micro"s Kill Our Sport

June 30, 2006

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

But do you leak ??

June 30, 2006

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

But do you leak ??

Actually.... .

As an aside, I just got back from my 100th cache hunt! Hurrah! It only took me a little under two years. :unsure:

June 30, 2006

Keep some woodworking and BBQ ttols in there for some of us older kids and a six pack for the NRA guys.

Your stereotype is showing.

June 30, 2006

New to geocaching. Let me pose this question. Why haven't micros been banned yet. They seem like a total waste of time. Uh, I am new and don't understand the purpose. thanks for listening. Look forward to starting the game soon New GPS and I'm page 5 of 105

June 30, 2006

Why does my post say Ringbone

8k · June 30, 2006

A typical micro has no such option.

Nor is such an option ever needed.

I never saw the following topic in the forum: Why does the swag in log only micros degrade? :unsure:

5.6k · June 30, 2006

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.

I have to disagree with the above "rule" (who wrote it anyways?). I think it's too subjective to be making a "rule" about. From what I've seen, it's just as common for 'bad' regular caches to be placed as 'bad' micros (of course, this depends on your definition of 'bad' ...). I think so many people have said this (in one way or another) that some are starting to think it's true without seeing for themselves: "Everyone knows that micros tend to be bad". That may be why we so many "micros are bad" threads.

7.2k · June 30, 2006

As a rule a majority of micros do tend to be bad and a majority of larger caches tend to be good.

I have to disagree with the above "rule" (who wrote it anyways?). I think it's too subjective to be making a "rule" about. From what I've seen, it's just as common for 'bad' regular caches to be placed as 'bad' micros (of course, this depends on your definition of 'bad' ...). I think so many people have said this (in one way or another) that some are starting to think it's true without seeing for themselves: "Everyone knows that micros tend to be bad". That may be why we so many "micros are bad" threads.

...and folks are claiming have eliminated micros from their general hunt scheme and seen an overall increase in the quality of the caches they're finding. I've been emailed privately and there are posts here that claim this. One of whom I know even owns at least one micro.

The "there's no problem" crowd and the "don't like'em, then don't hunt'em" crowd are going to push the issue to the point where more and more folks are going to just give up on micros in general. If they miss out on the great micros then what they don't know won't hurt them.

Of course, if it gets to the point where a goodly portion of folks are simply boycotting micros, then that might not be a bad thing. Hiders who have an easy choice of a micro or something larger, and want the cache found, might start to tend toward larger-than-a-micro simply to get it in front of more folks to hunt it.

Conversely, those hides that have to be a micro will have a smaller audience. They will have to hope the word gets around their cache is worthy of the boycotters' attention.

It would seem to me those who hide quality micros would want a movement to make sure as many hides are worthy of folks attention as possible. It would seem as though they wouldn't want their hides lumped in with the bad ones.

But, the "there's no problem" crowd and the "don't like'em, then don't hunt'em" crowd would probably say to the boycotter's, "your loss."

The retort to that is, "not really. It's the loss of the hiders of quality micros."

Edited June 30, 2006 by CoyoteRed

June 30, 2006

Maybe this was said before...probably this was said before...

1. People who hate them - filter them out and stop whining about it.

2. People who can take them or leave them - take them or leave them.

3. People who love them - put out really good ones in really interesting places...up the ante and make them unbelievably clever.

Of course point #3 could be aplied to all caches.

June 30, 2006

I'm one of the folks that has changed my PQ's to not show me micros.

I have hunted a few and yes, 50% or more were lame.

To me there's more to the equation. I started this hobby so I would have a reason to get my 55 year old body off from in front of this computer and out of the shop and back on the hiking trails. I saw a television show in December about geocaching and it was filmed in the Adirondack state park which peaked my interest. If the same program would have shown people hunting lamp post skirts or guard rail micros, I wouldn't be doing it now.

When I hid my first cache the main factor in it's placement was "How would this look on a TV program and would it entice others to play the game."

I know, there are some that love to drive from parking lot to parking lot and collect the smilies. There are others that wouldn't do a 1 mile hike in a deeply wooded area for any sport. There are others, like me, that value their time spent on this and now avoid the micro madness. I'm glad there are choices for everyone.

I made mine, and I'm sticking to it no matter how many threads like this appear on the forums.

20.7k · June 30, 2006

...and folks are claiming have eliminated micros from their general hunt scheme and seen an overall increase in the quality of the caches they're finding. I've been emailed privately and there are posts here that claim this. One of whom I know even owns at least one micro.

So from a finder's standpoint, you've solved the problem. Eliminate micros from your searches and you will enjoy yourself more and (hopefully) stop your bellyaching. IF you find all the non-micros in your area perhaps you will find the time to search through and cull out the micros that you know that you will not like and find the better ones.

(I think its funny that you hid the (Lots of people agree with me argument in your post.)

The "there's no problem" crowd and the "don't like'em, then don't hunt'em" crowd are going to push the issue to the point where more and more folks are going to just give up on micros in general. If they miss out on the great micros then what they don't know won't hurt them.

If they are enjoying themselves and they still have caches to hunt, where's the problem. Once they are done with the caches that they know they are more likely to enjoy (non-micros, by your point of view), they can always review the remaining micros and weed out those that they know they won't like.

Of course, if it gets to the point where a goodly portion of folks are simply boycotting micros, then that might not be a bad thing. Hiders who have an easy choice of a micro or something larger, and want the cache found, might start to tend toward larger-than-a-micro simply to get it in front of more folks to hunt it.

It would appear that the 'problem' is self-correcting.

Conversely, those hides that have to be a micro will have a smaller audience. They will have to hope the word gets around their cache is worthy of the boycotters' attention.

It would seem to me those who hide quality micros would want a movement to make sure as many hides are worthy of folks attention as possible. It would seem as though they wouldn't want their hides lumped in with the bad ones.

...and yet owners of quality non-micro caches generally aren't up-in-arms about lame non-micros.

This entire argument reminds me of another kind of 'movement'. :unsure:

But, the "there's no problem" crowd and the "don't like'em, then don't hunt'em" crowd would probably say to the boycotter's, "your loss."

The retort to that is, "not really. It's the loss of the hiders of quality micros."

Actually, if you look closer at my posts, you will find that our position tends to be that one should sort better if they are that upset when they find themselves not enjoying the game. If that means that some people find all the non-micros before they start on the micros, what's the harm? Edited June 30, 2006 by sbell111

June 30, 2006

As a rule a majority of micros do tend to be bad and a majority of larger caches tend to be good.

I have to disagree with the above "rule" (who wrote it anyways?). I think it's too subjective to be making a "rule" about. From what I've seen, it's just as common for 'bad' regular caches to be placed as 'bad' micros (of course, this depends on your definition of 'bad' ...). I think so many people have said this (in one way or another) that some are starting to think it's true without seeing for themselves: "Everyone knows that micros tend to be bad". That may be why we so many "micros are bad" threads.

...and folks are claiming have eliminated micros from their general hunt scheme and seen an overall increase in the quality of the caches they're finding.

That is the MOST ridiculous argument I think I've ever heard. The REASON they eliminated micros from their "general hunt scheme" is because they DON'T LIKE THEM. Of COURSE the quality of caches they find will increase (in THEIR subjective opinion).

If I hated, for instance, seafood, and I eliminated seafood restaurants from my "general dining scheme", then I would perceive the quality of restaurants I patronize to increase. That doesn't mean that seafood is bad for everyone, just the person that doesn't like it.

June 30, 2006

Of course, if it gets to the point where a goodly portion of folks are simply boycotting micros, then that might not be a bad thing. Hiders who have an easy choice of a micro or something larger, and want the cache found, might start to tend toward larger-than-a-micro simply to get it in front of more folks to hunt it.

When it gets to that point, you make sure you let us all know. At that point I will concede that you may have a point. For now, though, in the REAL world (as opposed to CoyoteRed fantasyland), I still see plenty of people hunting and finding plenty of micros all over the place. *yawn*

Edited June 30, 2006 by ParrotRob

7.2k · June 30, 2006

If that means that some people find all the non-micros before they start on the micros, what's the harm?

All that and you still missed the point.

I'd bet few will return to hunt the micros they skipped over before. Many times folks go through an area and will never return. Too bad they're going to miss out on some cool hides.

As for being self correcting, well, sort of. It will get worse before what I'm talking about kicks in--both here and in the wild. It won't be self correcting until there is pretty much a wholesale ignoring of micros. It won't self correct until you start seeing thread titles like "Folks won't hunt my micros! Wahhh!!!" Then the issue would become even more polarized than it is today.

7.2k · June 30, 2006

That is the MOST ridiculous argument I think I've ever heard. The REASON they eliminated micros from their "general hunt scheme" is because they DON'T LIKE THEM. Of COURSE the quality of caches they find will increase (in THEIR subjective opinion).

Wow! Started posting before you even finished the paragraph.

...and folks are claiming have eliminated micros from their general hunt scheme and seen an overall increase in the quality of the caches they're finding. I've been emailed privately and there are posts here that claim this. One of whom I know even owns at least one micro.

If they didn't like then they wouldn't have hidden them, dontcha think?

It's quite unfortunate that folks equal "micro" with "lame," but it's still their opinion.

None of the nay-sayers are addressing why this is so. Why?

June 30, 2006

Some things never change

8k · June 30, 2006

As for being self correcting, well, sort of. It will get worse before what I'm talking about kicks in--both here and in the wild. It won't be self correcting until there is pretty much a wholesale ignoring of micros. It won't self correct until you start seeing thread titles like "Folks won't hunt my micros! Wahhh!!!" Then the issue would become even more polarized than it is today.

Wahhh! Folks won't hunt my caches that require hiking up and down hills for 2 miles or more (each way).

Wahhh! Folks won't hunt my puzzle caches. Even the one where you just have to go get some information off of 4 signs to get the final coordinates (OK it is a bit daunting as the information you need to get is written in Chinese characters and the instructions for computing the final coordinates - which I think are perfectly clear - seem to give some people trouble).

Wahhh! Folks will walk right past that big ammo can I hid to look for a micro hidden in a bush in canyon with bad GPS reception. (Because they are ignoring puzzle caches so they may not even know the ammo can is there).

14.3k · June 30, 2006

None of the nay-sayers are addressing why this is so. Why?

I think for every opinion there is an opposite opinion and it seems like these threads attract mainly the opposite opinions. But I will break that pattern by saying that I agree with you! I think that micros can be very fun to find! I have never been stumped trying to figure out where an ammo box was hidden. Finding those for me is kind of anti-climatic because they are so easy to find. Furthermore, I am not interested in the swag and I would estimate that about half of the people I cache with are not interested in the swag either. :mad:

3.2k · June 30, 2006

The "there's no problem" crowd and the "don't like'em, then don't hunt'em" crowd are going to push the issue to the point where more and more folks are going to just give up on micros in general. If they miss out on the great micros then what they don't know won't hurt them.

I think you're confusing two separate issues here.

Count me as a proud member of the "there's no problem" crowd and the "don't like'em, then don't hunt'em" crowd. Speaking as a member, I strongly recommend that anyone who specifically dislikes micros just because they are micros should simply avoid them. (Note that nothing in that statement demands that anyone should "play the game my way;" it is merely a suggestion.)

On the other hand, if anyone misses out on a 'great micro' as a result of filtering out all micros, then who's fault is that? For that matter, if anyone misses out on a great cache as a result of a blanket filtering-out of any specific search criteria ... then who's fault is that?

I therefore must disagree with your conclusion. I'm also a proud member of the "if you don't read the cache page, any resulting problems are your own [dadgum] fault" crowd. If anyone misses out on a great cache because of their own failure to do their homework, how can they think it's valid to turn around and blame a Helpful Suggestion From The Forums for their mistake?

Of course, if it gets to the point where a goodly portion of folks are simply boycotting micros, then that might not be a bad thing. Hiders who have an easy choice of a micro or something larger, and want the cache found, might start to tend toward larger-than-a-micro simply to get it in front of more folks to hunt it.

Conversely, those hides that have to be a micro will have a smaller audience. They will have to hope the word gets around their cache is worthy of the boycotters' attention.

It would seem to me those who hide quality micros would want a movement to make sure as many hides are worthy of folks attention as possible. It would seem as though they wouldn't want their hides lumped in with the bad ones.

But, the "there's no problem" crowd and the "don't like'em, then don't hunt'em" crowd would probably say to the boycotter's, "your loss."

The retort to that is, "not really. It's the loss of the hiders of quality micros."

Now I must disagree with your premise. You're confusing a hobby with a business.

There's a huge difference between the Hider/Finder relationship found in Geocaching and the Provider/Customer relationship found in the business world. A low volume of Finder traffic at a given geocache is rarely a problem and generally has little to do with the quality or value of the hide. A low volume of Customer traffic at a given Business, on the other hand, is almost always a very serious problem.

You mentioned hiders who want their cache found. If it is a hider's primary goal is to see a particularly high volume of finders, then of course they will be interested in listening to popular opinion. I think it is a mistake, however, to assume such hiders are in the majority. My personal experience as a hider, coupled with my observations of the behaviors of other hiders, leaves me convinced that attracting high finder volume is a relatively low priority for most hides. I hide caches because I think they might be fun, not because I think they will be busy.

Any boycott against any given cache or a group of caches will only be as relevant as the hider allows it to be. I myself own a couple of caches which see very little traffic. The low number of finders is not a problem for me; in fact I expected as much. Those hides were intentionally designed to be either difficult or obscure.

If any of my hides were to somehow get "lumped in with the bad ones," then again, that's the failure of the 'lumper,' not the fault of the 'lumpee.'

8k · June 30, 2006

None of the nay-sayers are addressing why this is so. Why?

Yesterday, I indicated my agreement with CR that some people have a perception that micros = lame and that the geocaching community should be discussing the reasons for this and what can be done. I don't really think we are on the brink of bannishing micros to tinycaching.com or that the sport will die because people who like to hike have to drive by so many parking lot hides. These threads are started by a vocal minority who either don't understand how to filter to find the caches they would have a better chance of enjoying or who think that everybody should like the same type of caches that they like. Or perhaps they are of the opinion that there should be as many hiking caches as there are parking lot micros so that numbers competition would be fair :mad:

I don't see any problem that where I am in the Los Angeles area there are a couple of hundred 3+ terrain caches half of which I've found, while there are several thousand 1 or 2 terrain caches - many of which are parking lot or guardrail micros. There are probably more people who enjoy finding these than who want to go hiking. I can occasionally find someone who wants to go hiking with me on a trail with one or two caches. I see others go out every week and find 50 to 100 caches just by driving around different areas. Does it bother me that someone who began caching just over a year ago now has more caches than I have found in 3 1/2 years? Maybe - but I know that is it just because he enjoys finding parking lot and guardrail caches a lot more than I do - and he doesn't have a real job

So what do I agree with CR about? As he says there are people who now ignore micros because they have found that the majority are, in their opinion, lame. These people generally have found micros that are, in their opinion, good as well. There needs to be a way for them to sort the lame from the good. This is just as true for the people who find that some regulars are just not worth doing. A rating system that doesn't recognize that different people like different things won't cut it. Something along the lines of a collaborative filter - people who liked this cache also liked ... - seems to be a workable approach. You may want to use this to filter out caches as well as to select cache. For instance - people who like parking lot/guardrail caches will like other parking lot/guardrail caches. The trouble here is that you may have a really bad parking lot/guardrail cache that even the parking lot/guardrail cachers don't like. Let's discuss how to make a filtering system that would work - that would go a long way to stopping these "micros are bad" threads.

June 30, 2006

Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way. The big reward for geocachers, other than finding the cache itself, is the location. A prime camping spot, great viewpoint, unusual location, etc. are all good places to hide a cache.

The above quote is taken from the GC site Here

Every lame cache I've found micro or larger did not fit this criteria. The fact that the majority of them were micros and required little or no hiking was enough to filter them. There are also some hiders in this area that place full size lame caches and GSAK filters them out with a single click.

Ya, I may miss some fun ones but I'll miss way more lame ones and I don't have time for lame.

7.2k · June 30, 2006

Let's discuss how to make a filtering system that would work - that would go a long way to stopping these "micros are bad" threads.

Very good idea. :mad:

June 30, 2006

i don't mind them, because there are times when i don't have enough time to walk through the woods to find a cache. and it is better to be caching a micro, than not caching at all. Also, i cache for the find, not for what's hidden inside it.

20.7k · June 30, 2006

Yesterday, I indicated my agreement with CR that some people have a perception that micros = lame and that the geocaching community should be discussing the reasons for this and what can be done. I don't really think we are on the brink of bannishing micros to tinycaching.com or that the sport will die because people who like to hike have to drive by so many parking lot hides. These threads are started by a vocal minority who either don't understand how to filter to find the caches they would have a better chance of enjoying ...

Let's discuss how to make a filtering system that would work - that would go a long way to stopping these "micros are bad" threads.

I think that, for the most part, the tools are there. They merely take a little more work. For instance let's assume that Briansnat hates caches with a high muggle factor. He is likely to choose caches with a higher terrain rating and eliminate all micros in certain parts of his area.

If a cacher dislikes light pole micros, he should avoid 1/1 micros near shopping areas.

I still believe that you should start out looking just for caches that you know that you will like in your area. Once you find all of those, take a closer look at the remaining caches. Sort out those that you have a pretty good idea that you won't like and take a close look at the remainder. Keep yourself happy.

June 30, 2006

None of the nay-sayers are addressing why this is so. Why?

Yesterday, I indicated my agreement with CR that some people have a perception that micros = lame and that the geocaching community should be discussing the reasons for this and what can be done. I don't really think we are on the brink of bannishing micros to tinycaching.com or that the sport will die because people who like to hike have to drive by so many parking lot hides. These threads are started by a vocal minority who either don't understand how to filter to find the caches they would have a better chance of enjoying or who think that everybody should like the same type of caches that they like. Or perhaps they are of the opinion that there should be as many hiking caches as there are parking lot micros so that numbers competition would be fair

I don't see any problem that where I am in the Los Angeles area there are a couple of hundred 3+ terrain caches half of which I've found, while there are several thousand 1 or 2 terrain caches - many of which are parking lot or guardrail micros. There are probably more people who enjoy finding these than who want to go hiking. I can occasionally find someone who wants to go hiking with me on a trail with one or two caches. I see others go out every week and find 50 to 100 caches just by driving around different areas. Does it bother me that someone who began caching just over a year ago now has more caches than I have found in 3 1/2 years? Maybe - but I know that is it just because he enjoys finding parking lot and guardrail caches a lot more than I do - and he doesn't have a real job

So what do I agree with CR about? As he says there are people who now ignore micros because they have found that the majority are, in their opinion, lame. These people generally have found micros that are, in their opinion, good as well. There needs to be a way for them to sort the lame from the good. This is just as true for the people who find that some regulars are just not worth doing. A rating system that doesn't recognize that different people like different things won't cut it. Something along the lines of a collaborative filter - people who liked this cache also liked ... - seems to be a workable approach. You may want to use this to filter out caches as well as to select cache. For instance - people who like parking lot/guardrail caches will like other parking lot/guardrail caches. The trouble here is that you may have a really bad parking lot/guardrail cache that even the parking lot/guardrail cachers don't like. Let's discuss how to make a filtering system that would work - that would go a long way to stopping these "micros are bad" threads.

Very well put. It is an idea I could support.

July 1, 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.

Some caching sites already have a rating system. And while not perfect, it seems to do it's job. Micros over there tend to have redeeming qualities. If not they get voted poorly, which hurts the hider's stats and encourages the hider to archive them.

Micros aren't killing the sport. Lame micros are killing gc.com.

Edited July 1, 2006 by headybrew

July 1, 2006

He he! :unsure:

I don't actually feel this way... I'd make a "no lameness" gif instead if there were a good icon for it...

But I thought some of you might enjoy this silly icon I made.

July 1, 2006

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

X

Then stop reading it. Duh!

1.5k · July 1, 2006

No but 5 million topics about micros will kill it

July 1, 2006

The only thing I don't understand about micro owners is why they hide micros in some spots that you can safely hide an aircraft carrier. In cases such as those, they should be banned from logging their finds for two weeks....

38.2k · July 1, 2006

i don't mind them, because there are times when i don't have enough time to walk through the woods to find a cache. and it is better to be caching a micro, than not caching at all. Also, i cache for the find, not for what's hidden inside it.

We may not have time to do a two mile walk in the woods, but what is wrong with putting them in areas that many might find interesting? Is there a law that says they have to be placed in areas that most people find to be mundane or unappealing? It certainly seems that way. I've seen micros in shopping mall lots where there was a scenic park a few hundred feet away that would have been just as easy to get to.

I've been eyeing a somewhat interesting site for a cache for a while. Its the oldest and largest tree of its type in the US. Granted it might not be of interest to everyone, but its a step up the interesting ladder from the nearby mall parking lot that now has a micro that is blocking my placement near the tree.

What the "If you don't like 'em, don't do 'em" crowd doesn't take into consideration is that in many areas micros are crowding out regular caches. I know reviewers who say they are publishing 80-90 percent micros in some areas and I've seen people put out 30 or more of them in a day. Now how much thought is really going into those caches? Not to mention the areas that may be of interest to many cachers that are being blocked by them.

Its not micros per se that are the issue for many of us, its caches placed with no thought. Generally speaking, the person who takes the time to put some thought into choosing a quality container and contents, is more likely to put some thought into the hiding spot, while the person who tears a strip of paper from a notebook (they are often too lazy to use scissors) and stuffs it into a film canister isn't going to put much thought into where it goes.

Edited July 1, 2006 by briansnat

July 1, 2006

Right on briansnat, that is exactly the situations I have run into.

I may be new to all of this but contrary to what some people here think, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell a lame hide from one of interest.

I have run into parks that were 600' to 1000' long and they would have 2 micros hidden, one on each end of the park. I have also been in parks where there are caches of all types placed 528+' apart and maybe 2 out of 10 would be placed in an area of interest.

It's not just micros but they seem to be the worst of the lot when it comes to location.

July 1, 2006

The only thing I don't understand about micro owners is why they hide micros in some spots that you can safely hide an aircraft carrier. In cases such as those, they should be banned from logging their finds for two weeks....

I know choice is probably a foreign concept to you, but perhaps the hider hid a micro instead of an aircraft carrier because they WANTED TO.

July 1, 2006

What the "If you don't like 'em, don't do 'em" crowd doesn't take into consideration is that in many areas micros are crowding out regular caches. I know reviewers who say they are publishing 80-90 percent micros in some areas and I've seen people put out 30 or more of them in a day. Now how much thought is really going into those caches? Not to mention the areas that may be of interest to many cachers that are being blocked by them.

Can you give an example of an area where micros are "crowding out" larger size caches? The cache saturation rules allow for over 100 caches per square mile. Are you telling me there are places that are SO FULL of micros that it's not possible to put a regular cache anywhere near them? Man, a cache density like that must be a number-hound's dream.

5.7k · July 1, 2006

Whether or not the location is a 'place of interest' is hardly the issue. The increasing number of flat out inappropriate locations most certainly is. While this may not 'kill' the sport, they are doing it severe damage. I think that it would be really wonderful if there were an effective means to get these locations removed from gc.com. :unsure: :blink:

Edited July 1, 2006 by Team Cotati

38.2k · July 1, 2006

What the "If you don't like 'em, don't do 'em" crowd doesn't take into consideration is that in many areas micros are crowding out regular caches. I know reviewers who say they are publishing 80-90 percent micros in some areas and I've seen people put out 30 or more of them in a day. Now how much thought is really going into those caches? Not to mention the areas that may be of interest to many cachers that are being blocked by them.

Can you give an example of an area where micros are "crowding out" larger size caches? The cache saturation rules allow for over 100 caches per square mile. Are you telling me there are places that are SO FULL of micros that it's not possible to put a regular cache anywhere near them? Man, a cache density like that must be a number-hound's dream.

You're assuming that all land in that square mile is suitable for hiding caches.

5.7k · July 1, 2006

What the "If you don't like 'em, don't do 'em" crowd doesn't take into consideration is that in many areas micros are crowding out regular caches. I know reviewers who say they are publishing 80-90 percent micros in some areas and I've seen people put out 30 or more of them in a day. Now how much thought is really going into those caches? Not to mention the areas that may be of interest to many cachers that are being blocked by them.

Can you give an example of an area where micros are "crowding out" larger size caches? The cache saturation rules allow for over 100 caches per square mile. Are you telling me there are places that are SO FULL of micros that it's not possible to put a regular cache anywhere near them? Man, a cache density like that must be a number-hound's dream.

You're assuming that all land in that square mile is suitable for hiding caches.

Hey Rob, is that what you are assuming? :unsure: :blink:

July 1, 2006

I agree with those who say "If you don't like them, don't hunt them", but would like to see the guidelines changed to permit a traditional cache being placed within .1 miles of a micro. I recently found a great location to hide my traditional cache but had to settle for a less suitable location because a micro was already in the area.

Sure, he found the area first, but would mixing different cache types in the same area be a bad idea? Perhaps it would bring more traditional cache folks to the micros and vice-versa.

5.7k · July 1, 2006

I agree with those who say "If you don't like them, don't hunt them", but would like to see the guidelines changed to permit a traditional cache being placed within .1 miles of a micro. I recently found a great location to hide my traditional cache but had to settle for a less suitable location because a micro was already in the area.

Sure, he found the area first, but would mixing different cache types in the same area be a bad idea? Perhaps it would bring more traditional cache folks to the micros and vice-versa.

Excuse me but isn't 0.1 mile the current guideline? :laughing:

July 2, 2006

I for one do not like the fascist idea that the reviewer should limit the micro because yes they may just be a log and a container but they are a cache non the less and are actually a challenge to find, I enjoy regular caches and micros for all the reason of caching, if you disagree...don't hunt micros!

July 2, 2006

One thing that would make this problem go away pretty quickly is if the reviewers would just enforce the rules about getting permission for private property hides. I think it's pretty clear that 99.9%-ish of all micros are NOT placed with permission in parking lots and such. Why not ask the hider for a phone number of the business and give them a call to ask if permission was granted?

This wouldn't get rid of micros. It would only limit quick hides with little thought put into them.

38.2k · July 2, 2006

I for one do not like the fascist idea that the reviewer should limit the micro because yes they may just be a log and a container but they are a cache non the less and are actually a challenge to find, I enjoy regular caches and micros for all the reason of caching, if you disagree...don't hunt micros!

That's a fascist idea? Geez, I never even knew that facists were concerned with geocaching, let alone micros. I'm going to have to re-read my history books.

7.2k · July 2, 2006

There is something I should point out about the comments of micros being challenging. The difficulty rating of the cache is a better indicator of how challenging a cache is, not size. Many micros are trivial to find otherwise they wouldn't be the fodder of cache runs.

On the other hand, there are some good-sized regulars that are a bear to find. Sissy put out one that gives folks fits. It's on the larger end of "regular."

Here's a quote from a DNF on it:

It was in fact a good hide ... you had folks with over 9000 collective caches not find this one today!

We've had folks insist on it has to be a micro because they've looked everywhere you can hide a larger cache.

Here are some more comments from the finders:

Evil, evil, evil. You are a truly evil person Sissy.
I check the thing I had looked at a hundred times (but never actually touched) and voila!!
OK, OK. Head slapping time. Awesome cache!
Very impressive hide!!!!!
Great, outstanding, excellent, superb, etc Hide. ... It was frustrating but a lot of fun.
This was my toughest cache yet, but it was well worth it for me.
Bravo. I cracked the code easily enough, but on this beautiful day I had to visit the final location three times within a 30 minute period due to all the muggles. I was always in the right place, I just wasn't thinking that the hide would be as devious as it was.
...both naughty and nice!
Hail, Hail! You are truly Geo-gods! This was an awesome hide.

Not bad for a large-ish regular considering on some of the phone calls I've asked where they were standing and they were standing within inches of it.

I'd think this is proof positive that difficult urban caches don't have to be micros. Nearby are two easier regulars, one a 1/1 and wheel chair accessible, and both in urban park settings.

Edited July 2, 2006 by CoyoteRed

July 2, 2006

I for one do not like the fascist idea that the reviewer should limit the micro because yes they may just be a log and a container but they are a cache non the less and are actually a challenge to find, I enjoy regular caches and micros for all the reason of caching, if you disagree...don't hunt micros!

That's a fascist idea? Geez, I never even knew that facists were concerned with geocaching, let alone micros. I'm going to have to re-read my history books.

Try reading a dictionary, too, while you're at it. I'm pretty sure he's talking about #2 below, and not Mussolini.

fas·cism (fshzm)

n.

1. often Fascism

a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

38.2k · July 2, 2006

I for one do not like the fascist idea that the reviewer should limit the micro because yes they may just be a log and a container but they are a cache non the less and are actually a challenge to find, I enjoy regular caches and micros for all the reason of caching, if you disagree...don't hunt micros!

That's a fascist idea? Geez, I never even knew that facists were concerned with geocaching, let alone micros. I'm going to have to re-read my history books.

Try reading a dictionary, too, while you're at it. I'm pretty sure he's talking about #2 below, and not Mussolini.

fas·cism (fshzm)

n.

1. often Fascism

a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

I'm quite familiar with the various definitions of Fascism, thank you. How does #2 apply? I'm not aware of anybody exerting any sort of dictatorial control regarding micros. If I missed something, kindly point it out to me. What I see are a good number of people who feel that the proliferation of what they feel are lame caches is bad for the sport. These people are using this forum to express that opinion. It's called a a free exchange of ideas. Some people however are unable to accept the free exchange of ideas and instead resort to calling anyone who disagrees with them fascists. At least the Nazi reference has yet to enter the argument, but that's usually just a matter of time.

Edited July 2, 2006 by briansnat

38.2k · July 2, 2006

There is something I should point out about the comments of micros being challenging. The difficulty rating of the cache is a better indicator of how challenging a cache is, not size. Many micros are trivial to find otherwise they wouldn't be the fodder of cache runs.

On the other hand, there are some good-sized regulars that are a bear to find. Sissy put out one that gives folks fits. It's on the larger end of "regular."

Here's a quote from a DNF on it:

It was in fact a good hide ... you had folks with over 9000 collective caches not find this one today!

We've had folks insist on it has to be a micro because they've looked everywhere you can hide a larger cache.

Here are some more comments from the finders:

Evil, evil, evil. You are a truly evil person Sissy.

I check the thing I had looked at a hundred times (but never actually touched) and voila!!

OK, OK. Head slapping time. Awesome cache!
l

Very impressive hide!!!!!

Great, outstanding, excellent, superb, etc Hide. ... It was frustrating but a lot of fun.

This was my toughest cache yet, but it was well worth it for me.

Bravo. I cracked the code easily enough, but on this beautiful day I had to visit the final location three times within a 30 minute period due to all the muggles. I was always in the right place, I just wasn't thinking that the hide would be as devious as it was.

...both naughty and nice!

Hail, Hail! You are truly Geo-gods! This was an awesome hide.

Not bad for a large-ish regular considering on some of the phone calls I've asked where they were standing and they were standing within inches of it.

I'd think this is proof positive that difficult urban caches don't have to be micros. Nearby are two easier regulars, one a 1/1 and wheel chair accessible, and both in urban park settings.

Similarly, here is a .50 cal ammo box that has given numerous geocachers fits. When you consider all the people who don't log their DNFs, you can bet there are a lot more than you see on the page.

Edited July 2, 2006 by briansnat

5.7k · July 2, 2006

I for one do not like the fascist idea that the reviewer should limit the micro because yes they may just be a log and a container but they are a cache non the less and are actually a challenge to find, I enjoy regular caches and micros for all the reason of caching, if you disagree...don't hunt micros!

Do you also 'enjoy' micros that are crammed behind the memorial plaques of someone's family member who has passed away? How about those that are jammed behind dedication plaques of public buildings? Or those which are 'hidden' inside works of art located in parks and even on private property? The level of 'hunting' activity experienced by these caches does not explain their existance. Their existance is an embarrassment to and reflects poorly upon the caching community. :laughing:

Edited July 2, 2006 by Team Cotati

38.2k · July 2, 2006

I for one do not like the fascist idea that the reviewer should limit the micro because yes they may just be a log and a container but they are a cache non the less and are actually a challenge to find, I enjoy regular caches and micros for all the reason of caching, if you disagree...don't hunt micros!

Do you also 'enjoy' micros that are crammed behind the memorial plaques of someone's family member who has passed away? How about those that are jammed behind dedication plaques of public buildings? Or those which are 'hidden' inside works of art located in parks and even on private property? The level of 'hunting' activity experienced by these caches does not explain their existance. Their existance is an embarrassment to and reflects poorly upon the caching community.

If you've found caches in inapropriate spots have you logged an SBA? :laughing:

July 2, 2006

:laughing: I don't hate Micros or Nanos, poroviding they are done well. One of our local Delaware cachers has done some very clever Micros and Nanos and then............... His last six are pure $^%@. He had this funky job of riding around checking for Wireless Hotspots, a PDA that picked them up, hooked to a GPS unit that marked the spot.. Anyway he obviously was upset that all he did was drive around and got to do no caching, so he started tossing out these really LAME Bison tubes. Several of us ahve been logging them and then hammering him about it. But the kid just doesn't seem to get it. he says, "Well if they are so bad wny do them?". Well, by not doing them we'd be ignoring a problem, so we have chosen to do them and then let him know our disatisfaction that way he knows we found it and aren't just busting his Geocaching Butt.

So, do micros, just be clever. Don't throw one out just to throw one out.

July 2, 2006

I have a neuromuscular disease that makes walking very difficult. If it weren’t for Micro’s, I would have quit the sport by now. They are easy to access and usually in areas with benches to sit down nearby.

I especially like the letterbox micros. To me, the time that went into designing the artwork for the stamps is much more valuable than a big expensive box.

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