Will Micro"s Kill Our Sport

[+baloo&bd]

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.

 

Or the 2 qt tupperware container hidden in a tree on private property, the ammo box behind the electrical boxes near a big mall. The gallon jug under the bridge of a major highway or maybe the tupperward container hidden near an office building with no trespassing signs all over the property. Wait...nevermind...you were talking about micros.

[+Davispak]

I think all of these threads that talk (Read Complain) about micros usually come down to one argument. There are to many lame micros and we need to do something about it.

 

As has been dicussed before and will continue to be discussed is how do you weed out the "lame" micros and still not miss the really "cool" micros. We need a rating system where the cache is rated by the finders. The best thing I came up with is a single question of "would you reccomend this cache?" This way if a cache receives a majority of reccomends it becomes a reccomended cache and you can do a querry for just reccomended caches in an area and they will have an icon on the search page for same. I think this would elliminate alot of "lame "caches as people would avoid them and I think the quality of caches hidden would improve.

[+The Jester]

I think all of these threads that talk (Read Complain) about micros usually come down to one argument. There are to many lame micros and we need to do something about it.

 

As has been dicussed before and will continue to be discussed is how do you weed out the "lame" micros and still not miss the really "cool" micros. We need a rating system where the cache is rated by the finders. The best thing I came up with is a single question of "would you reccomend this cache?" This way if a cache receives a majority of reccomends it becomes a reccomended cache and you can do a querry for just reccomended caches in an area and they will have an icon on the search page for same. I think this would elliminate alot of "lame "caches as people would avoid them and I think the quality of caches hidden would improve.

While the idea has merit, I can see one problem with it. There is one puzzle cache around here that is a nice puzzle but the hide is what most around here call "lame". So, does a lame hide get the "Not Recommended" or does the puzzle get the "Yes Recommended"?

[+CheshireFrog]

I think all of these threads that talk (Read Complain) about micros usually come down to one argument. There are to many lame micros and we need to do something about it.

 

As has been dicussed before and will continue to be discussed is how do you weed out the "lame" micros and still not miss the really "cool" micros. We need a rating system where the cache is rated by the finders. The best thing I came up with is a single question of "would you reccomend this cache?" This way if a cache receives a majority of reccomends it becomes a reccomended cache and you can do a querry for just reccomended caches in an area and they will have an icon on the search page for same. I think this would elliminate alot of "lame "caches as people would avoid them and I think the quality of caches hidden would improve.

While the idea has merit, I can see one problem with it. There is one puzzle cache around here that is a nice puzzle but the hide is what most around here call "lame". So, does a lame hide get the "Not Recommended" or does the puzzle get the "Yes Recommended"?

 

The problems run deeper than that.

 

I place a new cache, the first finder doesn't like the muggle traffic in the area and goves it a Not Recommended. Now the cache has a low rating based on one find.

 

I hunt a cache and find a leaky butter tub containing a golf ball, two business cards and religious tract half covered in pine needles at the base of a tree, 10 feet from where I parked. I rate the cache low, and the owner returns the favor by retroactively rating all of my caches low.

 

Somebody with a personal axe to grind creates a bunch of sock puppet accounts to drag down the rating on my cache.

 

A crusader who hates a particular kind of cache, say micros for instance, starts hunting caches that he knows he hates before starting out simply so he can give them a low rating.

 

And finally, eventually somebody will come here in the forums to recommend that low rated caches be archived in favor of the type of cache he likes.

[+Team Cotati]

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?

 

Well not exactly. I did directly contact my area's reviewer and got shined on. The message was clear that I need not waste my time. But trust me dude, if you are saying that this SBA thingie will get such caches killed, I'll be more than happy to log a few. Is that what you are saying? I wonder why the reviewer did not suggest that I take that action?

[+Pushkin]

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.

 

Couldn't agree more, I hate micros so much.

[Clan Riffster]

Its not micros per se that are the issue for many of us, its caches placed with no thought.

OMG! Did Brian just type something I agree with?

That statement hits the nail square on the head. The size of the container is not the issue, and never has been the issue. The problem is with lame hiders, not lame cachers. I believe the best way to address this issue is through education, not legislation. We don't need any more "rules" in geocaching. If the experienced players will instruct the rookies in what makes a cache lame Vs. what makes a cache interesting, this problem might go away.

Effort = Reward.

So, why all the angst against micros? I believe that lame cachers tend toward film cannisters because they are free, easy to fill and easy to hide. (no Rob, I don't have any numbers to support this belief) When someone who already has a prediliction toward lameness decides they need to go hide a cache, the easiest container they can aquire is a free film cannister.