Jump to content

Lameness Avoidance


Recommended Posts

Before you hide that cache...

 

- Will you enjoy taking your favorite friends to that location?

- Is the cache meant to be found by others, not just to satisfy your urge to hide?

- Have you considered what "interesting" means to people other than yourself?

- Did you ask yourself "why?"

 

Examples of good micro hides I've encountered:

- Location of interest which are educational, historical, scenic, or "unique"

- Clever hide style, mostly from well-constructed camouflage and hiding mechanisms. (not everyone can pull this off)

- Difficult hides that make me blame myself for not being able to figure it out earlier. (anti-needle-in-a-haystack)

 

I recommend against people doing difficult hides, though, because it takes skill to do it right. You have to know how to leave subtle clues, either in the description, hints, or visually, or people will just conclude that you are a mean person. :wub:

Link to comment

Before you hide that cache...

 

- Will you enjoy taking your favorite friends to that location?

- Is the cache meant to be found by others, not just to satisfy your urge to hide?

- Have you considered what "interesting" means to people other than yourself?

- Did you ask yourself "why?"

 

Examples of good micro hides I've encountered:

- Location of interest which are educational, historical, scenic, or "unique"

- Clever hide style, mostly from well-constructed camouflage and hiding mechanisms. (not everyone can pull this off)

- Difficult hides that make me blame myself for not being able to figure it out earlier. (anti-needle-in-a-haystack)

 

I recommend against people doing difficult hides, though, because it takes skill to do it right. You have to know how to leave subtle clues, either in the description, hints, or visually, or people will just conclude that you are a mean person. :wub:

 

Thanks Dad

Link to comment

I generally find the best way to avoid lameness is to read about what to do here in the forums. After all everyone knows that the general caching community always comes in here for advice and listens to what is said in here. :wub: right? :wub:

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

Since the OP claims to want to get rid of "i hate micros" threads it got me to thinking...

 

Threads I hate (in no particular order):

 

- Micros are lame

- Bring back the Virts/Locationless

- My new GPS stinks

- Garmin vs. Magellan etc.

- Waymarking stinks

- My cache didn't get approved (or got archived) - WAAHHHH!

- What constitutes a FIND/DNF etc?

- Caches along a route (just kidding!)

- Let's rate caches!

- I have been caching for a month and I have this great idea for a new cache type.

- Please cache the way I do.

 

I probably missed some.

Edited by Tharagleb
Link to comment

Since the OP claims to want to get rid of "i hate micros" threads it got me to thinking...

 

Threads I hate (in no particular order):

 

- Micros are lame

- Bring back the Virts/Locationless

- My new GPS stinks

- Garmin vs. Magellan etc.

- Waymarking stinks

- My cache didn't get approved (or got archived) - WAAHHHH!

- What constitutes a FIND/DNF etc?

- Caches along a route (just kidding!)

- Let's rate caches!

- I have been caching for a month and I have this great idea for a new cache type.

- Please cache the way I do.

 

I probably missed some.

 

Ya! Vehicles. Stuff that you stuff in your fanny pack, backpack, in your skivie drawers, whatever. Poison oak/ivy. The "best" of anything. Who's got the largest blisters? Was your Dad a neat guy? Was your Mom a good cook? Are your kids the sweetest, most precious cachers on the planet? The proper way to place a snake/gun into a cache. :wub::unsure::wub:

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

Since the OP claims to want to get rid of "i hate micros" threads it got me to thinking...

 

Threads I hate (in no particular order):

 

- Micros are lame

- Bring back the Virts/Locationless

- My new GPS stinks

- Garmin vs. Magellan etc.

- Waymarking stinks

- My cache didn't get approved (or got archived) - WAAHHHH!

- What constitutes a FIND/DNF etc?

- Caches along a route (just kidding!)

- Let's rate caches!

- I have been caching for a month and I have this great idea for a new cache type.

- Please cache the way I do.

 

I probably missed some.

 

Thanks, that pretty much sums it up. :wub:

Link to comment

Since the OP claims to want to get rid of "i hate micros" threads it got me to thinking...

 

Threads I hate (in no particular order):

 

- Micros are lame

- Bring back the Virts/Locationless

- My new GPS stinks

- Garmin vs. Magellan etc.

- Waymarking stinks

- My cache didn't get approved (or got archived) - WAAHHHH!

- What constitutes a FIND/DNF etc?

- Caches along a route (just kidding!)

- Let's rate caches!

- I have been caching for a month and I have this great idea for a new cache type.

- Please cache the way I do.

 

I probably missed some.

 

Ya! Vehicles. Stuff that you stuff in your fanny pack, backpack, in your skivie drawers, whatever. Poison oak/ivy. The "best" of anything. Who's got the largest blisters? Was your Dad a neat guy? Was your Mom a good cook? Are your kids the sweetest, most precious cachers on the planet? The proper way to place a snake into a cache. :wub::unsure::wub:

Do we have any secret celebrity cachers among us?

What do you carry with you to cache?

What do I put in my cache

What does TNLNSL/TFTC mean?

 

any post beginning with:

I know this has been asked before, but I couldn't find it, so...

 

So you don't know how to search, read, or click on the first link at the top of the stinkin' page that says geocaching FAQ!

Link to comment

All of the I hate / I love micros will go on forever. I think caches are like people, some love them while others may hate them.

 

Micros have taken me to many light poles, phone booths, and guard rails. But recently they have taken a dear caching friend (who fell 50' from a cliff and has defied the odds to be walking today) and I on some enjoyable outtings. The first week we were out searching for the "lame" micros, she used her walker. We found 20 micros in the time most able bodied cachers could have pulled of 80 of the quick park and grabs. But it was about my friend getting out there, overcoming the odds, and caching once again. The following week, she had given up the walker and was using our shoulders for support to walk. That week was only a 10 find day but to see her walking free of the metal contraptions she had been reliant on was worth 10,000 finds, if there's even a value that can be placed on cache finds.

 

I feel micros have their place and people find them as much as others complain about them. They are what some cachers are limited to finding due to physical limitations that are either temporary or life-long. Some of the coolest places I have visited would still be unknown to me if not for a micro.

Link to comment

Since the OP claims to want to get rid of "i hate micros" threads it got me to thinking...

 

Threads I hate (in no particular order):

 

- Micros are lame

- Bring back the Virts/Locationless

- My new GPS stinks

- Garmin vs. Magellan etc.

- Waymarking stinks

- My cache didn't get approved (or got archived) - WAAHHHH!

- What constitutes a FIND/DNF etc?

- Caches along a route (just kidding!)

- Let's rate caches!

- I have been caching for a month and I have this great idea for a new cache type.

- Please cache the way I do.

 

I probably missed some.

 

Is this topic a protest against recurring topics, or is it a discussion of suggestions for creating better caches? :wub:

 

I believe these recurring threads are not all bad. They show that some people care passionately about Geocaching. They want to suggest things they think will improve the game or warn about trends they think are hurting it. They may be wrong, but I don't think we should be censoring anyone's opinion. I have no problem with responding to some of these suggestions with sarcasm. The threads I do mind are those that deteriorate into name calling and personal attacks. Fortunately, the moderators do a good job of allowing the threads to go on until they deteriorate to this level.

 

Now to get back to the OP.

 

Before you hide that cache...

 

- Will you enjoy taking your favorite friends to that location?

- Is the cache meant to be found by others, not just to satisfy your urge to hide?

- Have you considered what "interesting" means to people other than yourself?

- Did you ask yourself "why?"

 

Examples of good micro hides I've encountered:

- Location of interest which are educational, historical, scenic, or "unique"

- Clever hide style, mostly from well-constructed camouflage and hiding mechanisms. (not everyone can pull this off)

- Difficult hides that make me blame myself for not being able to figure it out earlier. (anti-needle-in-a-haystack)

 

I recommend against people doing difficult hides, though, because it takes skill to do it right. You have to know how to leave subtle clues, either in the description, hints, or visually, or people will just conclude that you are a mean person. :unsure:

 

This is a good list of what budd-rdc thinks are good reasons for hiding a micro. Other people may have other reasons for hiding a micro. Examples of good hides (in someone's mind) are:

- High muggle location because they like to use stealth to when finding a cache in high muggle area

- Can be hidden in urban areas to allow someone to find caches who would have difficulty caching in other areas due to physical or fiscal limitations

- Quick and easy find - especially lamppost and guardrail type hides - either because someone wants to find a bunch of these as a challenge to see how many caches they can find in a day or just because they would like to do something easy

I can't think of anyone who would like to find a cache in an area full of urine and feces or other smelly garbage. But maybe there are some who find it a challenge. I think some of the caches I have found in areas like this (more often a regular than a micro) were placed for some other reason and the hider just didn't realize when they placed it that people use the area for a toilet or trash dump. My suggestion for cache hiders is to try to be aware of the surroundings when you place a cache to avoid unpleasant situations. And for finders - if you don't want to point out the problem in your log, send a private message to the hider - perhaps they are unaware of the issue.

Link to comment

Is this topic a protest against recurring topics, or is it a discussion of suggestions for creating better caches? :wub:

I believe these recurring threads are not all bad.

I completely agree, but I was asking a serious question. The subtitle of this topic is Let's Kill "I Hate Micros" Threads, but the topic title and the OP seem to be more about how to place better caches. The replies seem to vary with respect to what constitutes the primary theme here, so I was honestly looking for a bit of clarification.

Link to comment

Since the OP claims to want to get rid of "i hate micros" threads it got me to thinking...

 

Threads I hate (in no particular order):

 

- Micros are lame

- Bring back the Virts/Locationless

- My new GPS stinks

- Garmin vs. Magellan etc.

- Waymarking stinks

- My cache didn't get approved (or got archived) - WAAHHHH!

- What constitutes a FIND/DNF etc?

- Caches along a route (just kidding!)

- Let's rate caches!

- I have been caching for a month and I have this great idea for a new cache type.

- Please cache the way I do.

 

I probably missed some.

Ya! Vehicles. Stuff that you stuff in your fanny pack, backpack, in your skivie drawers, whatever. Poison oak/ivy. The "best" of anything. Who's got the largest blisters? Was your Dad a neat guy? Was your Mom a good cook? Are your kids the sweetest, most precious cachers on the planet? The proper way to place a snake/gun into a cache. :wub::wub::unsure:

 

Ok now that we have nothing to talk about lets all just find a cache.

 

BTW -- My kids are the sweetest, most precious cachers on the planet. :unsure:

Link to comment

Is this topic a protest against recurring topics, or is it a discussion of suggestions for creating better caches? :D

I believe these recurring threads are not all bad.

I completely agree, but I was asking a serious question. The subtitle of this topic is Let's Kill "I Hate Micros" Threads, but the topic title and the OP seem to be more about how to place better caches. The replies seem to vary with respect to what constitutes the primary theme here, so I was honestly looking for a bit of clarification.

 

The way that I read it is that since most "I hate Micros" threads are usually more about "I hate horrible caches, many of which happen to be micros." So the thread, I think, is attempting to put an end to the recurring "I hate Micros threads" by getting rid of the root cause--really, really badly designed and placed caches. But of course, I could be wrong. :unsure:

 

BTW, it seems to me that there are a lot of threads that seem to revert to the topic of what threads are acceptable. Seems ironic, since most people who post things like, I hate another "I hate micros" thread could simply take the advice that gets posted most in those types of threads--"If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em!"

 

"If you don't like 'em, don't read 'em or post in 'em!" Hmmm. :o

Link to comment

BTW, it seems to me that there are a lot of threads that seem to revert to the topic of what threads are acceptable. Seems ironic, since most people who post things like, I hate another "I hate micros" thread could simply take the advice that gets posted most in those types of threads--"If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em!"

 

"If you don't like 'em, don't read 'em or post in 'em!" Hmmm. :unsure:

exactly what i was thinking.

Link to comment
Micros have taken me to many light poles, phone booths, and guard rails. But recently they have taken a dear caching friend (who fell 50' from a cliff...

For a second there, before I finished reading the sentence, I thought you were starting to say that your friend was killed (taken by) hunting for a micro! :D:unsure::o And that micros are bad because they killed your friend. That'll teach me to not jump to conclusions.

 

Anyway, I'm glad that's not the case (and that your friend's improving).

Edited by GPSlug
Link to comment
"If you don't like 'em, don't read 'em or post in 'em!" Hmmm. :unsure:

There is a problem with this logic, in my opinion.

 

Let's assume that there are two basic opinions; people who hate micros and people who don't think the size of the cache is important. (Write your own joke. :o ) Imagine that a micro-hater starts a thread on the topic. Other micro-haters will pile on because they are passionate about the topic. If those people who don't think that micros are a problem (even if they don't love them) do not post in the thread because they are sick of yet another anti-micro thread, then it will appear as if there is a consensus that micros are bad.

Link to comment
"If you don't like 'em, don't read 'em or post in 'em!" Hmmm. :mad:

There is a problem with this logic, in my opinion.

 

Let's assume that there are two basic opinions; people who hate micros and people who don't think the size of the cache is important. (Write your own joke. :( )

 

Cache size matters - ask yer mom! :laughing: (how's that?)

Link to comment
"If you don't like 'em, don't read 'em or post in 'em!" Hmmm. :(

There is a problem with this logic, in my opinion.

 

Let's assume that there are two basic opinions; people who hate micros and people who don't think the size of the cache is important. (Write your own joke. :mad: ) Imagine that a micro-hater starts a thread on the topic. Other micro-haters will pile on because they are passionate about the topic. If those people who don't think that micros are a problem (even if they don't love them) do not post in the thread because they are sick of yet another anti-micro thread, then it will appear as if there is a consensus that micros are bad.

 

Your logic only applies to cachers who are interested in having a discussion, not shutting one down. There are always those that make statements like, "We shouldn't even have this thread--micros are here to stay and they're fine anyway, so get over it." Dissenting opinions are welcome--even ones that don't like the thread to begin with--but they usually seem to marginalize those that don't like micros by using logic that doesn't work. That was my point.

 

MY point is not really that if you don't like these threads that you shouldn't participate in them, instead I was trying to illustrate that the argument, "If you don't like 'em, then don't hunt 'em," is not logically valid and that a similar simplistic argument can be used in retort. Those that are passionately against micros see them as a problem that is hurting the entire sport, not just them (as a matter of preference). This is the case whether their belief is valid or not. "If you don't like 'em, then don't hunt 'em," is just as dismissive and illogical an argument is the one that I posted. It doesn't address the perceived problem with micros even if they don't hunt them.

 

Notice that I said "perceived" problem--the problem may or may not actually exist. That doesn't matter as much as the fact that there are plenty of folks who feel that it does. I'm not really for or against micros, per se, I just don't like really bad caches. I actually enjoy good micros as much as any good regular cache. I just think there happen to be more bad micros because they are generally easier and less expensive to place. It's a matter of convenience. I'm not sure there is anything to do about that, except to set a positive example by placing good caches.

 

Cheers to meaningful discussions!

:laughing::laughing::laughing:

Link to comment
Your logic only applies to cachers who are interested in having a discussion, not shutting one down. There are always those that make statements like, "We shouldn't even have this thread--micros are here to stay and they're fine anyway, so get over it."
I think that response tends to come from one of two places. 1) The thread topic is something like 'Let's get rid of micros', when Jeremy has stated that they are not going anywhere. 2) The weariness of having so many identical threads often at the same time.
Dissenting opinions are welcome--even ones that don't like the thread to begin with--but they usually seem to marginalize those that don't like micros by using logic that doesn't work. That was my point.
Actually, if you look over the recent threads, you will see that this tactic is used much more often by those individuals who are on the other side of the argument.
MY point is not really that if you don't like these threads that you shouldn't participate in them, instead I was trying to illustrate that the argument, "If you don't like 'em, then don't hunt 'em," is not logically valid and that a similar simplistic argument can be used in retort. Those that are passionately against micros see them as a problem that is hurting the entire sport, not just them (as a matter of preference). This is the case whether their belief is valid or not. "If you don't like 'em, then don't hunt 'em," is just as dismissive and illogical an argument is the one that I posted. It doesn't address the perceived problem with micros even if they don't hunt them.
I have to disagree with this. Since there are ways to sort micros out for those that are passionately against them, it is a perfectly good reply that one should do so. Further, since it can be mathematically demonstrated that micros are not hurting the "sport", the argument that they are gets tired.
Link to comment

Further, since it can be mathematically demonstrated that micros are not hurting the "sport", the argument that they are gets tired.

 

I'd like to start by saying that I'm not making the argument that micros are hurting the sport. But on the other hand I very much doubt that that has been mathematically quantified. If you are referring to raw numbers or ratios of micro caches to regular caches, then you are assuming that the argument has to do with numbers of caches. Since quality hasn't been adequately quantified (at least not that I'm aware of), then mathematical arguments will do no good.

 

Again, the importance of the problem is that it is perceived. If you can show somebody in a convincing way that there isn't actually a problem, but that it is only perceived, then you have done a good thing. Anytime there is a good argument for or against something, by all means use it. Show your graphs and equations to try and convince people. But the argument, "Don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em," doesn't convince anyone.

 

As to your point about the frustration over many similar threads--I'll concede that point. People want to vent about the fact that there's already another thread going on that discusses a topic--I can understand that. But to say, "Hey, we had that thread a month ago--go read it, cause we're done with that," doesn't give those that are new to the forum or to the topic a chance to interact, opine, or vent their frustration.

 

Again, I appreciate the discussion!

 

:mad:

Link to comment
I'd like to start by saying that I'm not making the argument that micros are hurting the sport. But on the other hand I very much doubt that that has been mathematically quantified. If you are referring to raw numbers or ratios of micro caches to regular caches, then you are assuming that the argument has to do with numbers of caches. Since quality hasn't been adequately quantified (at least not that I'm aware of), then mathematical arguments will do no good.

 

Again, the importance of the problem is that it is perceived. If you can show somebody in a convincing way that there isn't actually a problem, but that it is only perceived, then you have done a good thing. Anytime there is a good argument for or against something, by all means use it. Show your graphs and equations to try and convince people. But the argument, "Don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em," doesn't convince anyone.

Your previous post did not address quality, only that 'Those that are passionately against micros see them as a problem that is hurting the entire sport'. To this argument, a simple graph of the growth of non-micro caches does do the job in proving that micros are not hurting the "sport". Remember, whether the "sport" is dying because of micros has nothing to do with the number of micros. If growth of non-micros is not being affected, micros cannot be killing the game.

 

As I explained in my previous post, the 'Don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em' argument is appropriate if the caches that they don't like can be sorted out. In your example of people who are 'passionately against micros, it is elementary to avoid them. In fact, even people with more complicated dislikes can craft their searches carefully and avoid many caches that they will not enjoy.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I'd like to start by saying that I'm not making the argument that micros are hurting the sport. But on the other hand I very much doubt that that has been mathematically quantified. If you are referring to raw numbers or ratios of micro caches to regular caches, then you are assuming that the argument has to do with numbers of caches. Since quality hasn't been adequately quantified (at least not that I'm aware of), then mathematical arguments will do no good.

 

Again, the importance of the problem is that it is perceived. If you can show somebody in a convincing way that there isn't actually a problem, but that it is only perceived, then you have done a good thing. Anytime there is a good argument for or against something, by all means use it. Show your graphs and equations to try and convince people. But the argument, "Don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em," doesn't convince anyone.

Your previous post did not address quality, only that 'Those that are passionately against micros see them as a problem that is hurting the entire sport'. To this argument, a simple graph of the growth of non-micro caches does do the job in proving that micros are not hurting the "sport". Remember, whether the "sport" is dying because of micros has nothing to do with the number of micros. If growth of non-micros is not being affected, micros cannot be killing the game.

 

As I explained in my previous post, the 'Don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em' argument is appropriate if the caches that they don't like can be sorted out. In your example of people who are 'passionately against micros, it is elementary to avoid them. In fact, even people with more complicated dislikes can craft their searches carefully and avoid many caches that they will not enjoy.

 

In the end, it almost always comes down to quality. With few exceptions, nobody would mind a ton of micros if they were all high quality. Let me illustrate by inserting one of the chief arguments of someone who began a thread on the subject, "Will Micros Kill Our Sport":

 

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.

 

That sounds mostly like a beef with quality, not quantity.

 

I realize that there are some people who feel that micros, by nature of their size alone, are not in keeping with the original intended purpose of geocaching. But this isn't the only crowd out there who are not happy with them. I don't know the numbers that represent each camp, but I would guess that more people are concerned with the quality factor, not necessarily the size factor, or the total number factor. The argument being this: although bad caches of every size do occur, it is much easier for bad micro caches to pop up. In that sense they are hurting the "sport" because it lowers the overall quality of caches--it lowers people's expectation of the overall quality of geocaching. Furthermore, the argument would go on that this type of instance can't be "filtered out" using GSAK, for instance, because the bad caches still exist. And it is their very existence that harms the sport by lowering standards and expectations for future cachers and caches.

 

I'm sorry I wasn't clear in the earlier posts. This was the argument that I was referring to throughout our discussion. For those who feel that micros harm the sport because they aren't in keeping with its original purpose, there is not much that can be done to assuage them. You may argue that they are incorrect about their perception of the original intention of geocaching, but in the end they may still hate all micros and want them gone. It is a valid opinion, as any other, but in that case you just have to agree to disagree. At least with the former argument there is a common ground--both groups want high quality caches that will improve geocaching. And the solution may very well be in the discussion.

 

I do not, however, make a distinction between one argument and the other over their passion. Both arguments can be passionate--as is evidenced by the following thread started by James & Sheryl: Will Micro's Kill Our Sport.

 

An analogy that I think works:

 

We all hate litter. We know that litter occurs all over the city to different degrees. But we know of one particular neighborhood where it is especially bad. We "profile" that neighborhood and decide to discuss how to fix it. People then get mad because litter occurs all over the place, not just in that one neighborhood. Others say: yes, but...that one neighborhood is especially bad. If we could only get that one cleaned up then...yada, yada, yada.

 

In the end I think my own opinions of micros are probably close to your own. :mad:

Link to comment

Fascinating. The OP tried so hard to create a thread about what makes a quality cache. ie: avoiding lameness. The OP stated clearly that the intent was not to start another thread about micros.

 

And it instantly gets derailed into a thread about threads about lame micros, morphs into a thread about lame threads and then morphs into a thread about... lame micros.

 

Is it even possible to have a discussion in these forums about quality?

Link to comment

Fascinating. The OP tried so hard to create a thread about what makes a quality cache. ie: avoiding lameness. The OP stated clearly that the intent was not to start another thread about micros.

 

And it instantly gets derailed into a thread about threads about lame micros, morphs into a thread about lame threads and then morphs into a thread about... lame micros.

 

Is it even possible to have a discussion in these forums about quality?

 

No. Because quality is subjective. Some think a quality cache is one that is in a scenic location. Some think a quality cache is one that is challenging to find. Some think a quality cache is one with lots of good swag to trade. Some think a quality cache is one that takes them on a long hike in the woods. Some think that a quality cache is a park and grab that they can do when out running errands. Some think a quality cache is one that is cleverly hidden so that hundreds of muggle pass it everday without knowing it is there. Some think that a quality cache is one where there are no muggles around so the cache can search without being seen. Might as well morph this thread into a discussion of what make a quality ice cream :mad:

Link to comment

Fascinating. The OP tried so hard to create a thread about what makes a quality cache. ie: avoiding lameness. The OP stated clearly that the intent was not to start another thread about micros.

 

And it instantly gets derailed into a thread about threads about lame micros, morphs into a thread about lame threads and then morphs into a thread about... lame micros.

 

Is it even possible to have a discussion in these forums about quality?

In another thread I came up with an idea for how to increase quality/decrease lameness. Although it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I think there is some merit in the idea. idea.gif

 

Seriously . . . I wonder when the cache submission form was created, and when it was last updated? From the looks of this section of the guidelines, it has been awhile. :laughing:

 

If the submission form was created before the "MicroSpew" era, there would have been no need for Variable questions and replies that showed the cache-hider understood some basics.

 

After all, unless a new cacher hangs out in these Forums, or has a mentor who has been hiding quality caches for a while, how do they know what kind of cache to hide? How do they know what kind of container works better than another? How does a new cacher, who just lifted the skirt on a lamp post near the dumpsters at the back of a shopping center and found their very first micro, know that placing one just like that might be a bad idea.

 

If there were some Variables on the cache-submission form that either proved the person had really read the guidelines, or gave some hints about cache containers, cache placement, and good coordinates, it might help increase "quality." Variables added to the cache submission page might make people think before submitting for approval a 35mm film canister hidden in the fork of a prickly bush behind a gas station with incorrect coordinates. :mad:

 

And if they think about it, maybe they won't submit it . . . :(

Link to comment
.... Might as well morph this thread into a discussion of what make a quality ice cream :unsure:
Very fresh cream and fresh, perfectly ripe fruit. :unsure:

We could morph it into something that stays on topic.

How?

 

I suggest this: when you hide a cache, ask yourself, "would I enjoy finding this cache?"

If the answer is anything other than "yes", then you're probably getting carried away with the fun of hiding the cache, rather than the fun of creating a good experience for the seeker.

 

If you're hiding it for the fun of hiding it, then you are being selfish and very possibly hiding a "lame" cache. And you might not even realize you are committing an act of lameness. You're just caught up with the fun of hiding.

 

I'm not saying the cache is lame because I don't like that *type* of cache/hide. I'm saying that all types can be lame or not, and different people will have different opinions. But if you're motive in hiding it is focused on the hiding, rather than the experience you are creating for the finders, then it's likely to be high on the lameness scale even for those who *do* like that kind of cache.

Link to comment
I agree!!

 

bump...

 

Fascinating yet again...

 

As soon as the thread goes on topic, and is no longer a drama-ridden argument, everyone loses interest and it dies.

 

*sigh*

 

and it had such potential. Isn't anyone interested in the subject of reducing lameness, no matter what the cache size? Or are we really bored with the thread as soon as it turns away from the same ol' conflicts?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...