+baloo&bd Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Perhaps there ought to be an area in the forums, just for people to vent about how much they love or hate micros. > Groundspeak Forums > General Geocaching Discussions > Micros> That would make it much easier for me to ignore all the posts about them ... Nah, there wouldn't be anything to post in the rest of the topics. Quote Link to comment
+Jeep_Dog Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 1 -Also, does anyone who places micros consider their cache may be completely ignored because it is a micro? 2 - Would it affect your decision to put a lot of effort into a micro if you knew folks would simply ignore it based on size? 3 - What about a nice location you want to bring someone to, but they had you on their ignore list because of the size? 4 - Is filtering based on size fair? 5 - Would you fudge the size of your cache to a "small" so it isn't filtered? I shall assume that you search for honest opinion, as opposed to throwing a line in the Sea of Controversy and seeing what bites. Yes, I place micros. My first cache was a regular cache. I prefer regular caches, however, many interesting places just will not hold a regular cache, so I placed micros. Other caches are theme and/or mystery caches, where the micro serves a purpose in that the hunter must solve riddles (yes, multiple riddles on one of my caches) to find the cache, as opposed to accidently stumbling upon the cache. Finally, here in Iraq, placing micros is the sure way to ensure survival of the cache. Regulars get plundered quite frequently, so a regular has to be one that gets checked on serveral times in a day (literally) - I placed a regular within these constraints. Of my micro caches, I would say that the first reason (neat/interesting area will not hold a regular) is the most prevalent for the choice of micro. Now, on to the questions. I numbered them in the quote to make the response a bit quicker. 1 - Yes, I consider in placing a micro that it may be ignored because it is micro. I also consider that for a cache that requires a hike (I have several of these), a mystery/puzzle cache, and for caches in high muggle areas. 2 - No, other folks' practice of ignoring would not affect in any way my placing of a cache. I put the same effort and thought into each cache, regardless of others' opinions. Maintaining personal standards is interesting that way... 3 - Yeah, what about it? It is their loss, not mine. Ignore my caches, regardless of size, at your own loss. If an area is appropriate for a regular, it will get one. The fact remains that a lot of the really cool places to visit just will not hold a regular. I could care a less that someone has ignored a cool place to visit. That is their loss as opposed to mine. 4 - Fair? I could care a less about "fair." Why is "fairness" relevant in the act of ignoring my cache? First, life is not fair. So be it, I have come to terms with that. I hardly expect "fairness" in geocaching, but even if I did expect it in this activity, I am the one making the choice, so I am brining the lack of "equity" upon myself. 5 - Definitely not, since I would not compromise my integrity just to "bait and switch" someone into finding my cache. What a silly notion. Please refer to my answer for question #2 for more detail and thoughts... There. An honest opinion from a micro owner. I hope it helps in your quest. Quote Link to comment
+Ichabod Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Perhaps there ought to be an area in the forums, just for people to vent about how much they love or hate micros. > Groundspeak Forums > General Geocaching Discussions > Micros> That would make it much easier for me to ignore all the posts about them ... Nah, there wouldn't be anything to post in the rest of the topics. That's true ... WHAT would people have to discuss then? Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 (edited) Funny you should ask. I'm about to set my local PQ to exclude Micro's. There was a time that to find a cache at all I had to seek them all. That time has come and gone. I can focus on the caches I enjoy more. Those are the ones that have Swag. If by chance someone hides a landmark micro I'll hear about it and can seek that one out individually. On the other hand if I placed a micro, I could care less who filters it. Heck I use Navicache for a lot of my hides. That's more of a filter than Micro will ever be on this site. Edited August 2, 2006 by Renegade Knight Quote Link to comment
+BomberJjr Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I don't think the micros out my way are all that bad. There isn't much of a spew. Most of the micros I have gone to have been interesting spots. I'd like to thank the geocachers of the Blackstone Valley area for knowing when a micro is appropriate. Fortunately, it sounds like my area isn't so bad compared to others in this matter. Quote Link to comment
+CheshireFrog Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Funny you should ask. I'm about to set my local PQ to exclude Micro's. There was a time that to find a cache at all I had to seek them all. That time has come and gone. I can focus on the caches I enjoy more. Those are the ones that have Swag. If by chance someone hides a landmark micro I'll hear about it and can seek that one out individually. On the other hand if I placed a micro, I could care less who filters it. Heck I use Navicache for a lot of my hides. That's more of a filter than Micro will ever be on this site. I understand what you're doing, and why, but I can't help but feel that it's a shame that you'll miss this cache. Or this one. Quote Link to comment
+WWC-World's Worst Cacher Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 It is more fun to find larger caches than micros, but that being said, most of my caching is done at lunch time and after work so for me they are a nice diversion particularly because living in the Bay Area we have extreme saturation. I have never hidden a micro, but it is only because I feel I contribute more to the game by hidding big caches in urban areas with great swag. (Last one I hid contained a dozen unactived geocoins - They are all gone, so don't rush to find it). It is a great game for kids and kids get more out of it if there is stuff to look at and trade for. BUT HERE IS THE REAL DEAL: THE ONLY REAL CACHERS HIDE AND SEEK CACHES JUST LIKE I DO. IF YOU DO IT ANY OTHER WAY YOU SHOULD BE SHOT or at least be viewed with great suspision and we all know you are not a REAL CACHER. Quote Link to comment
+Jhwk Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 My current filter Geocache Close to me Active I have not found I don't own I am currently out to a 37 mile radius, except for one "boat required" cache. I see it as more of a challenge to find all cache types, and micros just happen to be one of those types. If you place it near me, I will find it. But, to each his/her own. Quote Link to comment
Mushtang Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I see it as more of a challenge to find all cache types, and micros just happen to be one of those types. I thought it was a size, not a type. Quote Link to comment
+Jhwk Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I see it as more of a challenge to find all cache types, and micros just happen to be one of those types. I thought it was a size, not a type. You are correct sir. And so I stand corrected. So to be fully correct, maybe I should say... I will find any caches placed near me. nice, short, and to the point. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I don't think the micros out my way are all that bad. There isn't much of a spew. Most of the micros I have gone to have been interesting spots. I'd like to thank the geocachers of the Blackstone Valley area for knowing when a micro is appropriate. Fortunately, it sounds like my area isn't so bad compared to others in this matter. I suspect the difference is that you are less sensitive than they are. Quote Link to comment
+Quest Master Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I don't think the micros out my way are all that bad. There isn't much of a spew. Most of the micros I have gone to have been interesting spots. I'd like to thank the geocachers of the Blackstone Valley area for knowing when a micro is appropriate. Fortunately, it sounds like my area isn't so bad compared to others in this matter. I suspect the difference is that you are less sensitive than they are. That's easy to say if you don't bother to check the facts. Your suspicion is built on ignorance and bias. The fact is that micro spew varies wildly from place to place. I did a survey of 35 large cities and found that there is anywhere form 13 to 59 percent micros within 25 miles of the cities surveyed. The incidence of micros as a percentage of total caches was found to be 12.7 percent in Boston (the city closest to BomberJjr)which is the lowest of the cities surveyed. Nashville, by comparison, has 49.7%. At some point, some people are going to start complaining, especially if the micros are really lame like so many of them are in places that have a lot of them. Quote Link to comment
+Teach2Learn Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 (edited) The fact is that micro spew varies wildly from place to place. I did a survey of 35 large cities and found that there is anywhere form 13 to 59 percent micros within 25 miles of the cities surveyed. The incidence of micros as a percentage of total caches was found to be 12.7 percent in Boston (the city closest to BomberJjr)which is the lowest of the cities surveyed. Nashville, by comparison, has 49.7%. At some point, some people are going to start complaining, especially if the micros are really lame like so many of them are in places that have a lot of them. Sounds like an interesting survey. Are the results posted anywhere online or could you provide them here? One day I hope to attempt your "Polly Takes The Plunge" (GC34FB) cache after reading the description and rave reviews of the past. (edited to add link) Edited August 2, 2006 by Teach2Learn Quote Link to comment
+Lemon Fresh Dog Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 (edited) I don't ignore them outright, but I ussually won't go out of my way to find them either (especially while on vacation). I would much rather just Waymark. I have one micro that I placed and folks seem to like finding it. I placed it in an area that I thought was worth seeing and which would not have supported a regular container. Edited August 2, 2006 by Lemon Fresh Dog Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I placed a fun Micro where the views are fantastic. Too bad for the person who ignores all Micro caches because it is a short hike to a really cool area full of fantastically sculpted rocks . . . Quote Link to comment
+Jango & Boba Fett Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 The problem with trying to answer a potentially emotive subject like attitudes to microcaches in this area of the Forum is that its like trying to judge the public's attitude to the subject of the day by listening to the callers on late night talk radio Or to put it more soberly there are only 14,500 GeoCachers within a community with over 1,000,000 members (sorry GC.com) account holders worldwide who have logged more than 200 caches (thats c.1.5% of all GeoCachers), and if the the statistics for the USA are anything like those for the UK 82% of GeoCcahers have never placed a cache and over half the caches that have been placed were put there by c.1.7% of all GeoCachers. So Forum posters like myself are not typical of the great mass of GeoCachers. For all we know the other 985,500 GeoCachers who have logged less than 200 caches may only go hunting in there local park/parking lot while out walking the dog/kids and really love micros - to them maybe micros are the real game and 5/5 Puzzles out in the woods are the equivalent of the 4 minute mile or the sub 10 second 100 metres. The elegance of GeoCaching is that its the activity you make it whether its a mum bagging a micro on the school run or 12 of you in a van, technoed out with hardware trying to log 300 finds in a weekend. We're simply not playing the same game that they are. To put it in terms that you might understand, and which highlights the minority status of most people who will read this post; which is the most competitive football league in the world La Liga, the Premiership or Series A? After all the likes of David Beckham, Terry Henry and Louis Figo will shift a lot more merchandise this year than Steve Young will, just as thousands of mom & pop GeoCachers will bag an aweful lot of so called micro spew and enjoy the experience to boot. As a sideline did you know that all the different varients of that ball kicking sport (Association, American Rules, Australian Rules, Canadian, Celtic, Rugby Leage and Rugby Union) are derived from an old English sport called Camping, so to be etymologically correct if someone was really into Football we should say that they're really camp. Quote Link to comment
+TexasGringo Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I place micros like magnetic key holders...so they can be hidden in easier areas for Handicap people and children to find. Quote Link to comment
+BomberJjr Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I see it as more of a challenge to find all cache types, and micros just happen to be one of those types. I thought it was a size, not a type. You are correct sir. And so I stand corrected. So to be fully correct, maybe I should say... I will find any caches placed near me. nice, short, and to the point. Well said. I feel the same way. I neither specifically look for micros, nor do I avoid them. Although I could see if every cache out here was a micro that was the same exact thing, with nothing to them, I might get a bit frustrated, but its not too bad out my way (as I have said before). Quote Link to comment
+The Navigatorz Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 (edited) Doesn't anyone MYOB anymore? Make Your Own Beer? I'll hunt for any micro that is hidden in our cache starved area. But when I go over to the big city, I filter them out. I have found that for the most part, micros in the city are located on street corners or in parking lots. That's not where I want to be. The larger caches are usually located in parks, out in the country, or a wooded area. That's where I'd rather hunt for a cache. So if I filter them out, its not because I hate micros, its because of where most of them seem to be located. Edited August 3, 2006 by The Navigatorz Quote Link to comment
+Clothahump Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I'll look at micros on the website and decide if I want to do one; I'll add it manually if that's the case. However, my pocket queries are set to reject micros in general and I think my caching experience has improved overall as a result. Quote Link to comment
Kuan Ti Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I'm new to geocaching (10 finds), and I've enjoyed all of them. The micro's that I've found, I've enjoyed because they've taken me to unique locations around town that I've never been to. The ones large enough for trade items mostly contained dirty/used toys that I really didn't care to even touch and wouldn't even consider taking. So my first impression is that the micros are more enjoyable (as I'm not interested in trading and don't like messing with dirty toys). Quote Link to comment
+Team Dubbin Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I don't mind them just as long as they are in a place of interest. Just recently someone planted a bunch of boring micros in a town close to here. This included 2 Walmart parking lot caches, mall parking lot cache and a phone booth cache Of the 13 that were placed there, none of them were over a 5 second walk from the car... Quote Link to comment
+wesleykey Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 (edited) I don't hide as many micros anymore. I give them away on a regualr basis when I meet other cachers, though. The reason is that I don't mind hunting micros but I hate maintaining them. Edited August 3, 2006 by wesleykey Quote Link to comment
+Prothos Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 i ignore micros in the woods. Quote Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted August 4, 2006 Author Share Posted August 4, 2006 Thank you all for your responses! I've been doing some number crunching and determined even in our stomping grounds the rate of micro placement has increased. It was somewhere in the 20% range a couple of years and has steadily increased to 47% micros (that are still active) for the last 6 months. I also keep a file of archived caches. Instead of deleting archived caches, I move them over to a different database. I've been keeping this database since PQs started. I wasn't surprised when the rate of archival was higher overall for micros than for the whole group. Non-archived micros are at 39% for the active set while archived micros are at 44.7% percent for the archived set. For those caches placed in the past year right at 50% archived were micros versus the above mentioned 47% placed and still active. So, what this demonstrates is both the rate of micros placements are increasing and the rate of micro archival is higher than the dataset as a whole. The "why" I'll leave it to you the reader to determine for yourself. As for us, we'll continue as we have been; clearing our 50 mile radius regardless, skipping virts and micros while traveling unless we're already on top of them and they don't look too lame, and the rest as it suits us at the time. There are still enough worthwhile micros for us to at least give them a shot. Quote Link to comment
The 2 Dogs Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 As my avatar suggests, I am an old school geocacher. I come from the days when "all" placers put a lot of time and effort into not only the location but the contents of the cache as well. I've spent many hundreds of dollars on quality cache contents over the years, so you can imagine how I feel when I turn up at a find where someone has simply shoved an empty film cannister under a rock. It often leaves the experience feeling just as empty as that cache. Quote Link to comment
+kayakclimber Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 I'll second the ignoring micros in the woods thing. Nasty. Quote Link to comment
rbrugman Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 I don't ignore micros, at least not when they are urban caches. If they are out in the woods, I have to evaluate whether they are worth finding or not, because sometimes they can be frustrating, especially if the coords are off a bit. Nanos on the other hand get ignored by me, although there are only a couple in my area. If I need a magnifying glass to write in the log, its just not worth it. I like ammo boxes Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 The interesting thing about this phenomenon, as this topic and others is the past has shown, is that micros are, in fact, quite popular. We've all seen far too many boring lamp base micros but many others are quite clever and fun. Hides and find counts for micros are high. This means there is a market for them. But generally, as stated time and again, it’s the quality and location of the hide that make a cache interesting and not the size of the container. A high archive rate for micros doesn't strike me as a negative condition. The containers aren't expensive and presumably the 528' radius will likely get another micro soon enough. Quote Link to comment
+Clan Delaney Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Doesn't anyone MYOB anymore? Make Your Own Beer? I'll hunt for any micro that is hidden in our cache starved area. But when I go over to the big city, I filter them out. I have found that for the most part, micros in the city are located on street corners or in parking lots. That's not where I want to be. The larger caches are usually located in parks, out in the country, or a wooded area. That's where I'd rather hunt for a cache. So if I filter them out, its not because I hate micros, its because of where most of them seem to be located. Gah! You used the words "beer" and "filter" in the same post! Never filter your homebrew! Blasphemy! BOT: I'll agree with the part about some caches just not being placed where I want to be, micro or not. I'll get 'em eventually, but they'll have to wait for an early morning or evening on a Sunday when there are few people in the area and I just happen to be driving through. Quote Link to comment
+mbharpman Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 I haven't tried them yet. But then I haven't gone out solo yet either. I usually take the kids, we look for the larger caches so they can swap goodies. I just started bike riding and have noticed some along the bike trails. I might check them out if just me and the wifey go out. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 So, what this demonstrates is both the rate of micros placements are increasing and the rate of micro archival is higher than the dataset as a whole. The "why" I'll leave it to you the reader to determine for yourself. I don't understand why you are making it sound so sinister. Micros are archived quicker because the tend to go missing faster. This is because they tend to be in muggle-rich zones. There really isn't much of a mystery here. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 (edited) So, what this demonstrates is both the rate of micros placements are increasing and the rate of micro archival is higher than the dataset as a whole. The "why" I'll leave it to you the reader to determine for yourself.I don't understand why you are making it sound so sinister. Micros are archived quicker because the tend to go missing faster. This is because they tend to be in muggle-rich zones. There really isn't much of a mystery here. I forgot to address the other half of your comment, but it's related. Since the 'regular' caches are more rural, they disapeer less frequently. Therefore, those locations have caches and tend to block future caches. Since urban micros disappear more frequently, many get archived. Therefore, these locations are not blocked. Either way, it is a mistake to look at placement rates to compare the two cache types. In fact, I would argue that it is a mistake to compare the number of micros to non-micros because the fact that micros exist does not stop you from searching for non-micros. If you dislike micros (which your posts would suggest, if not your sales), you should only concern yourself with the amount of non-micros present since you can easily forgo micros. A recent analysis of the Chicagoland area found that while micros have increased, they have not affected the rate at which non-micros available: Edited August 4, 2006 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 (edited) So, what this demonstrates is both the rate of micros placements are increasing and the rate of micro archival is higher than the dataset as a whole. The "why" I'll leave it to you the reader to determine for yourself. I don't understand why you are making it sound so sinister. Micros are archived quicker because the tend to go missing faster. This is because they tend to be in muggle-rich zones. There really isn't much of a mystery here. While I concur that micros in muggle rich zones go missing more often, I think they get archived more often - rather than replaced - because: They were cheap, quick, caches which the hider doesn't have a lot invested in and therefore when they go missing its easier to archive than do maintenance, or They were one of the expensive containers like the ones you can buy from Sissy 'n CR and the hider doesn't want to spend the money to replace it Edited August 4, 2006 by tozainamboku Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Either way, it is a mistake to look at placement rates to compare the two cache types. In fact, I would argue that it is a mistake to compare the number of micros to non-micros because the fact that micros exist does not stop you from searching for non-micros. If you dislike micros (which your posts would suggest, if not your sales), you should only concern yourself with the amount of non-micros present since you can easily forgo micros. A recent analysis of the Chicagoland area found that while micros have increased, they have not affected the rate at which non-micros available: I agree with sbell111. While I often look for urban micros when I don't have time to go to the mountains or desert, I still prefer the hiking caches. I used to be able to keep up with cache placements in a few of the nearby hiking areas and had to go further to find places to hike to caches. It is now impossible to keep up with the new nearby hikes. If people stopped placing non-urban caches near me today, I think there are enough hiking caches to last me for at least several months. I also like doing puzzles and have recently seen an increase in those as well. There is certainly no danger where I am of running out of the types of caches I like to find. And for that matter, since one can find dozens of urban micros in the time I would spend hiking to one remote cache - it makes sense for the there to be many more urban micros for the people who enjoy finding them. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 While I concur that micros in muggle rich zones go missing more often, I think they get archived more often - rather than replaced - because:They were cheap, quick, caches which the hider doesn't have a lot invested in and therefore when they go missing its easier to archive than do maintenance, or They were one of the expensive containers like the ones you can buy from Sissy 'n CR and the hider doesn't want to spend the money to replace it I assume that they get archived v. replaced at about the same percentage as larger caches. In fact, I bet they get replaced more often instead of archiving because the containers are often so inexpensive. Urban micros go missing so much more frequently than rural non-micros that you end up with a larger number of caches being archived v.replaced and a larger number of micros are archived after the owner has replaced the container multiple times. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 ... And for that matter, since one can find dozens of urban micros in the time I would spend hiking to one remote cache - it makes sense for the there to be many more urban micros for the people who enjoy finding them. Good point, I never thought of it that way. I'm going to fold it into my microspew argument as the 'Days of Fun' theory. Quote Link to comment
+CheshireFrog Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 And for that matter, since one can find dozens of urban micros in the time I would spend hiking to one remote cache - it makes sense for the there to be many more urban micros for the people who enjoy finding them. Or, just as importantly, since one can place micros quicker and easier than caches that require a lengthy hike. Quote Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted August 4, 2006 Author Share Posted August 4, 2006 One explanation might be high muggle concentrations, sure. But I thought micros where harder to find. Wouldn't that hold true that it would be harder for a muggle to find? Additionally, we have full-sized caches in muggle rich areas and haven't had any problems. Go figure. I'm thinking it's not the concentration of muggles as much as it is the care and preparation in the placement. If it's maintenance issues, then why would anyone prefer to place a micro which would more likely have maintenance issues? Are some micros seen as "throw away caches?" Plus, as sbell111 pointed out, there is an ever larger pool of non-micros to hunt. Given the issues I've pointed out and the larger pool of caches how many more folks are going to start ignoring micros completely? I would like to point out that I recognize this is not the only selective hunting out there. Some folks will only hunt 1.5/1.5 traditionals to maximize their smilie to fuel burned ratio. Being selective is nothing new. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 One explanation might be high muggle concentrations, sure. But I thought micros where harder to find. Wouldn't that hold true that it would be harder for a muggle to find? Additionally, we have full-sized caches in muggle rich areas and haven't had any problems. Go figure. I'm thinking it's not the concentration of muggles as much as it is the care and preparation in the placement. If it's maintenance issues, then why would anyone prefer to place a micro which would more likely have maintenance issues? Are some micros seen as "throw away caches?" Plus, as sbell111 pointed out, there is an ever larger pool of non-micros to hunt. Given the issues I've pointed out and the larger pool of caches how many more folks are going to start ignoring micros completely? I would like to point out that I recognize this is not the only selective hunting out there. Some folks will only hunt 1.5/1.5 traditionals to maximize their smilie to fuel burned ratio. Being selective is nothing new. I'd like to submit the possibility that you are just trolling. Quote Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted August 4, 2006 Author Share Posted August 4, 2006 ... And for that matter, since one can find dozens of urban micros in the time I would spend hiking to one remote cache - it makes sense for the there to be many more urban micros for the people who enjoy finding them. Good point, I never thought of it that way. I'm going to fold it into my microspew argument as the 'Days of Fun' theory. And for that matter, since one can find dozens of urban micros in the time I would spend hiking to one remote cache - it makes sense for the there to be many more urban micros for the people who enjoy finding them. Or, just as importantly, since one can place micros quicker and easier than caches that require a lengthy hike. While there is no disputing micros are more "popular" simply because of the above points, does that make them more preferred? In this respect you could use the analogy of restaurants. There are many more fast food joints than sit-down places, but what do you prefer? If it comes down to it, if I had the time and was dressed appropriately the choice will always come down to a sit-down place over a fast food place. How about you? Quote Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted August 4, 2006 Author Share Posted August 4, 2006 I'd like to submit the possibility that you are just trolling. If you thought that then why are feeding me? Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 (edited) In this respect you could use the analogy of restaurants. There are many more fast food joints than sit-down places, but what do you prefer? If it comes down to it, if I had the time and was dressed appropriately the choice will always come down to a sit-down place over a fast food place. How about you? It's kind of off-topic to this thread, but I would have to answer 'It depends'. For instance, I may be in the mood for a big juicy hamburger and go to Hardee's instead of a steak join. I might yearn for yummy thin cut fries and hit Ache and Quake instead of dealing with the drama that is J Alexander's. You tend to look at everything as black and white. When you do this, you miss all the other colors. Edited August 4, 2006 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 (edited) I'd like to submit the possibility that you are just trolling.If you thought that then why are feeding me? Are you new? It's no secret that I can't resist responding to that type of dreck. Edited August 4, 2006 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted August 4, 2006 Author Share Posted August 4, 2006 I'd like to submit the possibility that you are just trolling.If you thought that then why are feeding me? Are you new? It's no secret that I can't resist responding to that type of dreck. ...and generally with "dreck" of your own. Like the way you say I hate micros. Tell the lie often enough and you might believe it yourself. All I'm asking is whether folks ignore micros, what the owners think about it, and demonstrate a trend where more folks might start ignoring micros altogether. You did point out that there is an ever increasing pool of non-micros, why shouldn't folks click off micros in their PQs if they feel they'll get a high percentage of quality caches? This is what I'm exploring. Quote Link to comment
+CheshireFrog Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 While there is no disputing micros are more "popular" simply because of the above points, does that make them more preferred? I don't know, and I don't know of any way to find out. Certainly polling people here in the forums won't resove anything. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 All I'm asking is whether folks ignore micros, what the owners think about it, and demonstrate a trend where more folks might start ignoring micros altogether. You did point out that there is an ever increasing pool of non-micros, why shouldn't folks click off micros in their PQs if they feel they'll get a high percentage of quality caches? This is what I'm exploring. Again, I will point out that far more people are ignoring my terrain 3+ hikes or any of my puzzles (and not just my puzzle/hike/micro) than ignore micros. If people want to ignore micros, they are free to ignore micros. If people want to find micros hidden in strip mall parking lots because they can find half a dozen caches on their lunch hour, they are free to do that. You should hide the kinds of caches you like to find and leave it at that. Trying to hide caches to appeal to everyone or even to appeal to the most people isn't worth exploring. Should there be ways for CR to find the "quality" micros he thinks are worth searching for, instead of ignoring every micro? That may be a better thing to explore. At least you wouldn't come across as a troll if you asked this question. Quote Link to comment
+leather-man Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Yes, I ignore all micros in my PQ's. There are a few still in GSAK from before the time I changed the PQ and I may still hit 1 or 2 along the way, but the vast majority of the few I have found were a waste of my time. I value my time much more than anything else in life, including money. I can get back the money I spend but once you use up time, it's gone for the rest of your life. Quote Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted August 4, 2006 Author Share Posted August 4, 2006 Again, I will point out that far more people are ignoring my terrain 3+ hikes or any of my puzzles (and not just my puzzle/hike/micro) than ignore micros. I suspect that has to do more with how long it takes and how hard it is, than it does with size. Traditionals get hit more than multis--something else to explore--regardless of size. Easier caches get hit more than harder ones. Yet, rarely do we hear that there are too many traditionals or too many easy caches. It's not really even too many micros. It's too many lame micros. My contention has always been it's too many lame caches where are large percentage are micros. Micros continue to get a bad rap yet few want to explore why. Because of this division I suspect more and more folks will completely ignore micros. Quote Link to comment
+sfwife Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 I love micros. I love plastic boxes. I love ammo cans. I love geocaching. I love the hunt. DITTO Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.