Too Easy In America?

August 2, 2006

We are one of the pioneer caching teams in Australia, and have always looked forward to the challenges involved in every cache find. Most caches in Australia, particularly in the first two years were very difficult by today's standards. After 5 years of caching there are very few cachers in this country that have find tallies over a thousand for this reason.

It surprises me then to look at the American stats and see cachers amassing find tallies of multiple thousands even within very short caching careers. What are you guys doing up there? Looks like many of you are just placing caches anywhere and everywhere without thought for making them a challenge. Isn't it the challenge of the hunt that makes geocaching so much fun? I would much rather have my tally of just 500 knowing that the great majority were hard one with blood, sweat, tears, energy and endurance, than to have a 4 thousand tally of walk up start caches anytime. My fear is that there are many cachers out there that have never really experienced the true feeling of satisfaction when you have to work really hard to find a cache, because they only go for those easy ones that seem to be so abundant in the USA.. Maybe some of you should come down here and try caching in Australia, I think you would get a shock at just how difficult the cache hunts generally are, we have our easy ones sure, but most of us have not lost touch with what the sport is all about, and still make our fellow cachers work hard to find them.

The cache pollution rule is in place to stop too many caches in one area, but maybe it's time to start knocking back ridiculously easy placements as well. The classic film canister in a tree crotch at the side of the road is one style I'd knock back for sure.

Sorry to be so blunt but I just think it's getting way too easy when you can rack up a tally of 4 thousand+ in just a couple of years.

2.3k · August 2, 2006

I agree, and a word of advice to our Aussie Geocaching Family about what has happened here in the States with our Micro Spew:

DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU!

August 2, 2006

If you think the hunt is too easy, you can always make it harder. That's what bicycles are for. But saturation is still pretty amazing. On a 2-hour, 8-mile ride you can grab 11 or so caches. You might not remember each cache you hunted, but you're gonna remember the ride.

6.7k · August 2, 2006

Kind words of advice to our Australian friend: if you don't like them, don't hunt them! Use your PQ configuration options to block them, use the Ignore feature, read the cache page and skip it if it doesn't sound appealing - why try to insult, spoil or control other folks game? Play it YOUR way!

Despite the whining in these forums Americans obviously overwhelmingly LIKE micros all over the place, else so many of us wouldn't be placing and hunting them!

By the way - a micro can be FAR more challenging to find than an ammo can! 'Micro' and 'lame' do not equate.

Ed

22k · August 2, 2006

I was wondering why my Troll alert kept going off.

22k · August 2, 2006

August 2, 2006

By the way - a micro can be FAR more challenging to find than an ammo can! 'Micro' and 'lame' do not equate.

Ed

Yep. It only takes 30 minutes to pedal 8 miles. The other hour and a half is spent searching and searching and searching...

8.1k · August 2, 2006

Whereas I agree with most of what you said, meaning I prefer tougher challenges, you are looking at the game from a single point of view. Caching means different things to different people, some cahce with young kids, others cache from a wheelchair, others do triathalons and cache in a similar way so there is a whole range to caching, no right or wrong way (within the guidelines and the law).

My question to you is why do you care how many finds people have (on another continent) other than yourselves? I live in Northern New Jersey where people prefer to hike to find a larger cache, but we have our share of micros, puzzles and two very hard earthcaches.

A clever micro hide can be just as hard to find as a strenuous hike. It's just different. I am glad such a closed off opinion isn't approving caches in our area. It takes all kinds to play the game. <_<

Remember, it's not about the numbers! It's about the icons! :unsure:

(and BTW out of 497 caches you have found 83 locationless caches... is it so strenuous to find a butterfly farm?)

Edited August 2, 2006 by avroair

22k · August 2, 2006

August 2, 2006

I agree with the wholeheartedly with the sentiment of the OP but I offer the following advice:

It's absurd to equate find counts with effort. Period. Let it go.

August 2, 2006

I'll just quote someone who once said something interesting.

It nice to see so many caches now and how the game has evolved over the years.

August 2, 2006

One thing I have heard over and over by cachers in my area is that they claim to hate easy drive up caches. But if you look at thier stats, they have very few 4 or 5 star cache finds if any. To be honest, I don't think half of them could do a 4 or 5 star cache. I will say that here in the USA we have plenty of 4 or 5 star caches and it just depends on what location you are from (city, desert, mountains, ect.).

2.2k · August 2, 2006

feed the trolls it keeps them on specific threads and leaves the rest free for the rest of us!!! <_<

August 2, 2006

The cache pollution rule is in place to stop too many caches in one area, but maybe it's time to start knocking back ridiculously easy placements as well. The classic film canister in a tree crotch at the side of the road is one style I'd knock back for sure.

Sorry to be so blunt but I just think it's getting way too easy when you can rack up a tally of 4 thousand+ in just a couple of years.

Oh yeah, the classic cache in the tree in someone's backyard is so much better. Like the one in this cache that you did yesterday.

August 2, 2006

Oh yeah, the classic cache in the tree in someone's backyard is so much better. Like the one in this cache that you did yesterday.

I did that one on Sunday, and there is a narrow park running between the houses and the freeway. The cache is probably 20' inside the park. It is a surprisingly nice park given its proximity to the freeway - I guess the large noise reduction fence does its job!

Edited August 2, 2006 by smerrall

August 2, 2006

Hey, "The 2 Dogs", easy caching in America?

I logged this find today, but found it Sunday:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...95-a4aa3579a7d1

It cost me one night in a tent with the rain pouring down, one broken down ATV after 60 miles on it, over $300.00 in expenses just for food and gas, and it was ONE FIND.

I have to maintain this one annually, between 20 feet of snow and picky animals destroying the cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...8f-5bb09582e050

Last year, I got in serious trouble trying to obtain this cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...7f-937f851c9418

I actually LOST my new Magellan coming back down, after having a serious fall at 13,900 feet elevation. And I didn't reach the peak, so it was a DNF!

I placed this "picnic" cache this year:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...46-10150e580739

Yes, there are "easy" caches in America, but I challenge any cache in Australia to match some of these. This is why I have only 130 or so finds in 5 years of caching, because here in the mountains of Colorado, we measure it in "hours per cache", not "caches per hour"! I have placed some easy one's in town, many older cachers like to vacation here, but aren't about to hike up to 13,000 feet and more. But I also have caches for those that like the challenge. It is a good mix of caches for cachers of all ages!

Edited August 2, 2006 by Inmountains

August 2, 2006

Oh yeah, the classic cache in the tree in someone's backyard is so much better. Like the one in this cache that you did yesterday.

I did that one on Sunday, and there is a narrow park running between the houses and the freeway. The cache is probably 20' inside the park. It is a surprisingly nice park given its proximity to the freeway - I guess the large noise reduction fence does its job!

Wow, twenty whole feet and a fence? I think Team Neos made a valid point.

Easy caches exist in Australia, America, Europe, etc. Hard caches exist on each of those continents as well. Enjoy the variety and choose your preference, but don't complain about the way others play unless it physically harms your caches or you. Me? I prefer multis when I have the time and opportunity, but there's not always enough of either, so sometimes micros suffice due to their abundance.

Keep on caching! <_<

August 2, 2006

A great observation from Down Under. I wish I could get down there and try some of your more challenging caches. You have to understand that most folks in America have turned this "great sport" into some kind of great social event and for the most part "dumbed it down." Frankly, I find some of the caches I find more interesting than some of the people I've met.

I regret I'm guilty of racking up high cache counts on a given day. That said, I wish there were more challenging caches in my area but it seems that "park and grabs" are the norm. Even regular caches don't require too much effort anymore. I personnally enjoy challenging caches that require a good trek but not many exist in Central Texas. I've recently started a series that will require the use of a kayak.

I observed that some of the caches in Sweden really require great techinal skills. I'd enjoy doing some of those.

As someone has already said, most American cachers probably couldn't hide a level 4 or 5 cache. I believe that's true. I know this will probably torque some folks, but here I go. Take a look at some of the gallery photos of the typical American cacher. Now imagine them trying to place a highly technical level 4 or 5 cache. If you look at some of the photos from large cache gatherings, it looks more like a Weight Watchers Convention than a bunch of solid trekkers.

Like Bush said, "Bring it on!" I'll take all comers.

A great topic and I'm sure it's a thorn in the side of many American cachers.

G'Day Mate (Cache On... Geo-Solo)

Eagletrek

3.2k · August 2, 2006

People do and hide caches in environments where they are comfortable. People come to caching with a lot of different backgrounds. We have a lot of cachers with very little outdoor experience that are unable or unwilling to venture far from their car. Others may have years of backpacking, orienteering, hiking, and other off road or wilderness experience. It is sort of like golf, there are miniature golf, chip and putt, public courses, and championship courses. Don't think the pros spend much time worrying about the miniature golfers ruining their game.

10.2k · August 2, 2006

I just wanted to post that little animated .gif of Signal the frog eating popcorn. But I don't know how to do that <_<

August 2, 2006

<_<

Click "Show All" under the clickable smilies

Edited August 2, 2006 by agilefox

1.1k · August 2, 2006

I love cheeseburgers.

August 2, 2006

A great observation from Down Under. I wish I could get down there and try some of your more challenging caches. You have to understand that most folks in America have turned this "great sport" into some kind of great social event and for the most part "dumbed it down." Frankly, I find some of the caches I find more interesting than some of the people I've met. <snip>...

So how exactly have we "dumbed it down"? The original cache was a five gallon bucket on the side of the road. It doesn't get much easier than that.

I certainly love a challenging cache, i.e. a good hide, hard puzzle, etc., but mainly I just love the hunt. If I know ahead of time that what I'm looking for is a micro stuck in a guard rail in an alley, I won't go after it specifically, but if I am in an area, I'll hunt it. Most are of the "micro spew" variety, and I log it and forget it, but occassionally you find an interesting hide among them.

It seems to me that one of the reasons for high find numbers anywhere is simply cache density. My brother has been actively caching for nearly two years longer than I, yet I now have more finds than he does. Does this mean that my finds have been less arduous? or is it more an indication of available caches in my area?

The first 100 caches nearest my home are all within 9 kilometers. Of those 100, 10 are uninteresting micros, and of those 10 about 5 are totally unredeemable or downright boring. But of the other 90 caches, I have had some of my most memorable caching experiences, having to hunt many of them multiple times in order to find them, or hike up steep terrain, or bushwack through dense vegetation ... and I live in a suburb!

My brother, on the other side of the country, has to travel more than 9 km just to get the first 20 caches from his home, and double that to the first 100. I have hunted caches near his home as well, and the range of difficulty is about the same as it is here, it just takes much longer to get from one cache to another.

I don't think there is much anyone can do to eliminate the "bad" caches, other than to let them die their eventual caching death, but equating high numbers to "easy" or "dumb" caches is off base. Numbers in this hobby are rather abitrary.

Edited August 2, 2006 by Ichabod

August 2, 2006

As I said in my post, we do have our easy caches, but I think it's more balanced down under.. That's not to say you don't have many difficult caches in America. I 'm sure you have some doosies, but I still say it's getting too easy when you can rack up 4000+ finds in just a couple of years. What does that equate to?.......something like 5 or 6 every single day of the year, and that's not allowing for "did not finds"

BTW the Butterfly Farm is actually 5000km from my home and many kilometres outside of Darwin, which is one of the most remote cities in the world. I actually enjoyed the virtuals. Most virtuals involved a lot more effort than finding micros in roadside trees. If you really wanted to make an example of me you should have cited my entry in "Yellow Jeep" or "Flagpoles" they were dead easy.

As for the easy cache yesterday, guilty as charged! I walked my dog there..........so I couldn't resist having a look? I've done 1/1's and I've placed 1/1's but I also do up to 5/5's and my average for placing (BTW I've placed more caches than anyone else in this country) is maybe 3/3 with some, 4's and 5s but it's not ease or difficulty I'm talking about so much as the balance between the two.

2.1k · August 2, 2006

Sure, we do it have easier here, Captain Obvious! There are more cachers and therefore more caches placed here! Are they all 5/5s? No. Are they all 1/1s? No. The real difference therefore is that we have more choice, so we can make the hobby as easy or as hard as we want. It's very cool.

August 2, 2006

but I still say it's getting too easy when you can rack up 4000+ finds in just a couple of years. What does that equate to?.......something like 5 or 6 every single day of the year, and that's not allowing for "did not finds"

My friend 2 dogs- perhaps these kind of numbers say more about the geocachers than about the level of difficulty of caches in a particular nation? It is easy to note numbers in the thousands, but how many U.S. cachers to you note the difficulty of cache finds and time caching for those under 1000 finds? If these folks were more "noticeable," would you think that looking at the stats and types of caches logged by folks (such as Criminal and Jeremy) indicated that, goodness, caches in America have a significant "wow" factor and require a bit of a hike?

It is my opinion that the numbers of which you speak paint a more clear picture of the type of cachers as opposed to the types of caches. Sometimes, we find that which we seek, whether that be a "lame" cache or a trend of geocaching in a particular nation...

8.1k · August 2, 2006

It is sort of like golf, there are miniature golf, chip and putt, public courses, and championship courses. Don't think the pros spend much time worrying about the miniature golfers ruining their game.

Great analogy. <_<

August 2, 2006

Variety is the spice of life. To narrow down the game to a majority of hard challenging caches would eliminate a large number of cachers who absolutely adore this game. In my opinion, I believe there should be all kinds of caches, extremely easy to extremely hard - BUT - there I feel there should be some value to the location that these are hidden. Either a nice park to visit, a historical area, a great viewpoint, an oddity of some sort, etc. I am not a big fan of parking lot micros with no redeeming value other than an increase for your find count.

1.3k · August 2, 2006

To each's own. I think we all find our own personal satisfaction in the caches we find and hunt.

August 2, 2006

Thanks to all for your input. I've been supported in my view and Ive been accused of being a troll for making my observation known, so I dare say there are as many who do feel the same way as do not.

I guess you have to understand how strange it looks to us down here, particualry the long time participants, who have travelled the country and cached day and night for years and still not found anywhere near the massive numbers we see attached to logs in the USA.

1.1k · August 2, 2006

To each's own. I think we all find our own personal satisfaction

<_< Wow! What a revelation! I wish everyone thought this way.

August 2, 2006

Thanks to all for your input. I've been supported in my view and Ive been accused of being a troll for making my observation known, so I dare say there are as many who do feel the same way as do not.

I guess you have to understand how strange it looks to us down here, particualry the long time participants, who have travelled the country and cached day and night for years and still not found anywhere near the massive numbers we see attached to logs in the USA.

It is all about cache density 2 Dogs. I did a quick search. According to gc.com, there are 7,369 caches in ALL of Australia, which covers an area of about 2,966,368 square miles. In my home state of Oregon, an area of 98,386 square miles, we have 7,213 caches, and there are many states with much higher density than this. It is a simple matter of mathematics.

24.7k · August 2, 2006

... The classic film canister in a tree crotch at the side of the road is one style I'd knock back for sure....

I've seen something like 3 of those types of hides. You folks down there must have it easy. <_< My DNF ratio is over 10% and climbing.

What it comes down to is cache density. If you are in an urban area there will be a lot of caches. Even if they are all great hides there is just more available to hunt. This isn't true for everywhere but it's true for most all metro areas of the USA.

There is something to be said for the difference between finds then and now. I had to work long and hard for my first 100 finds. Now I can whip out 100 in a busy weekend. Cachers who cache for a couple of months and have 500 finds in an area with 2000 caches are not as impressive to me as those of us who did 100 when there were less than 300 in the entire state. It's all relative and I keep that in mind when some geocaching whipper snapper thinks they are hot stuff but hasn't found any of the early landmark caches that remain active.

22k · August 2, 2006

...

Edited August 2, 2006 by BlueDeuce

9.5k · August 2, 2006

Even here someone has to knock USA about a bit.

1.4k · August 2, 2006

Thanks to all for your input. I've been supported in my view and Ive been accused of being a troll for making my observation known, so I dare say there are as many who do feel the same way as do not.

I guess you have to understand how strange it looks to us down here, particualry the long time participants, who have travelled the country and cached day and night for years and still not found anywhere near the massive numbers we see attached to logs in the USA.

I'll disagree with you that it's "too easy" here, but don't call me a troll just because I disagree. <_<

Even with Caches Along a Route PQ, I spend way too much time and effort weeding out caches I want to find by PQ. I need to wade through bookmark lists to find a cache target I might enjoy for the day. If I try to look for a cache by map in my area, it's confusing and overwhelming.

Cache Density doesn't make it any easier for me. But then, I don't put very high value in find counts.

P.S. If you decide to come to the San Francisco Bay Area for caching, visit our regional forum, the GBA (Geocachers of the Bay Area). We'll send you to the Monterey area if you want real challenges. <_<

8k · August 2, 2006

I don't think the OP is a troll. But his complaint shouldn't be between the US and Australia. I see the same comment from people in Alaska or Montana refering to cachers in California, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. I suspect that cachers in Darwin think the same about cachers in Sydney or Melbourne. I've seen some old timers here complain about MicroSpew and how that means that newer cachers have racked up higher numbers by finding large numbers of urban caches in one day, while back in the good old days you were lucky to find two or three caches that might be close enough to find on your hike in the woods.

1) As geocaching has grown it has attracted different people. A lot of the newer cachers are what I call urban cachers (people less likely to want to do long hikes). That, along with higher gas prices, has led to many more urban hides. But there has also be a growth of other kinds of caches including challenging hikes and challenging camouflage and hiding techniques in both urban and rural setting. More cachers => more caches to find => higher numbers.

2) Geocaching growth is not even. It has grown faster in some countries and territories than in others. It seems to have grown first in densly populated areas with lots of nearby public open space. But as there are more urban cachers we are starting to see higher number of uban hides and even more roadside caches along highways between cities. More people => More caches.

3) Too much emphasis on numbers. Four of the top five finders are from California . There is a reason for this - there are a lot of caches to find in California. I know some of them started by looking for every cache - because there were so few caches to find when they started. At least one of them now rarely does any hiking. He bought a Jeep so he could drive to some more rural caches but he mostly finds urban caches. The real numbers hounds here have modified their cache hunting to keep up with the kinds of caches that add up to numbers. Other old timers who used to hunt everything, have modified their caching to eliminate most 1/1 urban caches. If you are really into numbers you should be encouraging more urban micros in Australia to get your find count up. Otherwise, stop complaining that some people in America have found 1000 caches in six months. Forget about numbers (unless that is your main motivation to cache) and hunt the kinds of caches you like to find (and maybe a few that you don't because there is no way to filter exactly what you like).

Edited August 2, 2006 by tozainamboku

August 2, 2006

I'll admit I do like the harder ones where I have to hike for awhile to get ot it, like the ones I found in Maine last summer. Those are great when it's just me but when I have the kids in tow I really appreciate the "park and grabs".

August 2, 2006

I just have one thing to say about this:

IF YOU DON'T CACHE THE WAY I DO, THEN YOU ARE DOING IT ALL WRONG AND SHOULD BE SHOT! BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH I HAVE ONLY BEEN CACHING 4 DAYS, I HAVE THE "RIGHT WAY" ALL FIGURED AND THE REST OF YOU ARE DOPES!!

<_< <_<

1.6k · August 2, 2006

As I said in my post, we do have our easy caches, but I think it's more balanced down under.. That's not to say you don't have many difficult caches in America. I 'm sure you have some doosies, but I still say it's getting too easy when you can rack up 4000+ finds in just a couple of years. What does that equate to?.......something like 5 or 6 every single day of the year, and that's not allowing for "did not finds"

What's that, like 2-3 GW's?

Part of the problem is the "myth" that to be validated as a geocacher, you have to "give back" to the community by placing more caches. Some feel inclined to place a LOT of caches. Sorry folks, but there are not that many interesting places in the U.S. to support the roughly 20,000 cachers we have here (pulled the number out of my butt). So then you have new folks, trying to validate their existence by placing their own caches, but the beautiful, unique, awe insipiring sites are all taken, so you get micro/cache explosion.

I have exactly 3 hides to my 291 finds in a year and a half. I actually placed one of those caches and adopted the other two. When I find a cool spot, or have a great cache idea (turning more to the puzzle/mystery caches now) I MAY place a new cache there. I am not going to place caches simply to try and inflate my perceived worth to the community at large.

that and we have a lot more caches than you do - so get over it. <_< <_<

4.2k · August 2, 2006

I guess you have to understand how strange it looks to us down here, particualry the long time participants, who have travelled the country and cached day and night for years and still not found anywhere near the massive numbers we see attached to logs in the USA.

Here's what I don't get.....if caching is really about long, difficult hikes/hides for you, why are you looking at the stats of other people?!?!

Keep in mind, that high numbers also represent cache density (as mentioned numerous times) as well as the amount of time that somebody has to go caching. I know a few retired (or close to it) cachers who do nothing but cache. They have much higher find counts than I do. Doesn't make them any better or worse than me - they just have more time to do it, therefore they have more finds.

Be careful about broad generalizations like you've made. That would be like us saying that all Austrailians are crooks and convicts, eh mate? <_<

August 2, 2006

If you look at some of the photos from large cache gatherings, it looks more like a Weight Watchers Convention than a bunch of solid trekkers.

Heck if I knew geocaching was only for skinny people.... I'm running off to change my name to "fat cacher"

9.4k · August 2, 2006

To Americans, Australians go geocaching upside-down. Our toilets flush the other way too.

August 2, 2006

....I wish I could get down there and try some of your more challenging caches.

....I wish there were more challenging caches in my area but it seems that "park and grabs" are the norm.

....I personnally enjoy challenging caches that require a good trek but not many exist in Central Texas.

....I observed that some of the caches in Sweden really require great techinal skills. I'd enjoy doing some of those.

As someone has already said, most American cachers probably couldn't hide a level 4 or 5 cache. Take a look at some of the gallery photos of the typical American cacher. Now imagine them trying to place a highly technical level 4 or 5 cache. If you look at some of the photos from large cache gatherings, it looks more like a Weight Watchers Convention than a bunch of solid trekkers.

So, lemme guess: the reason for YOUR double-chin is the lack of challenging caches in your area? <_<

August 2, 2006

The2Dogs-"I guess you have to understand how strange it looks to us down here, particualry the long time participants, who have travelled the country and cached day and night for years and still not found anywhere near the massive numbers we see attached to logs in the USA."

Making the same type of snap judgement you did about America, I'd say your locals just aren't trying as hard as a lot of the cachers here! <_<

The problem with making a generalization like you did about caches being easier in America is you haven't offered any statistics to back it up. It may or may not be true but until you can offer facts to back up your claim, it is of no more value than a pair of fetid dingo kidneys. Also, just because I live in New Hampshire, USA, and I have seen no kookaburras doesn't mean that I'm not a birdwatcher; or that I may(or may not) like Violet Crumble bars. Make sure your comparison is meaningful.

August 2, 2006

Thanks to all for your input. I've been supported in my view and Ive been accused of being a troll for making my observation known, so I dare say there are as many who do feel the same way as do not.

I guess you have to understand how strange it looks to us down here, particualry the long time participants, who have travelled the country and cached day and night for years and still not found anywhere near the massive numbers we see attached to logs in the USA.

I do not believe you are a troll, but I "dare say" that you are wrong in your conclusions about being too "easy." I hope you did not include me as one of those supportive of your view when I agreed that America does have easy caches (and hard ones) like anywhere else, including Autralia.

The majority here do not seem to agree with you, but have provided other possible reasons as to how you might have reached that conclusion (e.g. density difference). Your logic appears designed to make you feel good about yourself, a "better" cacher because of the challenging ones you've found, and make others believe that it's the way the game is supposed to be, even though many of the earliest "old school" cacehes don't fit your criteria. It's great to play the game the way you choose (within the guidelines), but it's also great that others don't think the same way. I enjoy those challenging hikes/multis and wish more existed, but it wouldn't make me feel better in comparing myself (776 finds in over 3 years, about 250 a year) to those with high numbers. I'm happy for them if they're happy with the caches they've found (as long as they followed the guidelines) here in America, in Canada, in Europe, and even in the land of New South Wales.

August 2, 2006

Thanks to all for your input. I've been supported in my view and Ive been accused of being a troll for making my observation known, so I dare say there are as many who do feel the same way as do not.

People who call those who hold opposing viewpoints 'trolls' are no better than trolls themselves. An all too common practice on many online forums, it's an intellectual cop-out carefully designed to avoid having to post a reasonable counterpoint. Fortunately, the 'ignore' feature is here for that very purpose.

August 2, 2006

I'm not seeking an intellectual cop-out, but I am curious how someone who has not logged one cache here can speak to cache pollution or the quality of hides. I have never cached down under, only seen pictures of some cache locations, so I would comment on the quality of hides there. Caching here is very diverse, and this is a huge country.

22k · August 2, 2006

Thanks to all for your input. I've been supported in my view and Ive been accused of being a troll for making my observation known, so I dare say there are as many who do feel the same way as do not.

People who call those who hold opposing viewpoints 'trolls' are no better than trolls themselves. An all too common practice on many online forums, it's an intellectual cop-out carefully designed to avoid having to post a reasonable counterpoint. Fortunately, the 'ignore' feature is here for that very purpose.

No, I still consider 2 Dogs posting to be nothing more than trolling. I can handle editorials and even a mis-informed opinions, this is an attack simply to invoke a response. Now if 2 dogs hadn't targeted a specific nationality I wouldn't have minded.

Now of course since I am an American I must be trying to defend my position of poor caching habits rather than being offended by his nationalism. (Edit: Sorry couldn't use the word racism since being an American isn't a race. My bad)

Since I have no idea why this person even cares about how I cache but apparenty he has to open a thread to tell me how wonderful he is, then I have to call it trolling.

Edited August 2, 2006 by BlueDeuce

August 2, 2006

I'm not seeking an intellectual cop-out, but I am curious how someone who has not logged one cache here can speak to cache pollution or the quality of hides.

Perhaps someone who is annoyed by the fact that another person in another country who has only cached for a year or two has found a thousand caches or more while the someone who has cached for five years hasn't found more than 500 or so since the difficulty level is higher in their area. I'm not sure why they'd care unless the numbers really mattered to them.

(edited for grammar)

Edited August 2, 2006 by Teach2Learn

Too Easy In America?

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