Another 'rant'

[+Pharisee]

I’d finished all my ‘chores’ on Saturday so Sunday was free… Whoopee… I could go caching. I dumped all my local unfound caches (100’s of ‘em) onto MemoryMap and looked for a few close together that I could do on a circular walk.

Found a couple of groups that looked promising and opened up the cache pages... Micro... micro... micro... Seven out of the ten were bl**dy micros. Why do people place micros in rural settings, miles from anywhere? I suspect it’s sheer laziness, or maybe they’re just being ‘tight-fisted’. Either way, I didn’t do them... or any caches come to that. I spent a very enjoyable afternoon at a Steam Rally instead.

 

Pharisee, Grumpy ol' Git and founder member of CamProC (Campaign for Proper Caches)

[+S&G.Davison]

We too often raise the eyebrows when get to the cache location and look to the notes and see "Container : Micro" and we are stood in the middle of a forrest with a Million places to hide (larger) things

 

However we did one micro this weekend in the forrest which made complete sense .. Wont say why as it'll ruin the cache .. (Pharisee did it on the 23 July)

 

Its GCTQCW

Edited August 7, 2006 by S&G.Davison

[+JollyJax]

Can I join CamProC too please Pharisee []

[+Moote]

Not all Micros are bad, it depends where they are placed.

[+Haggis Hunter]

Not all Micros are bad, it depends where they are placed.

True many urban set micros are worth the search, but I do agree that in a rural area when there is the opportunity to hide a larger container then it should be a larger container.

 

With that said I have a micro in a strip of wood, but the hiding technique makes sense for it to be a micro, I do however have a decent sized regular cache only 0.1 mile away from it in the same wood.

[+Pharisee]

However we did one micro this weekend in the forrest which made complete sense .. Wont say why as it'll ruin the cache .. (Pharisee did it on the 23 July)

 

Its GCTQCW

 

Yes, I remember that one. In mitigation I have to say that I was caching with a couple of mates at the time and they don't have my aversion to damp bits of paper in leaky 35mm film pots

 

I'd deliberately not mentioned any cache names as I didn't want this thread to turn, as so many seem to these days, into a 'personal' attack on anyone. However, as Mr Davison brought this one up, it is a perfect example of what I'm trying to get across.

Yes, I agree that the name made sense but that cache could quite easily have been hidden in the middle of a busy shopping mall.... Why hide it in the middle of a wood that has no bearing on that 'sense'? A proper cache could quite easily have been hidden at that location so why waste it on a micro that could have been cleverly hidden, to much better effect in, say, a busy suburban park?

[+t.a.folk]

I'm the smaller one of us two .I like any size container except ammo cans .I often cant open them, and more often have had difficlty in closing them .

Edited August 7, 2006 by t.a.folk

[+chizu]

Wait until people start hiding nanos in the middle of nowhere

Edited August 7, 2006 by chizu

[alistair_uk]

Not all Micros are bad, it depends where they are placed.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. A micro does not have to be bad, although we can not ignore the evidence that many, or possibly even most are.

 

My theory is that when placing a "real" cache people make more of an effort and put in more thought, while a micro can be carried anywhere and bunged somewhere on a whim.

 

I am not again micros, I like many micros, I am against caches that have not been thought through and have little merit. Unfortunately this often a micro.

[+Daisy&me]

I'm with you on this one John. I work on the principle of hiding the largest container possible at a location.

 

Sign me up to CamProC please.

[+bhodisatva]

Oh how fortunate it must be to live in a rural community with miles and miles of open space in which to hide an ammo can, unfortunately living in an "inner city" area with open spaces at a premium, often micros are the only option. Remember some micros have had more thought put into the placing of them than ammo cans in the countryside have, anyone can hide an ammo can in the backwoods of nowhere where passing foot traffic is few and far between, it takes thought and ingenuity to place a micro in full view of passersby on a busy street and not to have it muggled.

 

Leave the micros alone i tell ee, there are good and bad points with both large and small containers, i'd much rather find a well placed and thought out micro with only a logbook in it than an ammo can full of cheap and broken crap where people have traded down rather than up.

 

Founder member ERFASOCC (Equal Rights For All Sizes Of Cache Container)

[+Pharisee]

Founder member ERFASOCC (Equal Rights For All Sizes Of Cache Container)

 

Touché....

 

Oh how fortunate it must be to live in a rural community with miles and miles of open space in which to hide an ammo can, unfortunately living in an "inner city" area with open spaces at a premium, often micros are the only option. Remember some micros have had more thought put into the placing of them than ammo cans in the countryside have, anyone can hide an ammo can in the backwoods of nowhere where passing foot traffic is few and far between, it takes thought and ingenuity to place a micro in full view of passersby on a busy street and not to have it muggled.

 

I agree entirely... I have no problem what-so-ever with micros hidden in places where it's not possible to hide anything else. It's the micros that are hidden "in the backwoods of nowhere where passing foot traffic is few and far between" that I have a problem with. Maybe I'm just unlucky but there there seems to be an awful lot of 'rural' micros hidden in my local (35mile radius) area. I believe the term 'Micro Spew' covers it quite nicely (do a forum search). The 'mericans have it worse that us with ratios of 5:1, micros to boxes, not being uncommon in some places. I really hope it never gets that bad here. I'll have been long gone before then.

 

The proliferation of the 'lame virtual' brought about a fundamental change in the g.com guideline and it was almost impossible to get a virtual cache 'published'. Maybe it's time for the same guidelines to be applied to micros. The 'reviewers' should only publish the cache if the cache setter can convince them that a 'proper' cache can't be hidden in close proximity to the micro's proposed location.

Edited August 7, 2006 by Pharisee

[+currykev]

Pharisee, Grumpy ol' Git and founder member of CamProC (Campaign for Proper Caches)

 

I'm not quite as ol' or Grumpy yet,but time will see me right I'm sure.(I am getting there)

Quality over size is surely the way forward,as bhodisatva has so eloquently stated.

I'd love to find and hide more "Regular Caches" but it isn't always possible.

I would rather do an informative and challenging series with a micro as the prize

than find a worthless cache hidden by the side of a large road.

Even if it means my "numbers" increasing.

But thats another Pharisee argument.

I will second the campaign for ERFASOCC

[+Jango & Boba Fett]

Pharisee, Grumpy ol' Git and founder member of CamProC (Campaign for Proper Caches)

Shouldn't that be the CAmpaign for Real Cache Placement

 

There are occasions when my thoughts stray along similar byways but then I encounter something like GCQD3Y and it restores my faith in quality caches with micros. I think what is needed is for more thought to go into cache-etiquette and style which applies to caches of all sizes.

 

Now where is that carrier bag full of film canisters for my new breeder cache in Bedford.

[+bhodisatva]

 

Now where is that carrier bag full of film canisters for my new breeder cache in Bedford.

I'm sure that will go down rather well with my newly decided upon signature item. I have a regular supply of 35mm film canisters and the pdf file for the micro logs, guess who has decided to make these Micro caches up and deposit them in every "proper" cache they come across, regardless of whether they are actually trading an item or not?

 

John i promise, should i ever start caching out in Beds that i'll try to leave them at home, although i reckon by that time it would be rather like telling Bones not to drop a pair of gloves or some Paper hankies into the caches he finds

Edited August 7, 2006 by bhodisatva

[+Pharisee]

I'm sure that will go down rather well with my newly decided upon signature item. I have a regular supply of 35mm film canisters and the pdf file for the micro logs, guess who has decided to make these Micro caches up and deposit them in every "proper" cache they come across, regardless of whether they are actually trading an item or not?

 

John i promise, should i ever start caching out in Bucks that i'll try to leave them at home, although i reckon by that time it would be rather like telling Bones not to drop a pair of gloves or some Paper hankies into the caches he finds

 

Hmmm.... You are not welcome at my caches...

 

Incidentally, I live in Bedfordshire, not Bucks!!

[+Alibags]

The proliferation of the 'lame virtual' brought about a fundamental change in the g.com guideline and it was almost impossible to get a virtual cache 'published'. Maybe it's time for the same guidelines to be applied to micros. The 'reviewers' should only publish the cache if the cache setter can convince them that a 'proper' cache can't be hidden in close proximity to the micro's proposed location.

 

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!

 

And then they will simply outlaw micros in the same way that they did virtuals, webcams and earthcaches which many of us enjoyed. I too hate micros hidden in the woods where you could hide a huge cache just as easily. However, I tend to try to tactfully SAY SO in my log, so the setter gets some feedback. Much better than a "found cache easily TNLNSL" type log, dont you think?

[+The Flying Boots]

I'm happy to do Micro's in any setting, Urban or Rural. For me it's the location that matters and the fact that a geocache large or small has brought a lovely location to our attention. Even if I haven't found the micro at the end (has happened only once twice so far. one of these a puzzle where we got the wrong co-ords and the other a cunning hide) then I think that its the journey that was enjoyable plus the destination which was probably why the setter put it there in the first place. We can always go back and enjoy it all over again for a second hunt another time around. Both were found second time around.

 

Just remembered a third micro as part of a multi we haven't found after two hunts but we'll be back there sooner or later to get it.

[+bhodisatva]

Incidentally, I live in Bedfordshire, not Bucks!!

Edited my original post to correct this innacuracy Edited August 7, 2006 by bhodisatva

[alistair_uk]

The proliferation of the 'lame virtual' brought about a fundamental change in the g.com guideline and it was almost impossible to get a virtual cache 'published'. Maybe it's time for the same guidelines to be applied to micros. The 'reviewers' should only publish the cache if the cache setter can convince them that a 'proper' cache can't be hidden in close proximity to the micro's proposed location.

 

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!

 

And then they will simply outlaw micros in the same way that they did virtuals, webcams and earthcaches which many of us enjoyed. I too hate micros hidden in the woods where you could hide a huge cache just as easily. However, I tend to try to tactfully SAY SO in my log, so the setter gets some feedback. Much better than a "found cache easily TNLNSL" type log, dont you think?

Although I like the idea of making it harder to place a micro to balance thing out a bit I do tend to agree with Alibags concerns as well.

 

At the risk of getting flamed, by a flame thrower, helped with dozens of cachers with candles and cigarette lighters, I will give an alternative opinion. Sometimes a virtual can be a more enjoyable cache to find than a micro, and sometime, and only a few times, a micro can be better than a larger cache.

 

{Alistair now runs for his life}

[+The Blorenges]

We only have 3 micro caches, one of them is hidden in a wood. Why not a larger cache? Because in this case, it's a 4* difficulty and the whole point of the cache was the "homework" needed to calculate the co-ordinates, followed by a difficult hunt for the final hiding place. Only an "elite" few cachers have managed to find it without any help at all from us. Others have persevered and found it on their second or third search

 

Having said all that, we usually hide larger caches whenever possible .

 

MrsB

[+The Flying Boots]

one of them is hidden in a wood. Why not a larger cache? Because in this case, it's a 4* difficulty and the whole point of the cache was the "homework" needed to calculate the co-ordinates, followed by a difficult hunt for the final hiding place. Only an "elite" few cachers have managed to find it without any help at all from us. Others have persevered and found it on their second or third search

 

 

MrsB

 

This was one of the ones we didn't find first time round but thoroughly enjoyed the efforts of looking for it

[+alma]

sign me up for camproc

[+Johnmelad]

I’d finished all my ‘chores’ on Saturday so Sunday was free… Whoopee… I could go caching. I dumped all my local unfound caches (100’s of ‘em) onto MemoryMap and looked for a few close together that I could do on a circular walk.

Found a couple of groups that looked promising and opened up the cache pages... Micro... micro... micro... Seven out of the ten were bl**dy micros. Why do people place micros in rural settings, miles from anywhere? I suspect it’s sheer laziness, or maybe they’re just being ‘tight-fisted’. Either way, I didn’t do them... or any caches come to that. I spent a very enjoyable afternoon at a Steam Rally instead.

 

Pharisee, Grumpy ol' Git and founder member of CamProC (Campaign for Proper Caches)

 

I shall be putting out two film canisters over the next couple of days, feel free to ignore them.

[+Hi-Tek]

I’d finished all my ‘chores’ on Saturday so Sunday was free… Whoopee… I could go caching. I dumped all my local unfound caches (100’s of ‘em) onto MemoryMap and looked for a few close together that I could do on a circular walk.

Found a couple of groups that looked promising and opened up the cache pages... Micro... micro... micro... Seven out of the ten were bl**dy micros. Why do people place micros in rural settings, miles from anywhere? I suspect it’s sheer laziness, or maybe they’re just being ‘tight-fisted’. Either way, I didn’t do them... or any caches come to that. I spent a very enjoyable afternoon at a Steam Rally instead.

 

Pharisee, Grumpy ol' Git and founder member of CamProC (Campaign for Proper Caches)

I shall be putting out two film canisters over the next couple of days, feel free to ignore them.

As they're likely to be placed in Cumbria and Pharisee is in Bedfordshire I feel sure he probably will ignore them

[+bhodisatva]

Maybe Pharisee has an aversion to micros because he actually has to look for them, whereas it's much easier to trip over or stumble upon a huge ammo box?

[+NinjaPete]

I'll look for a cache no matter what size but I do think the location should determine the size, ie middle of no-where= 5 gallon bucket (it could happen ), city centre = micro (usually). On the other hand I know of families who use the lure of the swaps to get the kids out and about, which is why they avoid micros ( possibly a reason why this remained unfound for over 2 weeks).

[+miss_butterfly]

I'm the smaller one of us two .I like any size container except ammo cans .I often cant open them, and more often have had difficlty in closing them .

 

I have exactly the same problem, can't open or close them... so i don't know what i'm doing prepping a large ammo can which currently sits my living room. I have to keep getting the OH to open it for me

 

as for micros, I know couple of micros that I was really glad i hunted, stunning locations. However it does put me off somewhat when i look on the map and it looks like i have to walk miles just for a micro. This doesn't make sense though, because i hardly ever trade (but always leave swags), so really, the size of the cache or its contents shouldn't really bug me..... no, even i don't understand that....

[+Simply Paul]

I'd like to speak in the defence of micros too - but it's gone 3am, I've had a busy day in London and I want to go to bed. I will just say the most visited cache in the UK is a micro. I agree they're not suited to every environment, but I don't think their use should be put down to laziness. And I'm not just saying this because I've hidden more than a couple myself. More soapbox rhetoric when I've slept

[+Pharisee]

Maybe Pharisee has an aversion to micros because he actually has to look for them, whereas it's much easier to trip over or stumble upon a huge ammo box?

 

Hey... you might have something there

 

I will just say the most visited cache in the UK is a micro.

 

A perfect example of the ideal location for a micro and one I've visited on numerous occasions. An urban setting where it would be extremely difficult to hide anything larger. As I've said before, I've nothing at all against caches like this. Micros do have a place in the (caching) world.... but it's not in the middle of a forest!!

[+currykev]

How about some micro TB's.Then I could find more local caches to put them into.

[+The HERB5]

In a similar vein, I hate caches hidden near an obvious hiding place.

I used to consider reading the clue as giving up but now I tend to give up quite easily and read it;

suspecting that the cache isn't quite where I think it is....

[+Mr'D]

I am neither a great lover or hater of micros. However there certainally are good reasons when a micro is well justified, and conversely, where their use can be disappointing.

I recall a cache I found a couple of weeks ago, which was in a terrific area, lovely walk (about 1.5 miles out and back), only to find a 35mm canister at the end. Being off a public footpath in dense wood there should have been no reason why a full size, or even a small, container could not have been placed.

Busy and/or popular places may make it very hard to find a suitable hiding place, one that will last more than a few days/weeks, and so the alternatives are either an offset multi, or of course a micro.

Another reason which may justify the use of micros is the initial cost of placing ammo tins/snap lock containers to a prolific cache layer. One cacher, who has already contributed to this discussion, has over 100 caches laid. Given an initial cost of say £5 per cache for container/contents etc. that would be an investment of £500; quite a tidy sum.

 

Personally I would rather find a micro than nothing at all.

[+Happy Humphrey]

A perfect example of the ideal location for a micro and one I've visited on numerous occasions. An urban setting where it would be extremely difficult to hide anything larger. As I've said before, I've nothing at all against caches like this. Micros do have a place in the (caching) world.... but it's not in the middle of a forest!!

Why not? What's inherently wrong with a cache being small?

 

There are some advantages, the most important being the minimal impact on the environment. Not only due to the hide taking up less room, but because hides can be made much closer to public areas (e.g. actually ON a public footpath rather than via a new "cacher's path" leading fifty yards into the forest), thus avoiding many of the permission and access issues which are becoming a bigger problem nowadays.

 

Also, compare the typical large (damp, grotty and smelly) tupperware box wrapped in a couple of foul plastic bags, under a pile of sticks deep in the woods; with a nice little container, well-disguised and clean, hung on a tree or on the back of a post on the edge of a clearing. I'd rather find the latter any day!

 

The disadvantages are that there will be few (if any) swaps, and not all micros can take a geocoin or other TB (although some can, and I would encourage people to use containers that do have a bit of room).

 

I would conclude that, if swaps aren't that important, micros are always better. After all, the numbers are the most important aspect of the game, followed by the location. Micros have no disadvantage on both these fromts.

 

If you still disagree, it's easy to filter micros out of searches. So why rant?

 

And why "ban" them? If there are 100 caches in your area and 50 are micros, banning micros will simply mean that there are 50 fewer caches - where's the advantage in that?

 

HH

[+currykev]

As I'm now bored with this subject.There is surely one final answer.

If you don't like micros then DON'T do them.

If I don't like something on TV then I switch it OFF.

If I don't like carrots then I don't order them.

Simple really.

LONG LIVE THE MICRO !!

[+The HERB5]

If I don't like carrots then I don't order them.

 

My wife doesn't like mayonnaise, makes it very difficult to buy a sandwich.

[+Icenians]

After all, the numbers are the most important aspect of the game, followed by the location. Micros have no disadvantage on both these fromts.

 

Why not make your feeling known? The game is geoCACHING and a small box with nothing but a log is minimally more than a virtual.

 

Numbers may well be important to you but there are not important to everyone.

 

The biggest proplem with micro's is that you cannot get TB's in most of them.

 

The prolification of micros is probably the biggest change I have noticed since returning to caching. I currently carry a TB that will not fit into most of the caches I have visited recently, that are anywhere near it's goal. I'm with Pharsee on this one. There are way too many micros. Cachers really should try for quality of hide.

[+Kitty Hawk]

To me Pharisee's point seems straight forward and non controversial and in the best interests of UK geocaching especially as a family sport.

 

Micro's have their place - I have one out.

 

I am also amongst those who doesn't like scrabbling about in woods looking for a film cannister hidden in one of a million icky places.

 

My 7 & 3 years olds agree.

[+Happy Humphrey]

After all, the numbers are the most important aspect of the game, followed by the location. Micros have no disadvantage on both these fromts.

 

Why not make your feeling known? The game is geoCACHING and a small box with nothing but a log is minimally more than a virtual.

That's just what I've observed, not my preference. The most popular caches are those that are easy of access, followed by the ones in a really good place. Some people only seek out the best caches, but most like to clear up all caches in their area (hence the rants about micros: they can't ignore them).

 

You're obviously keen on the swaps: nothing wrong with that, but I get the impression that, for the majority, this aspect is merely incidental. For you, why do you go and find micros when you hate them?

 

The biggest proplem with micro's is that you cannot get TB's in most of them.

 

The prolification of micros is probably the biggest change I have noticed since returning to caching. I currently carry a TB that will not fit into most of the caches I have visited recently, that are anywhere near it's goal. I'm with Pharsee on this one. There are way too many micros. Cachers really should try for quality of hide.

 

If you eliminated all micros you'd just have fewer caches. Quality of hide is nothing to do with the size of box, either: if anything, a micro is likely to be better hidden. I admitted that there is a problem with TB's: apart from that, I don't see your point.

 

HH

[+bhodisatva]

Why not make your feeling known? The game is geoCACHING and a small box with nothing but a log is minimally more than a virtual.

Whereas am ammo can half full of useless and broken tat is infinitely more than a virtual?, sorry beg to differ. As i've already stated, i would rather find a well hidden and thought out micro than an ammo can bunged just anywhere because it could be, for some people it's the thrill of the hunt rather than what they might be able to swop that's the attraction, everyone plays the game differently, don't denigrate others just because you want to play it your way..

 

Numbers may well be important to you but there are not important to everyone.

Very true, just as trading useless bits of junk isn't important to everyone, again it's how the individual wants to play the game.

 

The biggest proplem with micro's is that you cannot get TB's in most of them.

Simple solution then, go find a cache that will accept the size TB that you want to place in it. TB's managed to move around before people started placing micros so really that's an invalid argument.

 

The prolification of micros is probably the biggest change I have noticed since returning to caching. I currently carry a TB that will not fit into most of the caches I have visited recently, that are anywhere near it's goal. I'm with Pharsee on this one. There are way too many micros. Cachers really should try for quality of hide.

Quality of hide or capacity? i really think you need to define this statement better. I've visited several "quality" ammo cans, i've visited several "quality" micros, i've also visited many "large capacity" caches that if truth be known wouldn't suffer from being exchanged for micros, why? because of the crap they seem to attract in trade items, increasing the cache container size doesn't neccessary follow that the quality of the cache will rise. Just imagine if everyone really did practice cache in trash out - most ammo cans would be devoid of any trade items whatsoever as the majority of times trades have only ended up in the cache because the "trader" would be too embarrassed to put the stuff into their own bin at home (Hmm, maybe that's a whole new idea for a "rant" thread, unless of course it's been done before).

[+Flyfishermanbob]

A quick look in the excellent resource :- UK Stats

 

,and yes I know its all subjective , suggests that there isn't a micro in the top 28 most popular caches....

 

Perhaps messrs Hunter and Teasel will be intrigued into providing some further analysis

......

Edited August 8, 2006 by Flyfishermanbob

[+The Golem]

If I don't like carrots then I don't order them.

 

My wife doesn't like mayonnaise, makes it very difficult to buy a sandwich.

 

Cucumber for me - can't stand the stuff...

 

 

I like micros -[ Long live micros!!

Edited August 8, 2006 by The Golem

[+Haggis Hunter]

On second thoughts I think it's best I kept my mouth shut!!

Edited August 8, 2006 by Haggis Hunter

[+Happy Humphrey]

A quick look in the excellent resource :- UK Stats

 

,and yes I know its all subjective , suggests that there isn't a micro in the top 28 most popular caches....

 

Perhaps messrs Hunter and Teasel will be intrigued into providing some further analysis

......

So is the No. 1 cache the one with the most valuable contents - or is it merely the biggest container?

 

Or are the people who vote, less interested in the contents and size of container than the learned gentleman Mr. Pharisee would have us believe?

 

Actually, I do appreciate that a cache with a grand theme and involving a lot of work to discover would be expected to finish with a sizeable and well-appointed box. Although an entertaining hide is just as important, in my view.

 

But what is being argued here is not this, it's that micros are by definition inferior: which I don't think is the case. Some parts of the world (Pharisee's, for one) may have a proliferation of leaky film containers clumsily stuck in ill-thought-out spots, but I'm told that than even a poorly-situated, damp and grotty regular cache is superior, just because it contains some bits of dirty old plastic and a large log book with its pages stuck together. Both types should be tidied away, IMO!

 

HH

[+Haggis Hunter]

The top 1000 micros in the UK have got a fair amount of RED STARS against them!!

 

There are however only 997 on the list, does that mean that the worst rated micro has only got a measly 2.7 stars against it?

[+Happy Humphrey]

The top 1000 micros in the UK have got a fair amount of RED STARS against them!!

Two of mine are in the top twenty microcaches: one of them has been in the overall top 50 caches for months...perhaps why I like micros!

 

HH

[+Flyfishermanbob]

A quick look in the excellent resource :- UK Stats

 

,and yes I know its all subjective , suggests that there isn't a micro in the top 28 most popular caches....

 

Perhaps messrs Hunter and Teasel will be intrigued into providing some further analysis

......

So is the No. 1 cache the one with the most valuable contents - or is it merely the biggest container?

 

Or are the people who vote, less interested in the contents and size of container than the learned gentleman Mr. Pharisee would have us believe?

 

Actually, I do appreciate that a cache with a grand theme and involving a lot of work to discover would be expected to finish with a sizeable and well-appointed box. Although an entertaining hide is just as important, in my view.

 

But what is being argued here is not this, it's that micros are by definition inferior: which I don't think is the case. Some parts of the world (Pharisee's, for one) may have a proliferation of leaky film containers clumsily stuck in ill-thought-out spots, but I'm told that than even a poorly-situated, damp and grotty regular cache is superior, just because it contains some bits of dirty old plastic and a large log book with its pages stuck together. Both types should be tidied away, IMO!

 

HH

 

Hi Happy Humphrey,

 

Obviously it would be unreliable to judge on the basis of one sample, hence the suggestion that someone like Teasel or Barry Hunter with access to the data and the opportunity to provide some more detailed analysis which could perhaps provide a more enlightened picture.....??????

 

However its quite a strange statistic ... nest pas ?

[+Kitty Hawk]

OK, I can see Happy Humphreys point too - a crap cache is crap whether it's a tupperware container or a film cannister and I agree that size doesn't make a good cache. Is there an argument that the cache setter invests a little more into a trad and so takes a little more care over the hide?

 

I have no objection to micro's as such, but where I agree with Pharisee is that I don't like looking for them when it's just a war of attrition, not a test of skills or solving puzzles, sneakiness etc. As an example a cache in a wood miles from the public gaze, 40ft accurancy and a clue saying 'film cannister we chucked in the ivy'

 

In these circumstances it's not clever or fun to set the micro let alone find it. (There is a poverty argument, but then if you can only set micro's make them good/interesting ones - thought is free). At least with 'proper' cache you have a decent chance of success in finding it and the kids don't get to feel cheated.

 

There are plenty of good micro's - I don't think anyone here disputes that, although there seems to be feeling here that that is the suggestion. I see no suggestion that micro's should be banned, just that the skill/thought/care/fun is lacking on many (but not all) micro's and these poor examples of microcaches are unenjoyable to find. A poor traditional is still unenjoyable to find, but at least it's easier to find, so doesn't have that frustration factor.

Edited August 8, 2006 by Kitty Hawk

[+Happy Humphrey]

KH and FFB,

Interesting points...I speculate that micros are regarded (wrongly) as inherently second-rate caches by many (the CamProC, for instance!). Some cache placers also have the same attitude, and give second-rate attention to the cache hide when setting a micro. Finders won't vote so highly for a good microcache either, due to the same thinking.

 

In fact, there's more skill in setting a microcache well, than a regular cache: and I think that it's right to suggest that a badly-set micro is no fun, just frustration. I say "setting" rather than "hiding", because the hide may be OK but could be spoilt if the cache description isn't well thought out. And vice versa.

 

Perhaps there should just be a new attribute - "this cache placed carelessly" which can be applied to any size of box...

 

HH

[+Pharisee]

In fact, there's more skill in setting a microcache well, than a regular cache:

 

Sorry, I have to disagree.... I don't believe it takes any more skill to hide a 35mm film pot than it does to satisfactorily hide a regular size ammo can. In the woodland locations that I've been decrying, it takes considerably less. True, there are some very skillfully hidden urban micros, but wouldn't it take even more skill to hide a regular cache in the same location?

 

I say "setting" rather than "hiding", because the hide may be OK but could be spoilt if the cache description isn't well thought out.

 

Surely this applies to all caches, not just micros?

Edited August 8, 2006 by Pharisee