Too Many Micros?

[Clan Riffster]

I've never understood people who complain about micro's, especially in their find logs. No one made you go look for it but you. You were the driver of the vehicle, you chose to enter the coords into your gps, and you are the one who chose to search for it. If you don't want to look for a micro, then look at listed size of the cache first.

I'll agree so long as your cache page mentions that it is a lightpost or guardrail hunt. That'll go on my "Ignore" list kwickly, and won't bother me a bit. Folks who like those hunts are welcome to them. Diversity is the spice of life after all. However, if all your page indicates is that it's a micro, I'll head that way assuming it's something other than lame. Some of my all time favorite hunts have been for cleverly hidden micros in the darndest of places. But, upon arrival, if I discover it's a hide-a-key or film cannister tucked into the most boring location imaginable, I might post my honest thoughts in the log.

[+Ambrosia]

I've never understood people who complain about micro's, especially in their find logs. No one made you go look for it but you. You were the driver of the vehicle, you chose to enter the coords into your gps, and you are the one who chose to search for it. If you don't want to look for a micro, then look at listed size of the cache first.

I'll agree so long as your cache page mentions that it is a lightpost or guardrail hunt. That'll go on my "Ignore" list kwickly, and won't bother me a bit. Folks who like those hunts are welcome to them. Diversity is the spice of life after all. However, if all your page indicates is that it's a micro, I'll head that way assuming it's something other than lame. Some of my all time favorite hunts have been for cleverly hidden micros in the darndest of places. But, upon arrival, if I discover it's a hide-a-key or film cannister tucked into the most boring location imaginable, I might post my honest thoughts in the log.

I agree, you shouldn't write off guardrails (or other micros) so quickly.. We own two of them, and they take you to a great spot/view that cannot hold a regular cache. Ignoring those sorts of hides arbitrarily can cut you out on some really wonderfull places.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Ambrosia

[Clan Riffster]

Not all, but many if not most do not follow proper trade etiquette.

Must be a local phenomenon.

 

Both have similar percentages of lame hides.

Not by my count. Naturally my idea of "lame" isn't going to be the same as everybody else's, but my personal, (biased), ratio is roughly:

Lame micro to kewl micro = 10 to 1

Lame ammo can to kewl ammo can = 1 to 10

 

Once I figured out which hiders to ignore, my ratios changed radically, indicating that the issue is not the cache size, but rather it was a result of unimaginative hiders. My experience also showed me that those cachers who arbitrarily make my "Ignore" list hide far more micros than regulars, adding a bit of strength to the argument that micros as a whole have a greater chance of being lame than ammo cans.

 

No one wants more rule.

Amen to that, Brother!

[+baloo&bd]

Both have similar percentages of lame hides.

Not by my count. Naturally my idea of "lame" isn't going to be the same as everybody else's, but my personal, (biased), ratio is roughly:

Lame micro to kewl micro = 10 to 1

Lame ammo can to kewl ammo can = 1 to 10

 

Must be a local phenomenon.

[Clan Riffster]

Since finances pretty much limit my caching to Florida, I'll have to accept your theory that caches here are better than caches in Chicago.

Some day I'd like to head up to the Windy City to disprove it, cuz I've heard some of our locals talk about how great some of your area's caches are, but till then, I'm kinda stuck here.

[+divddsky]

One thing that I think hasn't really been touched on too much in this discussion is that I think some hiders hide micros so that people in the area can get their "fix" Once people start getting a very large number of finds they've already taken care of most of the ones in the area. 1 way to fix that is for people to hide 1/1 micros for each other to find. There was just a series in my area where a person placed about a dozen micro magnetic holders in a bunch of newspaper boxes within a couple square mile area. These are basically just number pumpers. If that's what people want, fine for them but it's not really what I'm after. I notice hides like these have FTFs within the first hour or 2. I got a FTF in a wooded area maybe 15 miles away and it had been sitting there for 2 days. Some people are interested in the park and dashes because it gives big numbers for little effort.

 

What it comes down to I guess is that look for what you like. I do, however, agree that micros in heavily wooded areas tend to create more habitat destruction than larger caches. This is where I think some of the people have a sticking point. They feel that it's not enough to just ignore the wooded micros because their very existence has a negative impact on the sport as a whole. I'm sure there probably have been problems with destruction of sensitive habitat due to poor placement and overzealous searchers. As some other people have mentioned, however, this lies more with the fault of the hider and the searchers rather than the size of the cache itself. Similar problems happen with urban/suburban caches having to be removed because people end up trespassing during their search. The other issue involves micros blocking out larger caches. I can see how it would be frustrating to have a park closed out to a larger cache because someone placed a micro in the middle. Maybe if that happens people should simply contact each other and try to work something out.

 

I think the big thing needed is education. There should be some well thought out suggestion/guidelines for hiders and seekers published in 1 easily accessible spot. Trying to legislate out poor placements won't work and how can overzealous searching be banned?

 

Ok, i know this was very long and rambling and a lot of people will say I don't have enough experience to even comment but that's my current 2 cents anyways.

 

Divddsky

[+Horn229]

So why do I place micro's when I know how to hide an ammo can in a very public area? Because no one follow's the trade up, trade even, or don't trade rule.

Really? I only know a few hundred cachers personally, and they all follow the proper trading etiquette. Kinda painting with a broad brush, aren't we?

 

Out of the 700+ caches I've found, know many many had good swag? One cache. Why? Because It was a tough 3 state multi (DE, PA, NJ), so the owner had a lot of good stuff for people, and I was the FTF. The rest of the caches I've encountered contain nothing of real use or value.

 

I mainly cache with 50 miles of my house, a state forest in NJ that allows off-roading, and if I can make it I go to events with 100 miles of my house and cache in the surrounding area of the events. The only stuff of value I find in caches is bugs, coins and jeeps.

 

So, yes I guess I am painting with a broad brush. No one within 50 miles of Philly follows the trade up-trade event rule. How's that?

[+Horn229]

I've never understood people who complain about micro's, especially in their find logs. No one made you go look for it but you. You were the driver of the vehicle, you chose to enter the coords into your gps, and you are the one who chose to search for it. If you don't want to look for a micro, then look at listed size of the cache first.

I'll agree so long as your cache page mentions that it is a lightpost or guardrail hunt. That'll go on my "Ignore" list kwickly, and won't bother me a bit. Folks who like those hunts are welcome to them. Diversity is the spice of life after all. However, if all your page indicates is that it's a micro, I'll head that way assuming it's something other than lame. Some of my all time favorite hunts have been for cleverly hidden micros in the darndest of places. But, upon arrival, if I discover it's a hide-a-key or film cannister tucked into the most boring location imaginable, I might post my honest thoughts in the log.

 

Well since the series I made was called "under cover" it should be obvious that they were lightpole caches.

 

Thing is, I also check out on google maps-hybrid view the caches I want to do, so I can get a feel for the area. Unless you're in an area where the Sat Imagery out of date, you should be able to determine for yourself what it is. Especially it's a 1/1 micro.

[Clan Riffster]

No one within 50 miles of Philly follows the trade up-trade event rule. How's that?

Sad. So very sad. I don't have an answer. When I do maintenance on my hides, I find about 10% of the trades were McCrap. I swap out this stuff for new swag. The swag I leave is whatever unique stuff I can get from the Dollar Store, Wally World sales and the Target $1 aisle, so it's not too hard for folks to trade even. If I filled my caches with high dollar items, then maybe folks would trade down, but considering the stuff most folks leave, I'd guess not.

 

Maybe you could move down here?

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I'm stocking two new soon to be published caches, here's the SWAG I bought yesterday.

Cache 1: Mini-maglite, Map Compass, Lightstick, Tire Gauge, Hooded Poncho (el cheapo), 4 Pack AA batteries, and first aid kit.

Cache 2: Lightstick, survival blanket, Stanley 6" adjustable Wrench, air gauge, First aid kit, 4 pack AA Alkaline batteries.

 

I plan to pick up a few more items yet that kids might enjoy, and anything else that catches my eye.

 

As for lame Micros, I can't believe anyone would intentionally place a cache they thought nobody would like, so I'm guessing they just don't know any better.

[+tozainamboku]

As for lame Micros, I can't believe anyone would intentionally place a cache they thought nobody would like, so I'm guessing they just don't know any better.

 

Or maybe they like these caches.

 

I can understand people like the OP who wants to be able to avoid micros when hunting with their kids who like to trade. I can understand people who don't want to look for micros in the woods because they don't have the patience to search for them without tearing up the environment. I can understand asking for changes to help sort out caches that you don't like from ones you might like. But I can't understand people who refer to caches other people like to find as "lame" and only the caches they like to find as "real". That's like saying strawberry ice cream is lame, real ice cream is either chocolate or vanilla.

[+baloo&bd]

Since finances pretty much limit my caching to Florida, I'll have to accept your theory that caches here are better than caches in Chicago.

 

Not sure who gave you this impression, because I am fairly certain it is not accurate.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I can understand people like the OP who wants to be able to avoid micros when hunting with their kids who like to trade. I can understand people who don't want to look for micros in the woods because they don't have the patience to search for them without tearing up the environment. I can understand asking for changes to help sort out caches that you don't like from ones you might like. But I can't understand people who refer to caches other people like to find as "lame" and only the caches they like to find as "real". That's like saying strawberry ice cream is lame, real ice cream is either chocolate or vanilla.

It's a formidable argument, for sure. My only point of contention would be that certain caches have the appearance of having not been placed with much thought or care. I know it's subjective. Micros seem to be the easiest to place, so it does bear consideration that they are more likely to appear that way. However, your point does hold true even then, because we never really know what the hider was capable of. A "badly" placed micro might be the best that the hider is personally capable of (mentally or financially), or it might be what that person likes. When we publish our caches we put ourselves in a bit of a public spotlight, so it's hard to imagine why someone would publish a cache that they thought they had to be embarassed about.

[Clan Riffster]

Not sure who gave you this impression, because I am fairly certain it is not accurate.

I sure hope it's not accurate. We've got a couple locals that wander up your way, and from their comments, I can only conclude that Chicago has some really great cachers & caches. Personally, being fairly naive, I tend to believe this about every area. So, where did I stray?

You were the one who gave me the impression, as follows:

First you said:

Larger hides are here. Not all, but many if not most do not follow proper trade etiquette.

 

This tells me that, in your experience, limited by your geographic caching area, most, (somewhere between 51% and 99%) cachers do not follow what we both agree to be proper trade etiquette. That is most certainly not true in Central Florida. If your numbers are accurate, according to you, the traded swag here is better than the traded swag there.

 

Comparing regular to micros you said:

Both have similar percentages of lame hides.

 

Both have similar percentages of WOW! type hides.

Definitely not true here. In my limited experience, micros around here have a 90% chance of being lame, while a regular only has a 10% chance of being lame. Since your regular to micro percentages are "similar", I can only conclude that you believe a higher degree of your area's regulars are lame than in my area.

 

Then, in response to my perceived lame/kewl ratios for Central Florida, I.e;

"Lame micro to kewl micro = 10 to 1

Lame ammo can to kewl ammo can = 1 to 10"

you said:

Must be a local phenomenon.

 

This indicates to me that you feel your lame/kewl ratios are different from mine. Given your earlier comments, I concluded that you have a higher ratio of lame regulars than I do. Now I'm left with the assumption that you really do have some wonderful cachers in your area, and that your earlier angst filled comments about your peers were just you venting.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

-Sean-

[+baloo&bd]

You were the one who gave me the impression, as follows:

First you said:

Larger hides are here. Not all, but many if not most do not follow proper trade etiquette.

 

I am not going to go through this point by point since you already know you read things into it that were not only not intenteded, but obviously were not "localized".

 

Since my caching is not limited geographically and since I have seen similar complaints on the forums here and from local groups, includinding those throughout Florida, my statements you quoted, which were intended to be general in nature stand. The most obvious one, restated, being.

 

Micros are not going anywhere, deal with it.

[CoyoteRed]

The current rules say - there are no rules about cache container size limitations, but should there be?

 

If you're talking about a rule as in "Groundspeak demands that all caches be regular-sized or larger unless there is no way to hide that large of a cache there. Only when we are satisfied that a smaller one is the only thing that will fit will we publish the cache," then no. That would not be something I would support.

 

Should the community expect caches to actually be caches? I would think so.

 

Sure, Groundspeak defines a cache as simply a logbook, but is that what geocaching really is? We describe geocaching to the public as a sort of treasure hunt. The vast majority of today's micros have no treasure and that is a shame. Used to be that every micro, that we found anyway, had some sort of treasure to trade. We used to delight in shopping for micro trades. I even created a micro bug to travel from micro to micro. Today, I think trinkets in a micro is an anomaly.

 

I don't agree there are too many micros. I think there are too many caches that are less than satisfying for one reason or the other, and one of those reasons is the move away from trinkets in our smaller caches.

[Clan Riffster]

you read things into it that were not only not intenteded, but obviously were not "localized".

I only read what you posted. Obviously you are incapably of determining the quality of caches in Georgia, since you have no finds in Georgia. Your 800 or so finds in Illinois though, would certainly add a bit of credibility to any blanket statement you might make for your area, although, if I knew how many total caches were in Illinois it would give me a better idea of what percentage of Illinois caches you've found, which would in turn, tell me if you were capable of determining the overall quality of Illinois caches.

 

Since my caching is not limited geographically

How is it you're not limited geographically? Everybody that plays this game is limited to the geographic area they play in. Some areas are much larger than others, but no one is able to accurately opine on the merits of cache areas they've never hunted in. Not counting locationless, 90% of your finds are in Illinois. Do you really think your one find in West Virginia qualifies you to include that state in your negative appraisal? How about your one Nebraska find? Even your 13 Wisconsin finds don't qualify you to have an opinion of the overall state of caches in that state. Your former posts didn't have such an arrogant tone, which is why I'm surprised to see it in this thread.

 

and since I have seen similar complaints on the forums

Less than 1/10th of 1% of cachers are represented in these forums. How can you possibly apply sentiments expressed here as representative of the whole?

 

Micros are not going anywhere, deal with it.

I deal with it every day. I find the ones I think will be interesting, (sometimes I'm wrong), and ignore those that seem lame.

Fairly simple for me, but then, I'm a fairly simple person.

[+baloo&bd]

<Deleted by user>

Edited October 23, 2006 by baloo&bd

[+weathernowcast]

I like the variety too. Also, if I am with people that get bored easy I got for the bigger stuff. Otherwise, the micros are fun to. Allows for more of a variety of cache locaitons too especially in urban/sub-urban areas or places with a lot of foot traffic.