Saturation

[+TrailGators]

Please point out in my post where I said "all micros are bad."

It is the point of time where very few if any urban micros are being placed because there are plenty of good locations available that can hold larger caches.

I didn't say they were "all bad." I was pointing out that they were being placed at a much lower rate when plenty of opportunities existed for other cache types. It's a fact. Look at your own historical data of Chicago and you will see this!

Two things:

1. It is true that several years ago, there were fewer micros. I believe that this is because they were 'new', not because they are inherently bad.
   
2. Once again, the data is not mine, it is Markwell's. I am not trying to take credit for his work. I merely used his data to crank out a few graphs.
   

 

Again......I never said they were "inherently bad." However, the data does pose an interesting question.... Why weren't 50% of new cache placements urban micros from the day micros were first were introduced? All things being equal the distribution should have been a constant 50% like it is now......

Edited November 9, 2006 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

Actually it is not my personal bias; it was my personal observation based on what happened when I began caching almost four years ago in San Diego. At that time San Diego was in a low saturation state and there were very few urban micros. The graphs you plotted of Chicago support this observation with data from another part of the country. Chicago was over 90% non-micros in the beginning and ended up being ~50%. So my theory that cachers will place larger caches in better locations if they are given the opportunity. Saturation begins when those opportunities diminish.

 

Blaming the increase in micro urban hides on saturation is a leap. There are several other factors that have caused these caches to become a higher percentage of the caches that get placed. 4 years ago, geocaching was a new activity. It attracted people who were more outdoor type that may have already had a hand held GPS as well as people who were more technically savvy with higher incomes and more free time than the average. As geocaching grew in popularity, its has attracted a wider demographic that includes older retirees, stay-at-home moms with younger children, working people with less free time and expendable income, and students some of whom don't have cars. Finding remote hiking caches is out of the question for some of these people so they prefer urban caches. While most would like these to be in nice parks or in interesting public places, there are various reasons why many of these cache get hidden in parking lots and alleys. In addition, cachers have learned which hides last and which get muggled quickly. In urban settings, film cans, hide-a-keys, and bison tubes can be hidden in ways that are very safe from muggles. Hiding larger caches that don't get muggled is much harder and takes some work. I think many cache hiders do take the path of least resistance. Caches are placed where permission is either easily received or where the hider believes that explicit permission is not required. And there will always be people who will place the cheapest container. This is true for both urban and non-urban hides.

 

My opinion is that cache saturation will work in favor of larger more remote hides. There will be fewer places where you can place an urban cache. A few well publicized bomb squad or tresspassing incidents may force the reviewers to require explicit permission in certain urban areas may limit these hide further. People willing to hide a cache further down the trail that require more time to find will find plenty of space available for these hides.

[+sbell111]

Again......I never said they were "inherently bad." However, the data does pose an interesting question.... Why weren't 50% of new cache placements urban micros from the day micros were first were introduced? All things being equal the distribution should have been a constant 50% like it is now......

Well, I imagine it is because it takes time for anything new to catch on. In order for them to immediately match the growth rate of non-micros, we would have to believe that caches are only placed to emulate found caches. We know this is not true, so it makes sense that it would take time for the growth of a new type of cache to equal that of other caches.

[+TrailGators]

Again......I never said they were "inherently bad." However, the data does pose an interesting question.... Why weren't 50% of new cache placements urban micros from the day micros were first were introduced? All things being equal the distribution should have been a constant 50% like it is now......

Well, I imagine it is because it takes time for anything new to catch on. In order for them to immediately match the growth rate of non-micros, we would have to believe that caches are only placed to emulate found caches. We know this is not true, so it makes sense that it would take time for the growth of a new type of cache to equal that of other caches.

 

When were they introduced? I know it was at least four years ago?

Edited November 9, 2006 by TrailGators

[+nfa]

I read through some of this thread, agreeing with some of what I read...laughing at some of the rest...

 

I have decided to do my part to help fight the ongoing saturation process in my corner of the world by archiving 3 of my caches...all 3 were in cities, were small containers, not among my most inspired hiding/placement, and not breathtakingly beautiful...

 

When I hid them, caches were sparse in the Adks, now they are not, so I'm pulling them in...

 

Jamie - NFA

[Mr.Yuck]

Again......I never said they were "inherently bad." However, the data does pose an interesting question.... Why weren't 50% of new cache placements urban micros from the day micros were first were introduced? All things being equal the distribution should have been a constant 50% like it is now......

Well, I imagine it is because it takes time for anything new to catch on. In order for them to immediately match the growth rate of non-micros, we would have to believe that caches are only placed to emulate found caches. We know this is not true, so it makes sense that it would take time for the growth of a new type of cache to equal that of other caches.

 

When were they introduced? I know it was at least four years ago?

 

I believe this is the first time I've ever "Markwelled". But it wasn't too long ago, and I remember it pretty well:

 

Original Micro Stash Thread

 

Some people pointed out micros that existed in 2001. Drat19 (who is currently in self-imposed forum exile) dates the beginning of the "micro-spew era" to the Spring of 2004.

[+sbell111]

When micros were first introduced would depend on where you lived. It's not like they sprung up world-wide on the same day.

[Mr.Yuck]

Feel free to stop replying to my posts anytime, because if it isn't obvious, I don't see them

[+sbell111]

Feel free to stop replying to my posts anytime, because if it isn't obvious, I don't see them

You're not good at this game. You should have posted:

 

'I would be shocked if sbell111 replied to one of my posts, because he know's that I'm ignoring him and, therefore, would not be able to see his reply' or similar.

 

BTW, I replied to TrailGator's post, not yours.

Edited November 9, 2006 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

As geocaching grew in popularity, its has attracted a wider demographic that includes older retirees, stay-at-home moms with younger children, working people with less free time and expendable income, and students some of whom don't have cars.

Let us not forget the hordes of uninspired, lazy cachers who pop out film canisters because they can.

[+sbell111]

As geocaching grew in popularity, its has attracted a wider demographic that includes older retirees, stay-at-home moms with younger children, working people with less free time and expendable income, and students some of whom don't have cars.

Let us not forget the hordes of uninspired, lazy cachers who pop out film canisters because they can.

[sarcasm]Unlike the soggy tupperware clones wrapped in black plastic garbage bags. Those were awesome! [/sarcasm]

[+TrailGators]

Again......I never said they were "inherently bad." However, the data does pose an interesting question.... Why weren't 50% of new cache placements urban micros from the day micros were first were introduced? All things being equal the distribution should have been a constant 50% like it is now......

Well, I imagine it is because it takes time for anything new to catch on. In order for them to immediately match the growth rate of non-micros, we would have to believe that caches are only placed to emulate found caches. We know this is not true, so it makes sense that it would take time for the growth of a new type of cache to equal that of other caches.

 

Now that we know that micros have been around for at least five years come up with a more likely answer to the question: Why weren't 50% of new cache placements urban micros four to five years ago? All things being equal the distribution should have been a constant 50% just like it is now......

[Clan Riffster]

Unlike the soggy tupperware clones wrapped in black plastic garbage bags.

Carpy hides come in all sizes. My personal find ratio was roughly 90% carpy micros, 5% yawn micros and 5% kewl micros, to 80% kewl regulars, 15% yawn regulars and 5% carpy regulars. Seems that the folks hiding the micros are far less inspired than the folks who hide the regulars. Maybe it's because film canisters are free? Now if you just happen to love Altoid tins shoved under lamp post skirts, film canisters plopped into Burger King shrubbery or hide-a-keys slapped onto guardrails, than your ratios would be significantly different than mine.

 

By learning who hides what, I've managed to change my ratios considerably. I know that cacher BillyBobNosePicker always creates lame hides, so I simply add his hides to my ever growing ignore list. This has left me a much happier finder. Hopefully, someday BillyBobNosePicker will grow weary of all his "TNLNSL" E-mails, and try and find out why his hides are so lame.

 

(the names have been changed to protect the innocent lame)

[+sbell111]

Well, I imagine it is because it takes time for anything new to catch on. In order for them to immediately match the growth rate of non-micros, we would have to believe that caches are only placed to emulate found caches. We know this is not true, so it makes sense that it would take time for the growth of a new type of cache to equal that of other caches.

 

Now that we know that micros have been around for at least five years come up with a more likely answer to the question: Why weren't 50% of new cache placements urban micros four to five years ago? All things being equal the distribution should have been a constant 50% just like it is now......

Well, I imagine it is because it takes time for anything new to catch on. In order for them to immediately match the growth rate of non-micros, we would have to believe that caches are only placed to emulate found caches. We know this is not true, so it makes sense that it would take time for the growth of a new type of cache to equal that of other caches.

 

Four to five years ago, micros were just being introduced in most areas.

Edited November 9, 2006 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Unlike the soggy tupperware clones wrapped in black plastic garbage bags.

Carpy hides come in all sizes. My personal find ratio was roughly 90% carpy micros, 5% yawn micros and 5% kewl micros, to 80% kewl regulars, 15% yawn regulars and 5% carpy regulars. Seems that the folks hiding the micros are far less inspired than the folks who hide the regulars. Maybe it's because film canisters are free? Now if you just happen to love Altoid tins shoved under lamp post skirts, film canisters plopped into Burger King shrubbery or hide-a-keys slapped onto guardrails, than your ratios would be significantly different than mine.

 

By learning who hides what, I've managed to change my ratios considerably. I know that cacher BillyBobNosePicker always creates lame hides, so I simply add his hides to my ever growing ignore list. This has left me a much happier finder. Hopefully, someday BillyBobNosePicker will grow weary of all his "TNLNSL" E-mails, and try and find out why his hides are so lame.

 

(the names have been changed to protect the innocent lame)

 

It's funny how some try to use the exception as the rule. I have rarely found "soggy tupperware clones wrapped in black plastic garbage bags." Ammo boxes are by far the cache of choice out here mainly because they last so long under all weather conditions.

Edited November 9, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

It's funny how some try to use the exception as the rule. I have rarely found "soggy tupperware clones wrapped in black plastic garbage bags." Ammo boxes are by far the cache of choice out here mainly because they last so long under all weather conditions.

I certainly agree that ammo cans make the best regular-sized cache container. They are certainly my box of choice. However, in the areas that I have cached in, they are definitely not the most frequently used regular-sized container.

[+TrailGators]

Well, I imagine it is because it takes time for anything new to catch on. In order for them to immediately match the growth rate of non-micros, we would have to believe that caches are only placed to emulate found caches. We know this is not true, so it makes sense that it would take time for the growth of a new type of cache to equal that of other caches.

 

Now that we know that micros have been around for at least five years come up with a more likely answer to the question: Why weren't 50% of new cache placements urban micros four to five years ago? All things being equal the distribution should have been a constant 50% just like it is now......

Well, I imagine it is because it takes time for anything new to catch on. In order for them to immediately match the growth rate of non-micros, we would have to believe that caches are only placed to emulate found caches. We know this is not true, so it makes sense that it would take time for the growth of a new type of cache to equal that of other caches.

 

Four to five years ago, micros were just being introduced in most areas.

 

Come up some other possible answers. There is never just one. Plus we've heard that one already. Based on the Chicago graph I don't think that answer is true. I also don't think it is true because micros are so much easier to obtain and to place.

Edited November 9, 2006 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Come up with another possible answer. We've heard that one already and based on the Chicago graph I don't think it is true. I also don't think it is true because micros are so much easier to obtain and to place.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. The graph (and Markwell's data) clearly show micro #1 to be placed around March 2002 in the sample area.

[+sbell111]

Anyway, this thread was clearly just created to stir the angst pot. There is no point in continuing to participate in it, so I'm out.

[+TrailGators]

Anyway, this thread was clearly just created to stir the angst pot. There is no point in continuing to participate in it, so I'm out.

There was no angst. I was simply asking you to open your mind and come up with other possibilities.

The first micro was placed around February of 2002. There were only 50 micros placed in 2002 compared to 150 non-micros. There is an obvious slope change in the micro curve around January 2003. Then the rate of micro placement to non-micro placement are about the same.

Edited November 9, 2006 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

This thread has made me realize that I should also run a PQ for the oldest caches in the area. These caches have a higher likelihood of being better quality caches. Also as Clan Rifftster mentioned I could also ignore all the caches from certain cachers. I have already been compiling everyone's favorite cache lists to make one big list of the best caches in the area. There are several of those on my to-do list! So I think saturation is making some people adapt and come up with new ways to find the better caches!

Edited November 9, 2006 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

The problem here is we don’t know how Markwell collected his data. The simplest way would be to take all the currently active caches and sort them by date placed. Most would agree that “lame” urban micros have a much shorter life the regular sized caches in the woods. So if you go back to 2002, a higher percentage of urban micros will be archived than the regular sized caches. This could be an explanation of why the percentage of micros is going up. If you look at the data though, you will see the number of micros actually falls in January of ’06. So, Markwell was seems to have begun to collect data periodically at sometime. I doubt he was anticipating this thread and taking samples way back in 2002.

 

In any case Markwell’s data has little to do with the premise of this thread. The hypothesis is that there are a limited number of “good” places to hide urban caches. “Good” means nice parks or places with historic or other interest. On the other hand there are a virtually unlimited number of lampposts and dumpsters where you can hide a cache. So after a while the “good” spots are taken and the only places left are lamppost and dumpsters. Since we don’t have data on “good” places vs. “bad” places it is hard to either prove or refute the hypothesis. Most people who have been caching for a while do have a perception that the number of caches in “bad” places has gone up. I am not sure it is anymore than a perception. It does seem driven in part by the fact that as you gain experience finding urban micros you see the same kinds of hides over and over. Most people will admit that the first time they saw a lamppost hide it was cool. Of course if you go hiking you see the same pile of sticks or rock over and over and it doesn’t seem so bad but that’s because you got to go to a “good” place (and enjoy the walk to get there).

 

So this thread is based on the belief that a geocache should bring you to a “good” place. Of course different cachers define “good” place differently. For some it may be a place where you can search without many muggles around. For others, the challenge of finding something while there are muggles around is what makes it a “good” place. And there are certainly those that think a good place is the one .1 miles down the street from the cache they just found.

 

If you really want to try an activity that guarantees you will go to interesting places, I recommend Waymarking. You can pick the categories of waymarks you are interested in and visit those interesting places. Of course, someone will complain that Waymarking has “lame” categories like McDonald’s Restaurants and will write the whole thing off. Forturnately for them there are always the Geocaching and Waymarking forums where they can at least express their opinions and get validation from others who feel the same way. In the meantime, I’m going to look for some geocaches and maybe some waymarks.

[+TrailGators]

The hypothesis is that there are a limited number of "good" places to hide urban caches. "Good" means nice parks or places with historic or other interest. On the other hand there are a virtually unlimited number of lampposts and dumpsters where you can hide a cache. So after a while the "good" spots are taken and the only places left are lamppost and dumpsters.

So this thread is based on the belief that a geocache should bring you to a "good" place. Of course different cachers define "good" place differently.

Oh please! We all know a "good" cache when we run into one. I have never had a debate in the field with someone on how great an LPC was. As proof of that, feel free to scan through the consensus favorites in San Diego to see just how many of them are LPCs! I'll save you the time....it's a big goose egg!

Edited November 9, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

...Oh please! We all know a "good" cache when we run into one. I have never had a debate in the field with someone on how great an LPC was. As proof of that, feel free to scan through the consensus favorites in San Diego to see just how many of them are LPCs! I'll save you the time....it's a big goose egg!

 

Whoa there. A very few caches are universially good to all comers. Most are medium. Very few suck to all comers. We can debate the hide as inspiring but that too is relative. If I have a crappy cache day full of DNF's and end at a lamp post micro at walmart and find it that's a positive note to a otherwise frustrating cache day. Plus I like some of the ares people are on record as hating just becuase I like to see all of the world I live in, not just the picture postcard bits. My first Lamp Post stands out to this day as a great hide. I can't remember many after that though...

[+baloo&bd]

Oh please! We all know a "good" cache when we run into one. I have never had a debate in the field with someone on how great an LPC was. As proof of that, feel free to scan through the consensus favorites in San Diego to see just how many of them are LPCs! I'll save you the time....it's a big goose egg!

 

I'm just going to go and sit back and watch after this post. No matter how much data or reasoning someone gives, some have just decided they are going to argue. sbell was entirely to patient with the entire thread as he tried to make his point.

 

NEVER did ANYONE in this thread state that a LPC is a "good" hide. They may, however had said some people like them.

 

What he said, as has been said every time this comes up is that your definition of good may or may not be different from mine.

 

Through this whole thread, you and others have made it clear that you consider micros to be less of a cache, which is humorous considering a significant percentage of your hides are small or micros. The premise has also been that a hike to a cache in a wooded area would assume a larger cache, while in reality a micro would be just as appropriate if not more so.

 

You have also gone on the premise that "saturation" will be caused by micros. Through this whole thing, no one has shown how many active cachers there were "back then" as compared to today, which will be more the cause of "saturation" than anything else.

 

When this hobby was more or less underground it was the wild, wild west just like the Internet in the beginning. Now, both are getting crowded however there is plenty of room for everyone still.

 

I hate it when threads get locked, however I am starting to think this one should to make room for other ones.

Edited November 9, 2006 by baloo&bd

[+TrailGators]

Oh please! We all know a "good" cache when we run into one. I have never had a debate in the field with someone on how great an LPC was. As proof of that, feel free to scan through the consensus favorites in San Diego to see just how many of them are LPCs! I'll save you the time....it's a big goose egg!

You have also gone on the premise that "saturation" will be caused by micros.

Where did I say that? I pointed out that when saturation occurs there is typcially only room for micros to occupy all the places leftover after all the "good" places are taken.

[+TrailGators]

...Oh please! We all know a "good" cache when we run into one. I have never had a debate in the field with someone on how great an LPC was. As proof of that, feel free to scan through the consensus favorites in San Diego to see just how many of them are LPCs! I'll save you the time....it's a big goose egg!

Whoa there. A very few caches are universially good to all comers. Most are medium. Very few suck to all comers. We can debate the hide as inspiring but that too is relative. If I have a crappy cache day full of DNF's and end at a lamp post micro at walmart and find it that's a positive note to a otherwise frustrating cache day. Plus I like some of the ares people are on record as hating just becuase I like to see all of the world I live in, not just the picture postcard bits. My first Lamp Post stands out to this day as a great hide. I can't remember many after that though...

I agree with you that a very few caches are univerisally good to all comers. As far as which ones are "good," it really boils down to which ones you remember for a long time. Heck these days, I can't remember half the caches I find when I get home to log them! Try the memory test yourself! Edited November 9, 2006 by TrailGators

[+SG-MIN]

Anyway, this thread was clearly just created to stir the angst pot. There is no point in continuing to participate in it, so I'm out.

Ouch... I am the one who started this thread, and if you look through my posts I think it becomes obvious that my intenions were not as you claimed

 

I can't help it if the "discussion" went immediatly to micros.

[+Harry Dolphin]

This thread has made me realize that I should also run a PQ for the oldest caches in the area. These caches have a higher likelihood of being better quality caches. Also as Clan Rifftster mentioned I could also ignore all the caches from certain cachers. I have already been compiling everyone's favorite cache lists to make one big list of the best caches in the area. There are several of those on my to-do list! So I think saturation is making some people adapt and come up with new ways to find the better caches!

 

Dunno. Four-year-old Tupperware containers do not seem to fare terribly well. Four-year-old ammo cans are usually better. I'll have to wait two more years to see how my four-year-old Lock and Locks fare.

 

As for cache saturation... There are 240 active caches within ten miles of me. With three being added every week. Megapossibilities for new caches to be placed. The fact that there are so many micros does not negate the fact that there are plenty of opportunities for new regular caches. But it is true that micros take less effort (generally), and get visited more often. I certainly do not see a 'saturation' problem.

[+TrailGators]

Anyway, this thread was clearly just created to stir the angst pot. There is no point in continuing to participate in it, so I'm out.

Ouch... I am the one who started this thread, and if you look through my posts I think it becomes obvious that my intenions were not as you claimed

I can't help it if the "discussion" went immediately to micros.

It's not you. I thought we were having an interesting debate and then he blew his cork. Anyhow, I apologize if I offended anyone! Edited November 10, 2006 by TrailGators

[Clan Riffster]

Through this whole thread, you and others have made it clear that you consider micros to be less of a cache

Remind me again, who said that? As most have stated, it's not the containers that are lame, it's the hiders. True, there are some who disdain any and all micros, but I think they represent a tiny minority. For my own personal experience, limited by my geographical search area, it just happened that those folks who create lame hides have mostly used micros as their containers of choice. Is that a coincidence? I don't know. I'll have a better opinion on the matter after I've got a few thousand hides under my belt.

 

The premise has also been that a hike to a cache in a wooded area would assume a larger cache

I don't think anybody made that premise. I will say that, in my opinion, an ammo can is more suitable for hiding in the woods than a film canister, but again, that is just my opinion. If I were to tutor a noob in the fine art of caching, I would express that opinion, and back it up with my reasons for formulating such an opinion. If they came away with a different opinion, such is life. A few of my all time favorite finds were deep woods micros.

[+Snoogans]

Through this whole thread, you and others have made it clear that you consider micros to be less of a cache

Remind me again, who said that? As most have stated, it's not the containers that are lame, it's the hiders.

 

 

I just had to quote you to remember who said that.

 

Funny, I thought baloo&bd nailed the pulse of this thread.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Snoogans

[+TrailGators]

Through this whole thread, you and others have made it clear that you consider micros to be less of a cache

Remind me again, who said that? As most have stated, it's not the containers that are lame, it's the hiders.

I just had to quote you to remember who said that.

Funny, I thought baloo&bd nailed the pulse of this thread.

I think the pulse of this thread is people misinterpreting what other people are saying. The saturation issue basically concluded that when an area becomes saturated that caches end up being hidden in poorer and poorer locations. This is logical and it is also true. I have personally observed that most of the time the worst hides involve micros. That doesn't mean that I think that all micros are bad. I did joke around about having a "Mega-Micro" cache. It was tongue-in-cheek , but it has some truth behind it. I think the numbers mania is contributing to quick thoughtless cache placements. This is my opinion. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks this is true, but I'm sticking to my guns! Edited November 10, 2006 by TrailGators

[Clan Riffster]

I just had to quote you to remember who said that.

The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.

W. Somerset Maugham

 

Since I replied with a quote, does that make me a dunderhead?

[+Renegade Knight]

I just had to quote you to remember who said that.

The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.

W. Somerset Maugham

 

Since I replied with a quote, does that make me a dunderhead?

No but dunderhead is just a cool word to start using. I can replace Dippy Doodle with it.

 

People are starting to use Jenkey as well but...I'm sticking with Wonkey.

[+jamrasc]

I wish my area would get saturated. Most of the hides are ours, we need more cachers and caches.

[+SG-MIN]

I wish my area would get saturated. Most of the hides are ours, we need more cachers and caches.

That just means you get the chance to set to tone for what caching looks like in Lancaster SC.

[+TrailGators]

I wish my area would get saturated. Most of the hides are ours, we need more cachers and caches.

That just means you get the chance to set to tone for what caching looks like in Lancaster SC.

I agree! Fun hides are what turn muggles into cachers! That's what got me hooked! Plus I got a GPS for Christmas that year!

[saopaulo1@hotmail.com]

Decrease the distance for virtual caches and stages. It's hard to stumble on a cache that's not really there.

[+The Leprechauns]

The minimum distance around a grandfathered virtual cache is zero. You can place a physical cache right at the same coords. Have fun, and thanks for bumping!

[+sbell111]

Hey! No bumping unless you're married.

Edited December 13, 2006 by sbell111

[+emurock]

Hey! No bumping unless your married.