Jump to content

The Lameness Thread


KBI

Recommended Posts

I take issue with two of your implied premises: A) that there are only these two camps and nothing in the middle ...

A fair criticism. It's probably more accurate to describe the range of opinions as a continuum, and to say that each opinion we've heard falls at a unique point somewhere along that line. Then there are all the other related angles to consider ...

 

...and B) that further repetitive discussion stating the same facts over and over will somehow change the viewpoint of the far extremists' that DO live on these two ends of the spectrum.

 

While I said it in jest, my post in the previous thread ("wake me when something new is said") was trying to make a point. At some point in a thread that deals with personal preferences, whether it be micros, lameness, woods, parking lots, which GPS is better or whether the fries are better at McDonalds or Burger King, someone will stand their ground and start saying "No it isn't" and another will stand THEIR ground and say "Yes it is." At that point, the discussion has degenerated and becomes somewhat pointless.

I disagree that this is that type of argument. Not from my point of view anyway. The debate so far hasn't been about who's preference is correct (I like Burger King fries therefore you are wrong to prefer those lame McDonalds' fries), but about whether one's preference should be imposed on another (I like Burger King fries therefore those lame McDonalds' fries are bad for the fast food industry and shouldn't be made available to anyone).

 

I’m very interested in seeing this thing brought to some consensus conclusion.

There have been numerous threads recently TRYING to keep the conversation civil regarding "lameness" and many have offered their opinions on "lame" or "anti-lame". But as Hamlet stated "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so". A cache isn't lame or cool, but a cacher or even a group of cachers can THINK that a cache is lame/cool. It can even get to the point that a large enough group of people think that a particular cache is lame/cool and this large group can (with a "bandwagon" approach) influence other undecided individuals to believe that a cache is lame/cool. But we each bring our own experiences to the table. Since everyone in this board is entitled to their opinion, I do not believe that a consensus CAN be reached.

I disagree.

 

Again, it's not the differences of opinion regarding taste that I'm concerned about. It's the differences of opinion regarding how that influence of others you mentioned takes place -- or whether trying to influence others of one's own taste is right in the first place -- that concerns me.

 

When someone tells me that they think certain caches are just all-out lame, and therefore worthless, that's fine with me. I disagree, but I know instinctively that their opinion is worth the same as mine.

 

It's when they start telling me that those caches are somehow a threat to the game, or that people who enjoy hiding and finding them are wrong to enjoy hiding and finding them, or that such hides simply need to be archived -- that's when I get bothered.

 

Keep your BK fries if you prefer, but don't begrudge me my Micky-Ds. :D

 

You might call me an overly-idealistic optimist for believing that such a resolution is possible – and you might be right – but I believe it’s well worth an honest try.

 

Besides, if nothing could ever be resolved through these kinds of talks, what’s the point of ever discussing them in these forums in the first place?

I love honest and thoughtful debate and I always welcome a chance to fire up the synapse to write a witty retort if there is a point. But I would counter your question of "what’s the point of ever discussing them in these forums in the first place?" with "What was your intention in trying to start up this thread?" Are you trying to convince the vocal few that are diametrically opposed to your beliefs?

Yes, I am.

 

However, if they succeed in convincing me to change my mind instead, then I'll be just as happy. I promise.

 

I have yet to see any NEW information posted in any of these discussions. How could the repetition of Yes - No - Yes - No add anything to what has been discussed in the previous threads...

Well, since you ask:

 

The way I see it, those who are telling me what caches I should/shouldn't enjoy and what caches I should/shouldn't have available to choose from are being unreasonably intolerant. I'm convinced, however, that at least a few of those who express that seemingly intolerant position have what they think are solid and principled reasons for believing in it.

 

If I can just come up with a convincing way to present my ideal, or if someone can convincingly show me where I'm wrong in my viewpoint and that their ideal is more correct than mine, then you will have your 'something new.'

 

If it can't be done, then SOMEBODY will have failed to adequately express himself. :(

 

... the previous threads that just closed less than 48 hours ago?

Those threads were not closed because of any impasse in this debate. They were closed, ostensibly anyway, because this debate was considered to be too far off-topic for those threads.

 

I wanted to see this discussion continue toward a possible better understanding among its participants, so I got permission from a Mod and opened this brand new thread just for that purpose.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
When someone tells me that they think certain caches are just all-out lame, and therefore worthless, that's fine with me. I disagree, but I know instinctively that their opinion is worth the same as mine.

 

It's when they start telling me that those caches are somehow a threat to the game, or that people who enjoy hiding and finding them are wrong to enjoy hiding and finding them, or that such hides simply need to be archived -- that's when I get bothered.

 

Keep your BK fries if you prefer, but don't begrudge me my Micky-Ds.

 

OK then, I'll play DA here. Mind you this is NOT my personal opinion, but a demonstration of the thought process that I believe is leading people to the "threat to the game" mentality. I'll continue the "flawed" french fry analogy...

 

Another restaurant other than McD and BK comes by and decides that french fries are not healthy, so they start making tofu fries. Some people like the tofu fries better than the fast-food fries that you and I have both come to enjoy from BK and McD. Also, it is 50% cheaper to make these Tofu fries than standard fries.

 

The widely popular website for the "Society for the Production of French Fries (SPFF)" sets a listing guideline that "fries" (regardless of their recipe) can only be made in restaurants that are spread out over 2 miles apart. In other words, another restaurant within a two mile radius of a french-fry making restaurant CANNOT make fries. Restaurants can MAKE fries, but they can't be listed on the SPFF.com site, which lists 90% of the french fries made.

 

What then happens is that because these Tofu Fries shops are cheaper to run, and easier to put up, more and more of them get listed, crowding into the space alotted by SPFF.com to list fries. So eventually, new McDs and new BKs can't get their fries listed because there's another Tofu Fry shop already there.

I believe that one of the biggest concern being expressed is that the placement of lame caches (however you define lame) is that they are self-perpetuating. New cachers find a "lame" cache (again - however you define it) and think that it is the norm, and they go out and place another just like it. Also, since in general people seek the path of least resistance (laziness), over time, this process will continue until the biggest challenge someone will have is which bus stop to go to this morning to find a new cache.

 

This fear that there will be a glut in the area "taking up all of the good spots" has people worried that this game we love will be changed just by darwinian elimination. I believe the fear is that the glut of "lame" caches by their numbers alone will eliminate the possibility of placing "cool" caches.

 

Again, this is NOT my personal opinion, but a demonstration of the thought process that I believe is leading people to the "threat to the game" mentality. If I'm not expressing the concerns correctly, I'm sure someone else will post. **AND** - since this is not my personal belief, I don't think I can speak to the merits of this thought process or further try to defend it.

Link to comment
When someone tells me that they think certain caches are just all-out lame, and therefore worthless, that's fine with me. I disagree, but I know instinctively that their opinion is worth the same as mine.

 

It's when they start telling me that those caches are somehow a threat to the game, or that people who enjoy hiding and finding them are wrong to enjoy hiding and finding them, or that such hides simply need to be archived -- that's when I get bothered.

 

Keep your BK fries if you prefer, but don't begrudge me my Micky-Ds.

 

OK then, I'll play DA here. Mind you this is NOT my personal opinion, but a demonstration of the thought process that I believe is leading people to the "threat to the game" mentality. I'll continue the "flawed" french fry analogy...

 

Another restaurant other than McD and BK comes by and decides that french fries are not healthy, so they start making tofu fries. Some people like the tofu fries better than the fast-food fries that you and I have both come to enjoy from BK and McD. Also, it is 50% cheaper to make these Tofu fries than standard fries.

 

The widely popular website for the "Society for the Production of French Fries (SPFF)" sets a listing guideline that "fries" (regardless of their recipe) can only be made in restaurants that are spread out over 2 miles apart. In other words, another restaurant within a two mile radius of a french-fry making restaurant CANNOT make fries. Restaurants can MAKE fries, but they can't be listed on the SPFF.com site, which lists 90% of the french fries made.

 

What then happens is that because these Tofu Fries shops are cheaper to run, and easier to put up, more and more of them get listed, crowding into the space alotted by SPFF.com to list fries. So eventually, new McDs and new BKs can't get their fries listed because there's another Tofu Fry shop already there.

I believe that one of the biggest concern being expressed is that the placement of lame caches (however you define lame) is that they are self-perpetuating. New cachers find a "lame" cache (again - however you define it) and think that it is the norm, and they go out and place another just like it. Also, since in general people seek the path of least resistance (laziness), over time, this process will continue until the biggest challenge someone will have is which bus stop to go to this morning to find a new cache.

 

This fear that there will be a glut in the area "taking up all of the good spots" has people worried that this game we love will be changed just by darwinian elimination. I believe the fear is that the glut of "lame" caches by their numbers alone will eliminate the possibility of placing "cool" caches.

 

Again, this is NOT my personal opinion, but a demonstration of the thought process that I believe is leading people to the "threat to the game" mentality. If I'm not expressing the concerns correctly, I'm sure someone else will post. **AND** - since this is not my personal belief, I don't think I can speak to the merits of this thought process or further try to defend it.

 

Well it's certainly my personal opinion.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
OK then, I'll play DA here. Mind you this is NOT my personal opinion ...

I understand. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Well it's certainly my personal opinion.

 

El Diablo

(NOW this is getting interesting again! :( )

 

... but a demonstration of the thought process that I believe is leading people to the "threat to the game" mentality. I'll continue the "flawed" french fry analogy...

 

<analogy snipped for brevity>

 

I believe that one of the biggest concern being expressed is that the placement of lame caches (however you define lame) is that they are self-perpetuating. New cachers find a "lame" cache (again - however you define it) and think that it is the norm, and they go out and place another just like it.

This argument has been made before. I have two responses:

  • If those new cachers truly enjoyed finding those types of hides, who are you or I to tell them that they shouldn’t have enjoyed them, or that they shouldn’t hide the kinds of caches they enjoy finding? Can you defend such a criticism of these newcomers as legitimate? Would you say those things to their faces? “You’re WRONG to enjoy those ‘lame’ caches, and you’re WRONG to enjoy hiding them yourself.”
  • How could any reasonable person be expected to do any navigating around geocaching.com without noticing the wide variety of cache hides available? As a percentage, just how many newbies do you think there are who ONLY notice the ‘lame’ hides and are completely oblivious to the really cool, challenging, creative and otherwise ‘entertaining’ hides?

 

 

Also, since in general people seek the path of least resistance (laziness), over time, this process will continue until the biggest challenge someone will have is which bus stop to go to this morning to find a new cache.

In my opinion: That’s pure speculation, unreasonably pessimistic, and a very unfair accusation to level against the entire geocaching community. Besides, who’s to say that for every hider who gets lazy and plants a hide-a-key in a parking lot there won’t be another hider who gets tired of hiding such lamers, and endeavors to make his next listing more interesting? I think my scenario is a much more accurate description of what I’ve observed in real life than is yours. Your experience may vary.

 

This fear that there will be a glut in the area "taking up all of the good spots" has people worried that this game we love will be changed just by darwinian elimination. I believe the fear is that the glut of "lame" caches by their numbers alone will eliminate the possibility of placing "cool" caches.

You (or those folks you speak for) are afraid the ‘lame’ caches will take up all the good spots? I was wondering when someone would get around to trying that argument. This is something we CAN quantify – or at least estimate within reason.

 

For simplicity’s sake let’s only consider the United States.

 

United States total area: 3,537,441 square miles. That’s 353,744,100 square tenths of miles. (Yes, I know, you can actually fit more than 100 caches into one square mile while complying with the 0.1-mile rule, but stay with me – forthcoming guesswork will wipe out that tiny difference.)

 

Residential and other private property is largely off limits to cache placement, as is government land, so let’s be generous and take away two-thirds of that number. That leaves 117,914,700 potential ‘parking places’ for Geocaches. Of that remaining area, things like open fields, railroad tracks, expressways, industrial buildings, prison yards, etc make for less-than-ideal cache placement locations, so let’s cut it in half again. This leaves 58,957,350 more-or-less ‘choice’ hiding spots.

 

When I just now checked the front page of geocaching.com there were 339,967 active caches worldwide. I’m going to guess that about half of those are in the USA (Does anybody know?) for an estimate of 169,983 caches in this country.

 

58,957,350 divided by 169,983 yields approximately 347. That’s 58,787,367 currently available empty hiding spots, or a ratio of 346 available empty hiding spots for every one cache that currently exists.

 

This game will therefore have to grow by 34,600% before we run out of hiding places for geocaches – in the United States. If we assume that so-called ‘lame’ caches make up half of all current cache hides (84,991 lame-o caches), that means you could take the existing number of these horribly non-entertaining hides, double it, double it again, double it again, double it again, double it again, double it again, double it again, double it again, and then double it one more time ... and still have plenty of empty spots left over for the so-called ‘good’ caches.

 

-------------------

 

And besides ... if you're looking over there at a spot you consider to be 'choice,' and you're whining to me that some lame-o hider has just placed another of those dadgum lame caches in that choice spot that 'should' have had a 'cool' cache, then my question to you is this: If you wanted some particular kind of cache to be there, then why haven't you already placed one there yourself? Last time I checked it was first come, first served -- is there any more fair way to do it?

 

Are Wal-Mart parking lot lamposts really so 'choice' that we need to reserve them for only the 'better' hides?

 

Again, this is NOT my personal opinion, but a demonstration of the thought process that I believe is leading people to the "threat to the game" mentality. If I'm not expressing the concerns correctly, I'm sure someone else will post. **AND** - since this is not my personal belief, I don't think I can speak to the merits of this thought process or further try to defend it.

I understand completely, and I appreciate your effort.

 

If someone else agrees with your argument (El Diablo?) but sees it a bit differently than the way you presented it, then hopefully they WILL contribute their thoughts. :D

Link to comment

Thanks, Markwell for sharing those two thoughts. As I read your post, there are two arguments for 'lame' caches being dangerous to the game: 1) People who find 'lame' caches will hide more 'lame' caches, and 2) 'lame' caches will take up spots that could hold 'non-lame' caches.

 

I believe that both of these arguments are lacking, this is why:

  1. Cacher A finds a cache. He enjoys it and decides to emulate it by placing a similar cache. The cache was enjoyed and will no doubt be enjoyed by others. Therefore, it is not 'lame'.
  2. Geocaching has been around for something like five years. If the spot was acceptable for a 'non-lame' cache, why wasn't one already sitting there? If a cacher hates 'lame' caches and only wants there to be 'non-lame' caches, why hadn't he or one of his friends already placed a cache in the 'non-lame' spot? Further, the area blocked by the 'lame' cache is still very tiny. In most cases, a 'non-lame' cache can still be hidden in the general area. (This is particularly true of those people who believe that caches should take them for a walk.)

Link to comment
"Lameness of lamenesses, saith the Preacher, lameness of lamenesses; all is lameness." - Soloman (misquoted) :wub:

"Kwitcher bellyachin and leemee alone; whassitooya if I likes me some guardrail adventure anon? Ye favored cloak'd ammocan be none despoiled!"

 

- Shakespeare (misquoted) :(

Link to comment

"Lameness of lamenesses, saith the Preacher, lameness of lamenesses; all is lameness." - Soloman (misquoted) :(

For every cache there is a reason, and a cache for every purpose under heaven.

 

True. What some folks refuse to get is that sometimes the reason and the purpose are just to hide something, or to find something that is a secret from the general public. No wonderment or adventure required.

 

Lack of wow-factor seems to be the main perception of lameness which is at odds with the basics of geocaching which is just high tech hide and seek.

Link to comment
Lack of wow-factor seems to be the main perception of lameness which is at odds with the basics of geocaching which is just high tech hide and seek.
This is exactly right. The hard part for the "wow factor" cache lovers is how to discard the fly poop that is mixed in with the pepper without having to spend hours doing it! :( Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
The hard part for the "wow factor" cache lovers is how to discard the fly poop that is mixed in with the pepper without having to spend hours doing it! :(

This has never been a problem for me. In fact, I kinda like never knowing for sure what I'm going to find. The surprisingly cool finds are the best finds!

Link to comment
Lack of wow-factor seems to be the main perception of lameness which is at odds with the basics of geocaching which is just high tech hide and seek.
This is exactly right. The hard part for the "wow factor" cache lovers is how to discard the fly poop that is mixed in with the pepper without having to spend hours doing it! :(
Ummm, I'm not positive, but I don't think he was agreeing with your point.
Link to comment
Lack of wow-factor seems to be the main perception of lameness which is at odds with the basics of geocaching which is just high tech hide and seek.
This is exactly right. The hard part for the "wow factor" cache lovers is how to discard the fly poop that is mixed in with the pepper without having to spend hours doing it! :(
Ummm, I'm not positive, but I don't think he was agreeing with your point.

 

You got that right. I certainly wouldn't call another person's efforts to contribute "fly poop" regardless of my personal opinion. :wub:

 

Mannnnn TG. That post drips with entitlement. :wub::(

Link to comment

Skipping over almost the entire middle mass of this thread, I will attempt to define "wow" versus "lame" as applied to caches. Ahem...

 

"WOW!" caches are those which excite you when found, bring happy memories months later, and have you thinking, "Man, I wish I can someday place a cache like that one!"

 

"lame" caches are those which disappoint you when found, are forgotten by the time you get back to your truck, and have you thinking, "Man, I hope I never place a cache like that one."

 

How's that? (My first and likely only reply to this thread.)

Link to comment

This is exactly right. The hard part for the "wow factor" cache lovers is how to discard the fly poop that is mixed in with the pepper without having to spend hours doing it! :(

 

That Solomon guy sure was wise:

Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour, Ecclesiates 10:1

 

He also knew that you shouldn't bury caches or bushwhack:

He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him. Ecclesiates 10:8

 

And to put back the pile of rocks and sticks when you rehide one:

Whoso removeth stones shall be hurt therewith; and he that cleaveth wood shall be endangered thereby. Ecclesiates 10:9

 

And here's some advice to people who post too much in the forums

Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. Ecclesiates 5:2

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
Lack of wow-factor seems to be the main perception of lameness which is at odds with the basics of geocaching which is just high tech hide and seek.
This is exactly right. The hard part for the "wow factor" cache lovers is how to discard the fly poop that is mixed in with the pepper without having to spend hours doing it! :(
Ummm, I'm not positive, but I don't think he was agreeing with your point.
You got that right. I certainly wouldn't call another person's efforts to contribute "fly poop" regardless of my personal opinion. :( Mannnnn TG. That post drips with entitlement. :wub::wub:
First of all I was agreeing with Snoogans' point. We are clearly divided on this feeling. Secondly, the fly poop analogy is an old humerous saying to denote when someone is being picky. So call me picky but you have to admit that some caches are tiny and a little bit on the stinky side just like fly poop... :D:D:D Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

The recent lameness discussions here have inspired me to place this cache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...56-7d65d4bfef04

 

The twist is that you must tell everybody how lame it is when you log it as a find. The logs should be fun...

You state in the description that you'll delete any online logs that don't say how crappy the cache is. How serious are you about that? Will you really delete a find if someone logs it with, "This was fun, thanks"?

Link to comment
OK then, I'll play DA here. Mind you this is NOT my personal opinion ...

I understand. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Well it's certainly my personal opinion.

 

El Diablo

(NOW this is getting interesting again! :cool: )

 

... but a demonstration of the thought process that I believe is leading people to the "threat to the game" mentality. I'll continue the "flawed" french fry analogy...

 

<analogy snipped for brevity>

 

I believe that one of the biggest concern being expressed is that the placement of lame caches (however you define lame) is that they are self-perpetuating. New cachers find a "lame" cache (again - however you define it) and think that it is the norm, and they go out and place another just like it.

This argument has been made before. I have two responses:

  • If those new cachers truly enjoyed finding those types of hides, who are you or I to tell them that they shouldn’t have enjoyed them, or that they shouldn’t hide the kinds of caches they enjoy finding? Can you defend such a criticism of these newcomers as legitimate? Would you say those things to their faces? “You’re WRONG to enjoy those ‘lame’ caches, and you’re WRONG to enjoy hiding them yourself.”
  • How could any reasonable person be expected to do any navigating around geocaching.com without noticing the wide variety of cache hides available? As a percentage, just how many newbies do you think there are who ONLY notice the ‘lame’ hides and are completely oblivious to the really cool, challenging, creative and otherwise ‘entertaining’ hides?

Also, since in general people seek the path of least resistance (laziness), over time, this process will continue until the biggest challenge someone will have is which bus stop to go to this morning to find a new cache.

In my opinion: That’s pure speculation, unreasonably pessimistic, and a very unfair accusation to level against the entire geocaching community. Besides, who’s to say that for every hider who gets lazy and plants a hide-a-key in a parking lot there won’t be another hider who gets tired of hiding such lamers, and endeavors to make his next listing more interesting? I think my scenario is a much more accurate description of what I’ve observed in real life than is yours. Your experience may vary.

 

This fear that there will be a glut in the area "taking up all of the good spots" has people worried that this game we love will be changed just by darwinian elimination. I believe the fear is that the glut of "lame" caches by their numbers alone will eliminate the possibility of placing "cool" caches.

You (or those folks you speak for) are afraid the ‘lame’ caches will take up all the good spots? I was wondering when someone would get around to trying that argument. This is something we CAN quantify – or at least estimate within reason.

 

For simplicity’s sake let’s only consider the United States.

 

United States total area: 3,537,441 square miles. That’s 353,744,100 square tenths of miles. (Yes, I know, you can actually fit more than 100 caches into one square mile while complying with the 0.1-mile rule, but stay with me – forthcoming guesswork will wipe out that tiny difference.)

 

Residential and other private property is largely off limits to cache placement, as is government land, so let’s be generous and take away two-thirds of that number. That leaves 117,914,700 potential ‘parking places’ for Geocaches. Of that remaining area, things like open fields, railroad tracks, expressways, industrial buildings, prison yards, etc make for less-than-ideal cache placement locations, so let’s cut it in half again. This leaves 58,957,350 more-or-less ‘choice’ hiding spots.

 

When I just now checked the front page of geocaching.com there were 339,967 active caches worldwide. I’m going to guess that about half of those are in the USA (Does anybody know?) for an estimate of 169,983 caches in this country.

 

58,957,350 divided by 169,983 yields approximately 347. That’s 58,787,367 currently available empty hiding spots, or a ratio of 346 available empty hiding spots for every one cache that currently exists.

 

This game will therefore have to grow by 34,600% before we run out of hiding places for geocaches – in the United States. If we assume that so-called ‘lame’ caches make up half of all current cache hides (84,991 lame-o caches), that means you could take the existing number of these horribly non-entertaining hides, double it, double it again, double it again, double it again, double it again, double it again, double it again, double it again, and then double it one more time ... and still have plenty of empty spots left over for the so-called ‘good’ caches.

 

-------------------

 

And besides ... if you're looking over there at a spot you consider to be 'choice,' and you're whining to me that some lame-o hider has just placed another of those dadgum lame caches in that choice spot that 'should' have had a 'cool' cache, then my question to you is this: If you wanted some particular kind of cache to be there, then why haven't you already placed one there yourself? Last time I checked it was first come, first served -- is there any more fair way to do it?

 

Are Wal-Mart parking lot lamposts really so 'choice' that we need to reserve them for only the 'better' hides?

 

Again, this is NOT my personal opinion, but a demonstration of the thought process that I believe is leading people to the "threat to the game" mentality. If I'm not expressing the concerns correctly, I'm sure someone else will post. **AND** - since this is not my personal belief, I don't think I can speak to the merits of this thought process or further try to defend it.

I understand completely, and I appreciate your effort.

 

If someone else agrees with your argument (El Diablo?) but sees it a bit differently than the way you presented it, then hopefully they WILL contribute their thoughts. :rolleyes:

 

Wow -- that's a lot of reading for something lame. I don't have it in me.

 

I was thinking that some lame caches are so lame they are cool.

 

Is it possible to talk about lame caches without getting critical of others? Karma...

Edited by j_czerwin
Link to comment

The recent lameness discussions here have inspired me to place this cache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...56-7d65d4bfef04

 

The twist is that you must tell everybody how lame it is when you log it as a find. The logs should be fun...

You state in the description that you'll delete any online logs that don't say how crappy the cache is. How serious are you about that? Will you really delete a find if someone logs it with, "This was fun, thanks"?

 

I will first contact the cacher and give them the chance to edit their log. The cache isn't much fun so this shouldn't be a problem.

 

However, if someone writes about how much they enjoyed trashing this turd of a cache even though they didn't like finding it, I'll leave that one go.

 

Remember, part of a lame cache is the stupid rules you have to follow to log it as a find.

Edited by kingsting
Link to comment
The recent lameness discussions here have inspired me to place this cache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...56-7d65d4bfef04

 

The twist is that you must tell everybody how lame it is when you log it as a find. The logs should be fun...

 

I love the honesty! I wish all the lame caches had cache pages like that! :) I can't wait for the first numbers hound to cut and paste a "nice" log on that one! :) So I'll just have to watch this one! :rolleyes::cool:
Link to comment
The recent lameness discussions here have inspired me to place this cache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...56-7d65d4bfef04

 

The twist is that you must tell everybody how lame it is when you log it as a find. The logs should be fun...

I love teh honesty ! I wish all the lame caches had cache pages like that! :) I can't wait for the first numbers hound to cut and paste a "nice" log on that one! :) So I'll just have to watch this one! :rolleyes::cool:
What honesty? He stated that he will delete any logs of people who enjoy the cache.
Link to comment

Wait a second...you make a cache that is supposed to be lame, but then make it a members only cache? How lame, but not good lame, just lame.

How else are the unwashed masses supposed to know what a lame cache looks like so they can change?

 

Oh don't worry, I'll unleash this piece of garbage on the entire caching community in a couple days.

With a members only hide, the owner can see how many people have viewed the listing. 40 different cachers have looked at it since it was first posted earlier this morning.

Link to comment

Wait a second...you make a cache that is supposed to be lame, but then make it a members only cache? How lame, but not good lame, just lame.

How else are the unwashed masses supposed to know what a lame cache looks like so they can change?

 

It's now open to everybody so even non-premium members can "enjoy" it. <_<

Link to comment
Wait a second...you make a cache that is supposed to be lame, but then make it a members only cache? How lame, but not good lame, just lame.

How else are the unwashed masses supposed to know what a lame cache looks like so they can change?

It's now open to everybody so even non-premium members can "enjoy" it. <_<

Are you still deleting the logs of those cachers who have the nerve to enjoy themselves?

Link to comment
Wait a second...you make a cache that is supposed to be lame, but then make it a members only cache? How lame, but not good lame, just lame.

How else are the unwashed masses supposed to know what a lame cache looks like so they can change?

It's now open to everybody so even non-premium members can "enjoy" it. :(

Are you still deleting the logs of those cachers who have the nerve to enjoy themselves?

 

I haven't had to yet. I don't think anybody has enjoyed the find.

 

Like I mentioned in a post above, the cacher will be contacted and have a chance to edit their happy log

before I even think of deleting their smiley. (I probably won't really delete anybody's find unless I don't see their sig on the logsheet. This one is close to home so I will be checking it.)

 

The whole point of putting this one out was due to the fact that there are a handful of sad excuses for caches around here. I found one recently that was a rusty tin keyhider stuck under an electrical box behind a dirty shopping center. There was no logsheet inside, just a piece of a tattered envelope that was almost filled with signatures. (I didn't have my cache fixit box with me so I couldn't make any repairs.) Hides like this deserve a negative log but somebody went through the trouble of placing it and may even be proud of it. Something like this could have been put out by a newbie or very young cacher just getting a feel for how the game works. A negative log could leave them with a bad taste for geocaching.

So what I did was put out this wretched thing for all the cachers who want to vent their frustrations on lame hides. Did you ever find a cache that was just plain bad and the whole way home you were going over how you were going to slam it when you typed out the log but at the last minute you leave the cookie cutter "Quick find, TFTC" log? Now there's one out there that can be used as a punching bag. No reason to hurt anybody's feelings. Also, there are some newbies out there that may be contemplating their first hide. If they find this and it's similar to what they have planned, they might rethink their cache and put out something of value.

Link to comment
... Did you ever find a cache that was just plain bad and the whole way home you were going over how you were going to slam it when you typed out the log ...?
Ummm, No.

 

Are people really troubled by a single cache enough to let it fester like that? People that are should consider therapy to work out their anger issues.

Link to comment
... Did you ever find a cache that was just plain bad and the whole way home you were going over how you were going to slam it when you typed out the log ...?
Ummm, No.

 

Are people really troubled by a single cache enough to let it fester like that? People that are should consider therapy to work out their anger issues.

 

Yup, sign me up for the therapist, because I have - it was in a trash dump on a hillside behind a closed mall that was too steep to walk on. Seekers had to slide down and crawl back up, and the ground was littered with forty years of broken glass, rotting stuff and sharp metal trash.

 

I signed it, went home and logged it, noting that the place was dangerous and cachers should not take children on the hunt.

 

Several respected local cachers found it and made similar logs.

 

Several of us emailed the owner and asked him to remove it.

 

He blasted us in our local forum, calling us whiners among other things, and stating he'd put caches wherever he darn well pleased, and to hell with our local geocaching standards.

 

I went and CITOd the cache. Yep, stole the man's mayonnaise jar right out of the trash pile.

 

I moved all of the contents to another of his caches (another mayo jar, this one inside an old box springs that had fallen out of somebody's truck on the side of a country road!) and did not log it in.

 

You heard it here first, sports fans, until now no culprit was known! And I am not one bit sorry!

 

All 90 or so of the caches he'd hidden (over twice his finds!) in his first two months in the game were eventually archived and he disappeared from the game, leaving nothing to remember him by but the holes he'd drilled in trees and park fences for film cans!

 

Since then I have seen any number of caches that I didn't particularly care for, but none that set me off like this cache and cacher did!

 

Ed

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment
Imagine that. Local cachers stole his cache and he quit the game.

 

Shocker.

 

I'm sure you feel good about your actions, but you were wrong.

Yes, it was wrong.

 

Ask any of the central Alabama cachers if anyone either objects to what I did or misses him.

 

Sometimes a wrong can be the right thing to do.

That may be the lamest excuse I ever heard.

 

'We didn't like him so we got rid of him. Go us.'

 

If that truly is the attitude of all the central Alabama cachers (that you haven't chased away), then I thank God that I don't live in central Alabama.

 

Shame on you.

Link to comment

I went and CITOd the cache. Yep, stole the man's mayonnaise jar right out of the trash pile.

Wow.

 

Great example! Why simply ignore a cache you didn't enjoy -- when you can plunder it and make sure nobody enjoys it!

 

Remind me to keep that in mind next time I'm unhappy with one of your hides. :D

 

I'm sure you feel good about your actions, but you were wrong.

Yes, it was wrong.

 

Ask any of the central Alabama cachers if anyone either objects to what I did or misses him.

 

Sometimes a wrong can be the right thing to do.

Hmm ........ nope, can't go along with that one.

 

"Ask any of the central Alabama cachers if anyone either objects to what I did or misses him?" :D There was a time not too long ago when folks in Alabama used that very same logic to defend lynchings. I'm sure they were convinced they were doing the 'right' thing, too. :(

Link to comment

I'm a bit confused by the "Lame caches will crowd out the good caches." argument. I know that the definition of lame is completely subjective, but from what I've read in these threads, a cache hidden in a unique, scenic or historic location is not usually considered lame. It was hidden specifically to bring you to that spot.

So, cool location = not lame. (Humor me.)

 

This leaves the caches hidden in "bad" spots, like dumps, parking lots, glass-strewn hillsides, whatever. Why would anyone be concerned about being crowded out of the Wal-Mart parking lot or anywhere that they considered "lame" for that matter?

 

And on a side note, removing caches because you don't like the location is totally wrong. I was wondering TAR, did you bother to CITO the rest of the trash? That would have been the right thing to do. :(

Link to comment
I'm a bit confused by the "Lame caches will crowd out the good caches." argument. I know that the definition of lame is completely subjective, but from what I've read in these threads, a cache hidden in a unique, scenic or historic location is not usually considered lame. It was hidden specifically to bring you to that spot.

So, cool location = not lame. (Humor me.)

 

This leaves the caches hidden in "bad" spots, like dumps, parking lots, glass-strewn hillsides, whatever. Why would anyone be concerned about being crowded out of the Wal-Mart parking lot or anywhere that they considered "lame" for that matter?

Sounds familiar ...

Are Wal-Mart parking lot lamposts really so 'choice' that we need to reserve them for only the 'better' hides?

 

 

 

And on a side note, removing caches because you don't like the location is totally wrong. I was wondering TAR, did you bother to CITO the rest of the trash? That would have been the right thing to do. :(

:D

 

Reminds me of our local NPS geniuses who stepped over tons and tons of long-ago dumped trash in order to remove a few carefully-hidden geocaches. :D

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...