Urban Caching

[+Kit Fox]

I'll give a great example of how this has affected the game.

 

There is a parking lot for a scenic trail, that leads to a scenic waterfall, or some other natural wonder. Cacher A hides a cache at the scenic view. Everyone who finds Cacher A's cache write long "found it" logs, and takes lots of pictures.

 

Then comes along Cacher B who dislikes hiking, and places a "park and grab" cache at the trail parking spot. Cacher B's caches gets ten times as many finds as Cacher A's cache. This is the "new numbers game."

That's an interesting story, and it does sound typical, but I must have missed the part where you explained how the park and grab negatively affects anything.

 

 

Cacher A can't figure out why so many geocachers are skipping his cache requiring any physical effort. He sees all the finds on the easy cache, and he takes his ball home, and quits hiding caches, because he rarely gets any finds. The sport gets taken over by "easy cachers, placing easy caches." Those of us who like hard caches have to spend time and effort looking for "Cacher A type hides." Geocaching is evolving into a Sedentary Hobby

[+drat19]

I'll give a great example of how this has affected the game.

 

There is a parking lot for a scenic trail, that leads to a scenic waterfall, or some other natural wonder. Cacher A hides a cache at the scenic view. Everyone who finds Cacher A's cache write long "found it" logs, and takes lots of pictures.

 

Then comes along Cacher B who dislikes hiking, and places a "park and grab" cache at the trail parking spot. Cacher B's caches gets ten times as many finds as Cacher A's cache. This is the "new numbers game."

That's an interesting story, and it does sound typical, but I must have missed the part where you explained how the park and grab negatively affects anything.

 

 

Cacher A can't figure out why so many geocachers are skipping his cache requiring any physical effort. He sees all the finds on the easy cache, and he takes his ball home, and quits hiding caches, because he rarely gets any finds. The sport gets taken over by "easy cachers, placing easy caches." Those of us who like hard caches have to spend time and effort looking for "Cacher A type hides." Geocaching is evolving into a Sedentary Hobby

KF, we're on the same side of this debate, but I have a slightly altered take on your point:

 

I like "hard caches" only VERY occasionally. What I like all the time are NICE caches...nice locations, nice cache hides, and caches I CAN FIND. Spewed micros are generally none of these. NOT ALL MICROS, but those of the Spew variety...thoughtlessly placed, obviously for the purpose of stats for the finders and those incredibly ego-gratifying "Found it" Emails for the hiders, and with no other regard to the quality of the location.

[+drat19]

As to the Micro Spew discussion, we agree to disagree. I've been playing the game for almost 5 years and I've watched the evolution, and I believe the widespread outbreak is, and has been, bad for the game. Many others agree with me.

Again, the response we keep hearing from the folks like yourself who express strong dislike for a certain flavor of geocache is reasonable in itself, yet many of these people – like yourself – either continue to hunt them – or worse, they call for them to be controlled somehow even while others are obviously enjoying them.

 

Why? I’ve yet to be convinced that “lame” caches are difficult to detect (I’m not that smart and I have never had any trouble detecting them – I don’t even use PQs), and neither have I been convinced that the game suffers due to there mere existence.

I work really hard to avoid obvious Spew, but every now and then I don't know what it is until I've made the effort to drive/arrive at the hide location.

 

You don't [agree]. Many others agree with you too. I can live with that. Neither of us has to be "right", you know. As I stated elsewhere in this thread and all over these forums, I sadly admit that clearly the "community" has spoken, and it wants Spew. I don't have to like it, and I will feel free to b*tch about it until the moderators ban me.

Why?

 

Why whine about something you can't control? Why let it bother you when there's no reason to let it bother you? Why make yourself miserable?

 

You and everyone else have the option to plonk me if you don't want to keep reading about it.

Yes, I've always understood that putting my fingers in my ears and singing LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA is an option. It's just not one I prefer to use.

I don't have any further responses to offer to the rest of your post. Let's let that part of the discussion slide.

 

It's -10 degrees this morning here in the Twin Cities...I'm heading out to a good caching buddy's house (yep, we became friends because of this game) for an afternoon of Scrabble and Monopoly. See ya later.

Edited February 3, 2007 by drat19

[+KBI]

To me, it takes a lot more effort to separate the wheat from the chaff when you have to sift through so many more parking lot hides to find that waterfall.

That hasn't been my experience at all. Even a casual glance at a description and the accompanying finder logs will consistently tell you, with near certainty, which end of the 'lameness' spectrum to expect. It's always worked for me.

 

What, you didn't read the descriptions? I have little patience for those who choose not to read descriptions, then whine about the consequences.

 

Again, I preferred it when the waterfall cache was the only option in the area. Others are happy there are now more choices. I think it was a better game without those choices...

And I have very good reasons to think the game benefits from those choices. Is your preference more valid than mine? I'm I less of a cacher than you?

 

A preference is one thing, but how would it sound to you if someone were to state that they thought it would be a better game without having waterfall caches as choices?

 

... when you could introduce a friend/family member to the game, and whatever cache you chose to bring them to as their "first" could pretty much be expected to be memorable/interesting/worthwhile.

... and when we have company from out of town we take them to the best BBQ place in town instead of Mickey-D's. Your point? Should I go over there and tell those people enjoying their Big Macs that their dining preference is WRONG?

 

Think about all the news stories we've seen where the reporter follows a cacher to a cache to "show the viewing audience". True, some of those reporters DO make reference to urban hides, but do they ever SHOW them on camera? Very rarely. (I think I did see it shown ONCE.)

... and when the Travel Channel highlights the dining choices in an exotic city, they never feature the inevitable local Mickey-D's. Your point? Should I go to that city and tell those people enjoying their Big Macs that their dining preference is WRONG?

 

They always show the trail/woods/waterfall hike. That used to be the norm in our game. No longer.

Those caches are still there. You can still hunt them. Whining that they're not the ONLY ones out there for you to choose from sounds selfish -- to me, anyway.

 

In fact, imagine if a reporter showed the audience the typical parking lot lampskirt hide. Can you imagine the backlash we would get, in our terrorist-paranoid world nowadays??

If there's a SAFETY or SECURITY related reason for banning a specific type of hide, then a change in the rules is certainly in order, so that the reviewers can filter them at the point of submittal. If you want to make a case for such a change, I'd be interested to hear it. Convince me!

 

This does constitute a completely new argument, however, and has nothing to do with issues of personal preference or level of creativity, which is where all the previous arguments have originated.

[The Vargman]

Once again, I think you make valid counterpoints. I think at the heart of the matter is that, as a non-newb, I've watched the evolution of the game since I started playing almost 5 years ago, and I preferred it "old school"...when the numbers really were comparable. I enjoyed the friendly competition for stats, and I enjoyed the fact that while compiling my high (at the time - pre'04) stats, I pretty much enjoyed high-quality caching experiences along the way. I don't see that being the case anymore. I had to sacrifice the stats game in order to continue to enjoy my caching...and to me, having to sacrifice the stats part of the game in order to do that took away some of my overall enjoyment. YMMV.

 

I certainly can appreciate the impact you describe. And In reading the forums, I am actually a bit disappointed that I didn't find this sport earlier on in it's development, but more for what is mentioned in the posts after this one. That point being that now there's some work to do if you choose to avoid a cache placed for what appears to be the sake of numbers. I also understand how numbers might have meant something different before. I can see how that would frustrate someone who saw a bit of spirited competition in it.

 

I would however say, I think there's still a way for all of it to work. Actually, I (hopefully) am doing that myself. Retcon is our caching buddy(s) and introduced us/me to the sport. Right now it's a way for us to spend time with our spouses both as a group of 4 and as independent couples. But I do feel a slight bit of competition in the numbers. As for my wife and I, we got turned off by 2 micros near us (one more than another as it felt more agenda promoting, but that's another topic). So I doubt we'll be doing many more of those to "increase the stats". But, I guess what I'm getting at is, Retcon and I are enjoying the numbers and seeking things our way, and we're both fairly new. If I happened to go to an event cache and someone told me how many finds they had, I'd congratulate them for their efforts, but it wouldn't take away from my "competition" or enjoyment with Retcon.

 

As a smaller side note, I did my first cache about 2 years ago (maybe 3? I don't recall right now), but I have seen a change in the ones in my area even since then. I've just recently had room in the budget for the GPS so now it's more of a regular thing to enjoy.

[+KBI]

I'll give a great example of how this has affected the game.

 

There is a parking lot for a scenic trail, that leads to a scenic waterfall, or some other natural wonder. Cacher A hides a cache at the scenic view. Everyone who finds Cacher A's cache write long "found it" logs, and takes lots of pictures.

 

Then comes along Cacher B who dislikes hiking, and places a "park and grab" cache at the trail parking spot. Cacher B's caches gets ten times as many finds as Cacher A's cache. This is the "new numbers game."

That's an interesting story, and it does sound typical, but I must have missed the part where you explained how the park and grab negatively affects anything.

 

Cacher A can't figure out why so many geocachers are skipping his cache requiring any physical effort. He sees all the finds on the easy cache, and he takes his ball home, and quits hiding caches, because he rarely gets any finds.

That hasn't been my experience.

 

I haven't seen any evidence of superior cache hiders quitting as you describe. Can you provide any?

 

I haven't seen any evidence of easy caches taking traffic away from harder ones (as if that matters), as you describe. Can you provide any?

 

In fact, I would say I've witnessed exactly the opposite: A potential cache hunter sees Cacher A's cache, thinks it sounds interesting, but decides that it requires just a leeetle more time/effort/gasoline/ (pick one) than he's willing to give up. A month later he sees that Cacher B has placed a new cache -- right at the trail head for Cacher A's hiking cache! In fact, there are a couple more of Cacher B's quickies along the driving route, and one of them is right in the middle of the parking lot where he was thinking of stopping on the way back home for bread and milk! Time to go on that cache outing, see that waterfall, and bag four finds in the process!

 

I myself have hidden several caches. Some are very easy, some are very hard. I completely understand why there are more finds logged at the easy ones -- in fact I fully expected it. It's not a problem for me that folks aren't clamoring in large numbers to take on the ones which require more effort. Why would it? If I were Cacher A in your scenario, I'd be proud to leave my cache in place. There will ALWAYS be adventurous good folks like Clan Riffster, drat19, TWE, TrailGators and yourself (did I leave anyone out?) who prefer to bypass the easies in favor of the challenges. I'd be proud to have you sign my Cache-A log. That doesn't mean I wouldn't also wince in embarrassment to overhear you tell those Cache-B cachers at the trailhead that their preference is wrong, that they just think they're having fun, and that their fun hurting your enjoyment of the game.

 

Those of us who like hard caches have to spend time and effort looking for "Cacher A type hides."

That effort is minimal. I've never had a problem. Nobody has convinced me yet that the easy ones obscure the hard ones from detection.

[+KBI]

I like "hard caches" only VERY occasionally. What I like all the time are NICE caches...nice locations, nice cache hides, and caches I CAN FIND. Spewed micros are generally none of these. NOT ALL MICROS, but those of the Spew variety...thoughtlessly placed, obviously for the purpose of stats for the finders and those incredibly ego-gratifying "Found it" Emails for the hiders, and with no other regard to the quality of the location.

Do you read descriptions before you hunt caches? Do you scan over the logs? Just curious.

[+KBI]

As to the Micro Spew discussion, we agree to disagree. I've been playing the game for almost 5 years and I've watched the evolution, and I believe the widespread outbreak is, and has been, bad for the game. Many others agree with me.

Again, the response we keep hearing from the folks like yourself who express strong dislike for a certain flavor of geocache is reasonable in itself, yet many of these people – like yourself – either continue to hunt them – or worse, they call for them to be controlled somehow even while others are obviously enjoying them.

 

Why? I’ve yet to be convinced that “lame” caches are difficult to detect (I’m not that smart and I have never had any trouble detecting them – I don’t even use PQs), and neither have I been convinced that the game suffers due to there mere existence.

I work really hard to avoid obvious Spew, but every now and then I don't know what it is until I've made the effort to drive/arrive at the hide location.

That's been my experience as well -- yet for some reason it doesn't bother me like it obviously does you. This game isn't perfect. It takes a little patience and tolerance. To demand any more from it is simply unreasonable, in my opinion.

 

I guess I look at it the other way around: Instead of being disappointed when I find something bland, I get excited when I expect bland ... but find myself instead being unexpectedly wowed by something amazing, inventive or clever.

 

The potential for enjoyment is there. If the occasional blanders are truly ruining your enjoyment of the wowzers, then maybe it's time to consider another hobby.

 

Like Mr T's sig line says: "If you're not having fun, you don't have anyone to blame but yourself."

 

It's -10 degrees this morning here in the Twin Cities...I'm heading out to a good caching buddy's house (yep, we became friends because of this game) for an afternoon of Scrabble ....

Ask your buddy if the word "blanders" is legal.

[The Vargman]

 

That's been my experience as well -- yet for some reason it doesn't bother me like it obviously does you. This game isn't perfect. It takes a little patience and tolerance. To demand any more from it is simply unreasonable, in my opinion.

 

I guess I look at it the other way around: Instead of being disappointed when I find something bland, I get excited when I expect bland ... but find myself instead being unexpectedly wowed by something amazing, inventive or clever.

 

The potential for enjoyment is there. If the occasional blanders are truly ruining your enjoyment of the wowzers, then maybe it's time to consider another hobby.

 

Like Mr T's sig line says: "If you're not having fun, you don't have anyone to blame but yourself."

 

These points are kinda in line with the whole "Destroy one good thing to save another" point I raised earlier. I particularly like the "potential for enjoyment" point KBI made. It illustrates the point to me.

 

Perhaps the issue is not so much urban micros as it is caches without a purpose. It seems that disturbs people on both sides of the urban micro fence. I don't see how it would be that much dissimilar to having a "Wow factor" on the virts. Yet as I type this I'm thinking, well, who's to say a walk through a parking lot is less enjoyable than a walk through a woods?

 

I guess I'd have to conclude, you've got to promote your belief by avoiding, as best you can, the caches that you dislike (and of course hiding ones you do). For me, I haven't completely given up on urbans yet. I'm hoping I'll run into one that shows me a neat building in the area, but I'd really appreciate it if the cacher that places this, included that in their description.

 

Ask your buddy if the word "blanders" is legal.

Judges?

[+Kit Fox]

 

That effort is minimal. I've never had a problem. Nobody has convinced me yet that the easy ones obscure the hard ones from detection.

 

They don't obscure the hard ones, but they do require a bit more effort to find. Say someone hides a "1/1" at a historical significant location. I would hunt the cache, because it gives me a reason for finding it. Say i'm not from the area, and I don't know this cache exist yet. Unless the cache has an "eye caching name," I'll have to review logs, and descriptions for tens to hundreds of other "1/1s" hidden for no other reason, except the "new numbers game. In essence, you'll need to separate the wheat from the chaff to find this cache.

[+Kit Fox]

I haven't seen any evidence of easy caches taking traffic away from harder ones (as if that matters), as you describe. Can you provide any?

 

A Forest Adventure GCMK78 was hidden by me on Jan 23rd, 2005. It has thirty-six finds. The terrain rating is 2 stars.

 

The Devil's Horn GC10BF was hidden 7/14/2001, and it only has 17 finds. The terrain rating is 3 1/2 stars.

 

I got lucky and picked a better spot.

[Luckless]

I'll give a great example of how this has affected the game.

 

There is a parking lot for a scenic trail, that leads to a scenic waterfall, or some other natural wonder. Cacher A hides a cache at the scenic view. Everyone who finds Cacher A's cache write long "found it" logs, and takes lots of pictures.

 

Then comes along Cacher B who dislikes hiking, and places a "park and grab" cache at the trail parking spot. Cacher B's caches gets ten times as many finds as Cacher A's cache. This is the "new numbers game."

That's an interesting story, and it does sound typical, but I must have missed the part where you explained how the park and grab negatively affects anything.

 

 

Cacher A can't figure out why so many geocachers are skipping his cache requiring any physical effort. He sees all the finds on the easy cache, and he takes his ball home, and quits hiding caches, because he rarely gets any finds. The sport gets taken over by "easy cachers, placing easy caches." Those of us who like hard caches have to spend time and effort looking for "Cacher A type hides." Geocaching is evolving into a Sedentary Hobby

 

It seems if you have a longer hike you should expect fewer finds and not get so easily discouraged. If you want greater feedback for your hides you can always make a few easier hides. The long hike to a lovely view will be a real prize for those who seek it and the park and grab doesn't detract from that. Even if you remove Cacher B's park and grab I may still not do Cacher A's hide, twenty year ago maybe, but not anymore. I can't always handle a long hike. The park and grab simply is something I can handle. Don't assume that the park and grab is detracting from my not going to find the cache at the end of a long hike.

 

It seems as though the dilemma for most wanting a long hike is how to locate these hikes and locate others wanting to make these long hikes. I have suggested perhaps having a club within Groundspeak. Perhaps calling it the long hike club and having the main membership requirement be that every member must have a listing/bookmark of long hikes that they have done in their area/ state/ wherever. It would be great if TPTB would make an icon you could use designate who is a long hike lover and also something you could use to easily search these listings. .

Edited February 3, 2007 by Luckless

[+tozainamboku]

I'll give a great example of how this has affected the game.

 

There is a parking lot for a scenic trail, that leads to a scenic waterfall, or some other natural wonder. Cacher A hides a cache at the scenic view. Everyone who finds Cacher A's cache write long "found it" logs, and takes lots of pictures.

 

Then comes along Cacher B who dislikes hiking, and places a "park and grab" cache at the trail parking spot. Cacher B's caches gets ten times as many finds as Cacher A's cache. This is the "new numbers game."

That's an interesting story, and it does sound typical, but I must have missed the part where you explained how the park and grab negatively affects anything.

 

 

Cacher A can't figure out why so many geocachers are skipping his cache requiring any physical effort. He sees all the finds on the easy cache, and he takes his ball home, and quits hiding caches, because he rarely gets any finds. The sport gets taken over by "easy cachers, placing easy caches." Those of us who like hard caches have to spend time and effort looking for "Cacher A type hides." Geocaching is evolving into a Sedentary Hobby

I place my caches where I like to go. If someone places one at the trailhead and people find it and don't walk the 5 miles to my cache - they probably wouldn't have hiked there anyhow. I do put some watches on the caches that are near to some of my puzzle caches. Sure enough they get found a lot more than my puzzle. I'm not about to archive any of my puzzles because some is willing to hike that far but doesn't like doing puzzles. I accept that far more cacher are willing to find easy terrain caches even in non-inspiring places. This was the case when I started caching in 2003 (perhaps microSpew started earlier in the Los Angeles area). I made the decision then to hide tough hiking caches because I saw that plenty of people would hide the easier urban caches. I've prided myself on know the few cachers that will go looking for my caches. If you hide caches to win a popularity contest you may have a problem.

 

I tried to think of how Kit Fox's example might negatively impact something. Suppose I've been eying that scenic waterfall cache for a while. But I couldn't figure out where the trailhead or parking is. Cacher A thought that part of the challenge was to figure out how to get to the waterfall. Now cacher B hid his cache. When I see on the map that there might be a trail there I go to cacher B's cache and then start down the trail. And I find the scenic waterfall and cache. So was it good that I now found the cache or bad for spoiling the experience of figuring out the trailhead?

 

While there are more urban cachers hiding urban hides, there are also more of every type of cacher. The urban cachers may be a higher percentage or it just be that they hide more caches. This would make sense because a hiking caches could spend the whole afternoon looking for on cache while an urban cacher may prefer the ability to hunt for several caches in a concentrated area. Urban cacher aren't just older people or ones with a disability. Time and ability to travel also influence this habit. I see students that don't have cars, stay at home moms who find cache while running errands, and even people whose jobs and commute leave little time for caching all appreciate the ability to find the cache at Wal*Mart. But if urban hides are a larger percentage of the total number of caches - there are also more hiking caches, caches in larger urban parks, and even caches at historic or scenic locations to find. If you like the hiking caches you have it easy since you can use the terrain along with Google maps to find these caches. Other times you need to read the cache page and logs and make a decision if this cache is right for you. I guess the negative impact of Kit Fox's example is this. Before cacher B hid his cache, Kit Fox would have gone to cacher A's cache and been happy. Now when he looks for caches there are two. And the one in the parking lot he wants to skip. So somehow he misses that there is a cache down the trail from that parking lot.

Edited February 3, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

... when you could introduce a friend/family member to the game, and whatever cache you chose to bring them to as their "first" could pretty much be expected to be memorable/interesting/worthwhile.

... and when we have company from out of town we take them to the best BBQ place in town instead of Mickey-D's.

If finding urban restaurants was like finding urban caches then you would have no idea how to find the best barbeque place in town. Imagine you have traveled to another city and you are really hungry for a great barbeque place. However, this city has thousands of restaurants but they are all hidden underground. There is no yellow pages to look up types of restaurants. So in order to find out what kind of food they each serve you have two choices: 1) You can wing it and walk downstairs at a bunch of them and hope you luck out and find one; 2) You can go to georestaurants.com and read through 300 restaurant pages that are within 5 miles from your hotel. Hmmm, which option is better? You are now really hungry and all you can seem to find are seemingly endless fast food restaurants.

[+Kit Fox]

I want to clarify that my Cacher A / Cacher B series was merely a hypothetical, with some relevence of truth. I hide plenty of 3 * plus terrain caches, and they get far fewer visits than my easier caches. So far, my most popular cachers are my Historical Series that I recently placed. It all evens out in this great game/ sport etc. I have noticed, that the majority of caches that I like to find were hidden between 2000 and 2003, with a few exceptions. I figure this is a clear example of "pre-spew" caching.

 

Many of my caching friends share my preference in geocaching, and we spend plenty of time researching "the kind of spots we like, without geocaches." If only I had more time to go caching,

[+drat19]

This does constitute a completely new argument, however, and has nothing to do with issues of personal preference or level of creativity, which is where all the previous arguments have originated.

Fine, I give up, then. (I'm not saying I feel like you're more "right" than I feel I am; I'm just saying I'm sick of arguing with you.) Once again, if it's important that you feel like you "won" because I decided not to argue further with you, then that's great for you. My pride/manhood are perfectly intact. I will continue to have my opinion and you will continue to have yours...and I will continue to have people who agree with my point of view, as will you for yours.

 

The game has changed. You're obviously fine with how it has changed. I liked the game better when there were fewer of us playing and the overall nature of the game was different as regards the wheat/chaff issue, and as regards the ability to compete for stats on a more level playing field. If that makes you a more adaptable person than me, then once again, that's great for you...my pride/manhood are still perfectly intact.

Edited February 4, 2007 by drat19

[+gh patriot]

[+KBI]

... when you could introduce a friend/family member to the game, and whatever cache you chose to bring them to as their "first" could pretty much be expected to be memorable/interesting/worthwhile.

... and when we have company from out of town we take them to the best BBQ place in town instead of Mickey-D's.

If finding urban restaurants was like finding urban caches then you would have no idea how to find the best barbeque place in town.

That's not true at all. If finding urban restaurants was like finding urban caches, then all you would have to do is scan over the descriptions and online logs of the restaurants you've decided to consider, and the logs will make it fairly obvious which ones to try.

 

One place describes itself in such a way thet you can really tell they care.

The last three logs:

"Excellent service!"

"The best combo plate I've had in months!"

"I'm going to tell all my friends about this place!"

 

The eatery next door, however, describes itself only as "easy to get to."

It has been logged with:

"The tastiest part of the meal was the napkin."

"Better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."

"We called our waitress 'lightning.' Not because she was fast; because she never hit the same table twice."

 

Which would you try first?

 

Imagine you have traveled to another city and you are really hungry for a great barbeque place. However, this city has thousands of restaurants but they are all hidden underground. There is no yellow pages to look up types of restaurants.

I think you're now stretching the analogy somewhat beyond its useful limits.

 

So in order to find out what kind of food they each serve you have two choices: 1) You can wing it and walk downstairs at a bunch of them and hope you luck out and find one; 2) You can go to georestaurants.com and read through 300 restaurant pages that are within 5 miles from your hotel. Hmmm, which option is better? You are now really hungry and all you can seem to find are seemingly endless fast food restaurants.

I'd do what always works for me: Ask the hotel desk clerk for a recommendation. Wouldn't you? My analogy has been tortured beyond recognition. Eating is mandatory. Caching is optional.

 

Do you typically try to limit yourself to one cache out of every 300? Do you feel you HAVE to find a cache, no matter how bad you tell yourself you're going to be disappointed?

 

If you typically find yourself with 300 caches to chose from within 5 miles of your hotel, yet you still can't manage to enjoy hunting even a few of those caches, then maybe it's time to re-consider how you choose to spend your free time -- maybe Geocaching isn't for you. Like I've said before, I never seem to have any trouble picking the good ones from the uninteresting ones in places like you describe, but -- maybe there's something wrong with me. Maybe I'm just too easily entertained.

 

You know, I get a kick out of the mere fact that I'm involved in a clandestine search for something that (1) the locals who live/work/shop/play around the cache don't have any idea is there, (2) I'm not entirely sure I'm going to be able to find, and (3) gives me an excuse to play with my GPS. It's cool! I've found almost 800 of these things now, yet each new one still gives me a geeky thrill. The unexpectedly cool ones are my very favorite! How many of those awesome caches would I miss out on if I relied too heavily on "anti-lame" filtration methods?

[+TrailGators]

The unexpectedly cool ones are my very favorite! How many of those awesome caches would I miss out on if I relied too heavily on "anti-lame" filtration methods?

KBI, we agree on two things: 1) It's very fun to find a cool cache! 2) I really like good barbeque!

I have adapted to the spew situation by asking for cache recommendations by starting "Must-Do" threads for areas that I will be visiting. I am also starting to check Waymarking.com to find other cool stuff to "visit" in those areas. By the way, is there a category for the best barbeque places yet?!

[+KBI]

That effort is minimal. I've never had a problem. Nobody has convinced me yet that the easy ones obscure the hard ones from detection.

They don't obscure the hard ones, but they do require a bit more effort to find. Say someone hides a "1/1" at a historical significant location. I would hunt the cache, because it gives me a reason for finding it. Say i'm not from the area, and I don't know this cache exist yet. Unless the cache has an "eye caching name," I'll have to review logs, and descriptions for tens to hundreds of other "1/1s" hidden for no other reason, except the "new numbers game. In essence, you'll need to separate the wheat from the chaff to find this cache.

I agree that it's kinda neat when a cache hide takes you to a historically significant location. If you're going to start demanding this kind of tourist information from the game, however, then I think you're asking too much from the hobby. Playing tourguide is not a primary function of Geocaching. It's a voluntary thing, and totally up to the hider -- as it should be. I sincerely hope that sightseeing never becomes a mandatory element.

 

If you want to find a cache, go find a cache. If you want to find something historically significant, then go look one up. I also like it when the two are combined, but I don't require it in order to enjoy my Geocaching.

 

And I still say that I have little patience for those who choose not to read cache descriptions, but then whine about the consequences of that choice. If you don't have time to read the description that the owner went to the trouble to write for you, then how is it you have time to waste going into the hunt blind, knowing that you might well be disappointed? Besides, sometimes one skips the description at one's own peril.

[+KBI]

I am also starting to check Waymarking.com to find other cool stuff to "visit" in those areas. By the way, is there a category for the best barbeque places yet?!

I wouldn't know. I've never been to Waymarking.com.

 

But I can sure tell you where the good stuff is around here. If it wasn't for all the walking I do from one 'uninspired' cache to the next, I'd be about 20 pounds heavier.

 

It sounds like you've found some creative ways to narrow down your caching targets. That's so much better than preaching to others how they should play, don't you think?

[+TrailGators]

I am also starting to check Waymarking.com to find other cool stuff to "visit" in those areas. By the way, is there a category for the best barbeque places yet?!

I wouldn't know. I've never been to Waymarking.com.

 

But I can sure tell you where the good stuff is around here. If it wasn't for all the walking I do from one 'uninspired' cache to the next, I'd be about 20 pounds heavier.

 

It sounds like you've found some creative ways to narrow down your caching targets. That's so much better than preaching to others how they should play, don't you think?

All I want is an attibute that tells me that the cache is in a parking lot so I can filter those out of my PQs.

[+KBI]

I haven't seen any evidence of easy caches taking traffic away from harder ones (as if that matters), as you describe. Can you provide any?

A Forest Adventure GCMK78 was hidden by me on Jan 23rd, 2005. It has thirty-six finds. The terrain rating is 2 stars.

 

The Devil's Horn GC10BF was hidden 7/14/2001, and it only has 17 finds. The terrain rating is 3 1/2 stars.

 

I got lucky and picked a better spot.

The one with the higher terrain rating has been around longer, yet has fewer finds than the younger one with the easier rating. Please tell me you're not surprised by this.

 

That still doesn't answer my question: Where is the evidence that easier caches are taking traffic away from the harder ones?

 

I'm still not convinced this is happening, but even if it is, it doesn't matter. Cache hunters are free to hunt whichever caches they prefer. You're free to pursue your own preferences. You can't control other people's preferences -- why would you want to?

 

 

You also skipped over my other question from the same post, the one which addresses the main point of your parable:

I haven't seen any evidence of superior cache hiders quitting as you describe. Can you provide any?

Like others before you, you made an attempt, with your Cacher A/Cacher B story, to argue that uncreative hides are ‘bad for the game.’ I’ve listened carefully to lots and lots of these arguments over the past year or so, but I still haven’t heard anything to convince me that the mere existence of so-called ‘lame’ hides constitutes any threat to Geocaching.

[+KBI]

All I want is an attibute that tells me that the cache is in a parking lot so I can filter those out of my PQs.

I have found some VERY clever hides in parking lots. I've seen some really cool views from parking lots. One of my favorite trade items I ever found was from a cache hidden at the very edge of a parking lot. There are many, many caches that are designed to show you things that are rich with historical interest -- many of which are located in ... parking lots.

 

One of my brother's hides actually won an "Outstanding Creative Cache" award from the Georgia Geocaching Association a couple years ago. It's archived now, but guess what common man-made feature it was entirely located within?

 

Suit yourself, but why would you want to risk missing out on any of those cool experiences?

[+TrailGators]

Like others before you, you made an attempt, with your Cacher A/Cacher B story, to argue that uncreative hides are 'bad for the game.' I've listened carefully to lots and lots of these arguments over the past year or so, but I still haven't heard anything to convince me that the mere existence of so-called 'lame' hides constitutes any threat to Geocaching.

I know many people that have quit the game because of microspew. I won't name names but these people include some very fine cachers. One of them was probably the most creative hiders that we had. Another one in the area just pulled all of his awesome caches because he said that they didn't fit in anymore. He felt that people just want easy numbers caches. Like the song says: "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got till it's gone."

[+tozainamboku]

I am also starting to check Waymarking.com to find other cool stuff to "visit" in those areas. By the way, is there a category for the best barbeque places yet?!

Of course there is.

[+TrailGators]

All I want is an attibute that tells me that the cache is in a parking lot so I can filter those out of my PQs.

I have found some VERY clever hides in parking lots. I've seen some really cool views from parking lots. One of my favorite trade items I ever found was from a cache hidden at the very edge of a parking lot. There are many, many caches that are designed to show you things that are rich with historical interest -- many of which are located in ... parking lots.

 

One of my brother's hides actually won an "Outstanding Creative Cache" award from the Georgia Geocaching Association a couple years ago. It's archived now, but guess what common man-made feature it was entirely located within?

 

Suit yourself, but why would you want to risk missing out on any of those cool experiences?

The majority of caches in parking lots are microspew. However, if a parking lot cache also had a scenic view attribute or if it was recommended I would keep it. Otherwise it's sayonara spew!

[+TrailGators]

I am also starting to check Waymarking.com to find other cool stuff to "visit" in those areas. By the way, is there a category for the best barbeque places yet?!

Of course there is.

Cool! Thanks! I will get a for those!

[+drat19]

Like the song says: "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got till it's gone."

More irony: The next line in that song - "They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot!"

[+KBI]

Like others before you, you made an attempt, with your Cacher A/Cacher B story, to argue that uncreative hides are 'bad for the game.' I've listened carefully to lots and lots of these arguments over the past year or so, but I still haven't heard anything to convince me that the mere existence of so-called 'lame' hides constitutes any threat to Geocaching.

I know many people that have quit the game because of microspew. I won't name names but these people include some very fine cachers. One of them was probably the most creative hiders that we had. Another one in the area just pulled all of his awesome caches because he said that they didn't fit in anymore. He felt that people just want easy numbers caches. Like the song says: "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got till it's gone."

You're serious?

 

You actually know someone who stopped ALL cache hunting just because the number of choices got to be too much for them?

 

You actually know someone who archived some great hides just because there happened to be a few not-so-great hides placed somewhere else?

 

You actually know a guy who totally quit playing because of the way others were playng, even thought the way those folks were playing needn't have bothered him?

 

You don't want to name names? Guess I'll have to take your word for it then.

[+TrailGators]

Like the song says: "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got till it's gone."

More irony: The next line in that song - "They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot!"

Yes I know!

[+KBI]

All I want is an attibute that tells me that the cache is in a parking lot so I can filter those out of my PQs.

I have found some VERY clever hides in parking lots. I've seen some really cool views from parking lots. One of my favorite trade items I ever found was from a cache hidden at the very edge of a parking lot. There are many, many caches that are designed to show you things that are rich with historical interest -- many of which are located in ... parking lots.

 

One of my brother's hides actually won an "Outstanding Creative Cache" award from the Georgia Geocaching Association a couple years ago. It's archived now, but guess what common man-made feature it was entirely located within?

 

Suit yourself, but why would you want to risk missing out on any of those cool experiences?

The majority of caches in parking lots are microspew. However, if a parking lot cache also had a scenic view attribute or if it was recommended I would keep it. Otherwise it's sayonara spew!

Sounds good to me! Your recommendation for a new attribute seems to be a reasonable one then. Maybe it'll be adopted. Maybe someday cache hiders will actually use it frequently enough to make a difference for you.

 

Maybe then folks won't have to whine so much about their fellow cachers' lack of minimum-acceptable creativity.

[+TrailGators]

Like others before you, you made an attempt, with your Cacher A/Cacher B story, to argue that uncreative hides are 'bad for the game.' I've listened carefully to lots and lots of these arguments over the past year or so, but I still haven't heard anything to convince me that the mere existence of so-called 'lame' hides constitutes any threat to Geocaching.

I know many people that have quit the game because of microspew. I won't name names but these people include some very fine cachers. One of them was probably the most creative hiders that we had. Another one in the area just pulled all of his awesome caches because he said that they didn't fit in anymore. He felt that people just want easy numbers caches. Like the song says: "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got till it's gone."

You're serious?

 

You actually know someone who archived some great hides just because there happened to be a few not-so-great hides placed somewhere else?

 

You don't want to name names? Guess I'll have to take your word for it then.

I am serious and I am telling the truth.

 

A "few" not so great hides? I think you are talking about what it was like here 2-3 years ago.

[+KBI]

Like the song says: "Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you got till it's gone."

More irony: The next line in that song - "They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot!"

That's actually pretty funny.

 

I like it!

[+KBI]

I am serious and I am telling the truth.

 

A "few" not so great hides? I think you are talking about what it was like here 2-3 years ago.

What does it matter HOW many Lame-Os surrounded this guys hides? Why is that a reason for anyone to archive anything? That just doesn't make any sense. Sounds like maybe there's more to the story.

[+KBI]

You actually know someone who stopped ALL cache hunting just because the number of choices got to be too much for them?

 

You actually know a guy who totally quit playing because of the way others were playng, even thought the way those folks were playing needn't have bothered him?

I also noticed you actively chose to skip these two questions. Was that significant?

[+TrailGators]

Sounds good to me! Your recommendation for a new attribute seems to be a reasonable one then. Maybe it'll be adopted. Maybe someday cache hiders will actually use it frequently enough to make a difference for you.

It is a reasonable request. If some people aren't going to put any effort into hiding them then why should we have to bother finding them? I'm not going to force people to hide better caches. I just don't want anything to do with those kinds of caches.

[+TrailGators]

You actually know someone who stopped ALL cache hunting just because the number of choices got to be too much for them?

 

You actually know a guy who totally quit playing because of the way others were playng, even thought the way those folks were playing needn't have bothered him?

I also noticed you actively chose to skip these two questions. Was that significant?

I skipped them because those two questions had nothing to do with why these people quit. Numbers mania and microspew are the reasons. I have to admit that they seem to be dominating the game. Case in point: There are threads that congratulate people for how many caches people have found. How many threads have you ever seen congratulating people for the awesome caches they have hidden?

[+KBI]

If some people aren't going to put any effort into hiding them ...

How do you know how much effort it took to place that simple cache, the one you despise? That hider may have some sort of physical, mental or financial limitation. He may be a pre-teen. Maybe he can't afford a GPS. Whoever he is, it may be all he can manage to place that simple cache.

 

... then why should we have to bother finding them?

You DON'T have to bother finding them. You've NEVER had to bother finding them. ALL caching is voluntary. Your attribute suggestion is merely a tool to make cache snobbery more convenient.

 

I'm not going to force people to hide better caches.

"Better" is a subjective judgment. It's good you don't want to use force, because it would be a shame for one cacher to force his personal, arbitrary standard on another cacher.

 

"Better caches?" Some people PREFER those very types of caches you detest so much. Your attribute might actually help them, too!

 

I just don't want anything to do with those kinds of caches.

Good luck, then. I think the attribute thing is a good idea.

[Luckless]

If finding urban restaurants was like finding urban caches then you would have no idea how to find the best barbeque place in town. Imagine you have traveled to another city and you are really hungry for a great barbeque place. However, this city has thousands of restaurants but they are all hidden underground. There is no yellow pages to look up types of restaurants. So in order to find out what kind of food they each serve you have two choices: 1) You can wing it and walk downstairs at a bunch of them and hope you luck out and find one; 2) You can go to georestaurants.com and read through 300 restaurant pages that are within 5 miles from your hotel. Hmmm, which option is better? You are now really hungry and all you can seem to find are seemingly endless fast food restaurants.

 

If you were in another city looking for a good place for barbecue wouldn't you ask people from the area where are the good places to get barbecue. And if you wanted to find the best caches in an area you were going to wouldn't it make sense to check a listing of the best caches- look for bookmarks of favorite caches.

[+TrailGators]

I am serious and I am telling the truth.

 

A "few" not so great hides? I think you are talking about what it was like here 2-3 years ago.

What does it matter HOW many Lame-Os surrounded this guys hides? Why is that a reason for anyone to archive anything? That just doesn't make any sense. Sounds like maybe there's more to the story.

I guess you are going to keep implying that I'm not telling the truth until I prove that I am. Read the Archive Log on October 22nd and then read some of the local's responses after that...Bunthorne was disheartened because very few were finding his cool caches. These caches were very fun to find but they were time consuming. So I think Bunthorne hit the nail on the head: these kind of caches don't seem fit in with today's numbers game.

[+KBI]

You actually know someone who stopped ALL cache hunting just because the number of choices got to be too much for them?

 

You actually know a guy who totally quit playing because of the way others were playng, even thought the way those folks were playing needn't have bothered him?

I also noticed you actively chose to skip these two questions. Was that significant?

I skipped them because those two questions had nothing to do with why these people quit.

I was only reiterating what you said:

 

"I know many people that have quit the game because of microspew. I won't name names but these people include some very fine cachers. One of them was probably the most creative hiders that we had."

You actually know someone who stopped ALL cache hunting just because the number of choices got to be too much for them?

 

"Another one in the area just pulled all of his awesome caches because he said that they didn't fit in anymore. He felt that people just want easy numbers caches."

You actually know a guy who totally quit playing because of the way others were playng, even thought the way those folks were playing needn't have bothered him?

[+TrailGators]

If finding urban restaurants was like finding urban caches then you would have no idea how to find the best barbeque place in town. Imagine you have traveled to another city and you are really hungry for a great barbeque place. However, this city has thousands of restaurants but they are all hidden underground. There is no yellow pages to look up types of restaurants. So in order to find out what kind of food they each serve you have two choices: 1) You can wing it and walk downstairs at a bunch of them and hope you luck out and find one; 2) You can go to georestaurants.com and read through 300 restaurant pages that are within 5 miles from your hotel. Hmmm, which option is better? You are now really hungry and all you can seem to find are seemingly endless fast food restaurants.

 

If you were in another city looking for a good place for barbecue wouldn't you ask people from the area where are the good places to get barbecue. And if you wanted to find the best caches in an area you were going to wouldn't it make sense to check a listing of the best caches- look for bookmarks of favorite caches.

I already said that I do that....

[+TrailGators]

"I know many people that have quit the game because of microspew. I won't name names but these people include some very fine cachers. One of them was probably the most creative hiders that we had."

You actually know someone who stopped ALL cache hunting just because the number of choices got to be too much for them?

The guy placed some of the most creative hides I ever seen. Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean about him quitting because of the number of choices got too great. This doesn't make any sense...He quit because of the reasons that I've already stated.

 

"Another one in the area just pulled all of his awesome caches because he said that they didn't fit in anymore. He felt that people just want easy numbers caches."

You actually know a guy who totally quit playing because of the way others were playng, even thought the way those folks were playing needn't have bothered him?

The others were not finding his King Geepius caches because they take too much time to do and they were not good caches to boost your numbers. Edited February 4, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

I am serious and I am telling the truth.

 

A "few" not so great hides? I think you are talking about what it was like here 2-3 years ago.

What does it matter HOW many Lame-Os surrounded this guys hides? Why is that a reason for anyone to archive anything? That just doesn't make any sense. Sounds like maybe there's more to the story.

I guess you are going to keep implying that I'm not telling the truth until I prove that I am. Read the Archive Log on October 22nd and then read some of the local's responses after that...Bunthorne was disheartened because very few were finding his cool caches. These caches were very fun to find but they were time consuming. So I think Bunthorne hit the nail on the head: these kind of caches don't seem fit in with today's numbers game.

The archive log:

I'm archiving all the King Geepius caches as they aren't seeing much activity and I don't think this style of cache is of interest anymore. The Geepius caches always involved examining actual objects on the trail to solve the puzzle. Since these were placed, puzzle caches have evolved into being entirely solvable before leaving home. By archiving this cache, the wonderful hike to the tooth is now cacheless. Perhaps someone else would like to set a new one out there.

Again I say: What does it matter HOW many Lame-Os surrounded this guys hides? Why is that a reason for anyone to archive anything?

 

He retired his puzzle cache because other people started hiding different kinds of puzzle caches? That still doesn't make sense. That's got nothing to do with 'lame' caches anyway. Your example isn't cool vs. lame. it's puzzle vs. puzzle. He doesn't say anything about uninspired hides. He only mentioned a different style of puzzles.

 

He retired his puzzle cache because he thought folks didn't want to hunt it anymore? The cascade of 'regret notes' that follow the archive log prove that his conclusion of "I don't think this style of cache is of interest anymore" was obviously wrong -- lots of people apparently had that cache on their to-do list!

 

This has nothing at all to do with "Microspew" harming the game.

[+Moose Mob]

After spot checking the past 5 or so pages, I had a hard time finding anything truely productive. Perhaps there was, but it was lost in the rabble.

 

Give this topic a few days break and go find some caches.

 

Closing topic. Thanks for playing.