Jump to content

Skirt Lifters - Luv'em or Hate'em


Recommended Posts

Since I am new to caching, this was a new topic for me. I have never heard of or seen any of these. Obviously they exist if people are finding that many. Here is my newbie (but i think fairly sound) opinion on this topic. I was of the impression that a big part of caching was to get people to realize the natural beauty that is out there. If we are hiding "skirt lifters", or LPCs, isnt that kind of defeating the purpose? Not that i would really care if i found one b/c the hunt aspect is also a big part of it and these do involve a hunt, even if it is a fairly easy one. Thats my two cents on that one.

Link to comment

I guess my main issue with the LPC's is the lack of ingenuity.

I always wonder why the lamppost cache is the whipping boy for lack of ingenuity.

Because a lot of people feel that way..... One of the coolest things about geocaching is not knowing what cool places you'll discover. So a lot of the fun is about anticipation. LPCs are a let down for people like that. So if you want to hide a cache that you like, but may let down tons of people then hide an LPC....

I was responding to the comment the LPCs showed a lack of ingenuity (presumably because they are so common). TrailGators is already on the record that he likes to be taken to interesting or scenic locations when geocaching. Obviously most LPCs are not in very scenic or interesting locations. If your goal is to visit interesting or scenic locations and the arrow on your GPSr is pointing to a parking lot or worse to the dumpster behind a strip mall, then why even stop. Just keep going to the next cache. Sometimes I cache to get back to nature with a long hike and sometimes I like to see historic places or a statue in a public park. On those days I just skip the LPCs and other caches like this. Other times I just want to find a few caches and don't have much time to be selective. Then I'll stop and lift up the lamppost skirt. If the cache isn't there, I'll scratch my head and look around. Perhaps its over in that bush or maybe that's a fake rock. No there it is, an Altoids tin painted to match the lamppost and magnetically help in place 15 ft off the ground. Not dressed for shimmying up the pole today, so I guesss I'll DNF it. Who are these tons of people I'm letting down? See my sig. line.

Link to comment

I guess my main issue with the LPC's is the lack of ingenuity.

I always wonder why the lamppost cache is the whipping boy for lack of ingenuity.

Because a lot of people feel that way..... One of the coolest things about geocaching is not knowing what cool places you'll discover. So a lot of the fun is about anticipation. LPCs are a let down for people like that. So if you want to hide a cache that you like, but may let down tons of people then hide an LPC....

I was responding to the comment the LPCs showed a lack of ingenuity (presumably because they are so common). TrailGators is already on the record that he likes to be taken to interesting or scenic locations when geocaching. Obviously most LPCs are not in very scenic or interesting locations. If your goal is to visit interesting or scenic locations and the arrow on your GPSr is pointing to a parking lot or worse to the dumpster behind a strip mall, then why even stop. Just keep going to the next cache. Sometimes I cache to get back to nature with a long hike and sometimes I like to see historic places or a statue in a public park. On those days I just skip the LPCs and other caches like this. Other times I just want to find a few caches and don't have much time to be selective. Then I'll stop and lift up the lamppost skirt. If the cache isn't there, I'll scratch my head and look around. Perhaps its over in that bush or maybe that's a fake rock. No there it is, an Altoids tin painted to match the lamppost and magnetically help in place 15 ft off the ground. Not dressed for shimmying up the pole today, so I guesss I'll DNF it. Who are these tons of people I'm letting down? See my sig. line.

I agree with what you said in blue. As far as what you said in red, you wouldn't be letting down anyone because you were not the one hiding an LPC.
Link to comment

I was responding to the comment the LPCs showed a lack of ingenuity (presumably because they are so common). TrailGators is already on the record that he likes to be taken to interesting or scenic locations when geocaching. Obviously most LPCs are not in very scenic or interesting locations. If your goal is to visit interesting or scenic locations and the arrow on your GPSr is pointing to a parking lot or worse to the dumpster behind a strip mall, then why even stop. Just keep going to the next cache. Sometimes I cache to get back to nature with a long hike and sometimes I like to see historic places or a statue in a public park. On those days I just skip the LPCs and other caches like this. Other times I just want to find a few caches and don't have much time to be selective. Then I'll stop and lift up the lamppost skirt. If the cache isn't there, I'll scratch my head and look around. Perhaps its over in that bush or maybe that's a fake rock. No there it is, an Altoids tin painted to match the lamppost and magnetically help in place 15 ft off the ground. Not dressed for shimmying up the pole today, so I guesss I'll DNF it. Who are these tons of people I'm letting down? See my sig. line.

I agree with what you said in blue. As far as what you said in red, you wouldn't be letting down anyone because you were not the one hiding an LPC.

First of all, TrailGators is right that I personally haven't hidden a LPC. I think all of the caches I've hidden are the type TrailGators would like to find. However, some people do like to find lamppost caches. Even I like them on some occassions. If someone does hide a cache like this they are not doing to please TrailGators or the tons of people who don't like these caches. They are hiding them for the tons of people who do like these caches. A cache doesn't have to be anybody's favorite type of cache to be worth having. It just has to be a cache that someone would like to find at least some of the time. I really disagree with the concept of placing a cache to please the most people. I prefer there be many different kinds of caches so there is something for everyone. My suspicion is that most people are quite happy finding an occassional LPC just from the number of logs these cache get as opposed to some cache that requires you to solve a tough puzzle and then go on a long hike. I'd hate to see someone archive the puzzle with the hike just because it isn't getting visited as much as the LPC.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I was responding to the comment the LPCs showed a lack of ingenuity (presumably because they are so common). TrailGators is already on the record that he likes to be taken to interesting or scenic locations when geocaching. Obviously most LPCs are not in very scenic or interesting locations. If your goal is to visit interesting or scenic locations and the arrow on your GPSr is pointing to a parking lot or worse to the dumpster behind a strip mall, then why even stop. Just keep going to the next cache. Sometimes I cache to get back to nature with a long hike and sometimes I like to see historic places or a statue in a public park. On those days I just skip the LPCs and other caches like this. Other times I just want to find a few caches and don't have much time to be selective. Then I'll stop and lift up the lamppost skirt. If the cache isn't there, I'll scratch my head and look around. Perhaps its over in that bush or maybe that's a fake rock. No there it is, an Altoids tin painted to match the lamppost and magnetically help in place 15 ft off the ground. Not dressed for shimmying up the pole today, so I guesss I'll DNF it. Who are these tons of people I'm letting down? See my sig. line.

I agree with what you said in blue. As far as what you said in red, you wouldn't be letting down anyone because you were not the one hiding an LPC.

First of all, TrailGators is right that I personally haven't hidden a LPC. I think all of the caches I've hidden are the type TrailGators would like to find. However, some people do like to find lamppost caches. Even I like them on some occassions. If someone does hide a cache like this they are not doing to please TrailGators or the tons of people who don't like these caches. They are hiding them for the tons of people who do like these caches. A cache doesn't have to be anybody's favorite type of cache to be worth having. It just has to be a cache that someone would like to find at least some of the time. I really disagree with the concept of placing a cache to please the most people. I prefer there be many different kinds of caches so there is something for everyone. My suspicion is that most people are quite happy finding an occassional LPC just from the number of logs these cache get as opposed to some cache that requires you to solve a tough puzzle and then go on a long hike. I'd hate to see someone archive the puzzle with the hike just because it isn't getting visited as much as the LPC.

I never said anything about making people archive anything or stopping people from doing anything. I just think that the better the cache is the more people will enjoy it. If half the people that find a cache don't enjoy it or have to drive away and ignore it that is not a good thing IMHO. However, if 95% of the people rave above it then hider should be commended! :cry:
Link to comment
It does seem like a rather simple concept, eh? I'm not very computer savy, and as such, there are only 8 other forums I participate in on a regular basis. In my self proclaimed limited experience, this forum is the only one I've seen where folks who suggest creativity are not applauded. ;):cry:
No joke. Why is that?
Link to comment

It does seem like a rather simple concept, eh? I'm not very computer savy, and as such, there are only 8 other forums I participate in on a regular basis. In my self proclaimed limited experience, this forum is the only one I've seen where folks who suggest creativity are not applauded. ;):cry:

Suggesting creativity isn't deriding those who disagree, which happens too often in these threads.

Link to comment

Funny, but the one thing I haven't seen discussed in this whole topic is why are these being hidden there in the first place? Isn't one of the tenets of Geocaching "Seek permission from the owner before hiding a cache on private property"? Now I know that all these sites are "commercial" but they are in fact owned by someone, even if it's a corporation. Has anyone sought out permission before placing one of these LPCs? Or do we just use the fact that these are "commercial" sites to get around that little sentence? Do we really think that these owners would approve of this? If not, should caches really be placed there?

Link to comment

It does seem like a rather simple concept, eh? I'm not very computer savy, and as such, there are only 8 other forums I participate in on a regular basis. In my self proclaimed limited experience, this forum is the only one I've seen where folks who suggest creativity are not applauded. ;):cry:

Suggesting creativity isn't deriding those who disagree, which happens too often in these threads.

I agree.
Link to comment

It does seem like a rather simple concept, eh? I'm not very computer savy, and as such, there are only 8 other forums I participate in on a regular basis. In my self proclaimed limited experience, this forum is the only one I've seen where folks who suggest creativity are not applauded. ;):cry:

Suggesting creativity is indeed applauded. Saying, "I like creative hides, and I'm hoping more people hide caches creatively" is something you'd be hard pressed to find someone to disagree with you on.

 

But that's not what is said when people complain about LPCs or "Lame micros". Instead, the folks against these types of hides say things that come across as, "I don't like these hides, they're not creative enough for me, I wish people would hide creative hides instead of these lame ones, that way it would be more fun for me."

 

When someone else suggests that the hides you dislike are actually useful to, and enjoyed by, other people, they're labled as Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame, and are told that they're against creative hides.

Link to comment

It does seem like a rather simple concept, eh? I'm not very computer savy, and as such, there are only 8 other forums I participate in on a regular basis. In my self proclaimed limited experience, this forum is the only one I've seen where folks who suggest creativity are not applauded. ;):cry:

Suggesting creativity is indeed applauded. Saying, "I like creative hides, and I'm hoping more people hide caches creatively" is something you'd be hard pressed to find someone to disagree with you on.

I agree and all we can do is hope.
Link to comment

I only have one LPC, which I placed after dislocating my kneecap. I could only hobble around then, and finding LPCs was better than staying at home and not caching at all. :)

 

The logs for that cache are sometimes more interesting than the logs on my more remote caches where people often just "cut and paste" the same log from the previous one on the trail . . . B)

 

Log and Log. :) :)

 

So . . . LPCs can serve a good purpose. B)

Link to comment

Funny, but the one thing I haven't seen discussed in this whole topic is why are these being hidden there in the first place? Isn't one of the tenets of Geocaching "Seek permission from the owner before hiding a cache on private property"? Now I know that all these sites are "commercial" but they are in fact owned by someone, even if it's a corporation. Has anyone sought out permission before placing one of these LPCs? Or do we just use the fact that these are "commercial" sites to get around that little sentence? Do we really think that these owners would approve of this? If not, should caches really be placed there?

The permission issue has been covered several times. Here's one:

Obtaining Permission

At issue is the official wording:

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

So, does that mean that you must have permission, or getting permission if it's near the building, or something else? It's a pretty heated subject. Like LPCs, it's subject to personal opinion, anger, rage, etc.

Link to comment
I only have one LPC, which I placed after dislocating my kneecap. I could only hobble around then, and finding LPCs was better than staying at home and not caching at all. :)

 

The logs for that cache are sometimes more interesting than the logs on my more remote caches where people often just "cut and paste" the same log from the previous one on the trail . . . B)

 

Log and Log. :):)

 

So . . . LPCs can serve a good purpose. B)

I hear the disabled reason a lot. All I know is that if that is the reason then there must be far more disabled people around here than I ever thought there were. I still think the real driver has to do with numbers mania. Anyhow, I always used to log LPCs and the like with a no effort brief log. Of course now I don't log them and I put them on my ignore list instead. B) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I guess my main issue with the LPC's is the lack of ingenuity.

I always wonder why the lamppost cache is the whipping boy for lack of ingenuity.

Because a lot of people feel that way..... One of the coolest things about geocaching is not knowing what cool places you'll discover. So a lot of the fun is about anticipation. LPCs are a let down for people like that. So if you want to hide a cache that you like, but may let down tons of people then hide an LPC....

I've heard this arguement many times before, and still don't get it. Someone placing a LPC - an easily gotten cache - is "letting down tons of people", as opposed to the long-hike-to-a-senic-location. How many more people log a LPC as opposed to the LHTASL? How many turn away from each type of cache (we can never know, because there is no log type "turned away"). I bet it's true that more people turn away from LHTASL's than from LPC's - based on the number of logs each gets.

Link to comment

I guess my main issue with the LPC's is the lack of ingenuity.

I always wonder why the lamppost cache is the whipping boy for lack of ingenuity.

Because a lot of people feel that way..... One of the coolest things about geocaching is not knowing what cool places you'll discover. So a lot of the fun is about anticipation. LPCs are a let down for people like that. So if you want to hide a cache that you like, but may let down tons of people then hide an LPC....

I've heard this arguement many times before, and still don't get it. Someone placing a LPC - an easily gotten cache - is "letting down tons of people", as opposed to the long-hike-to-a-senic-location. How many more people log a LPC as opposed to the LHTASL? How many turn away from each type of cache (we can never know, because there is no log type "turned away"). I bet it's true that more people turn away from LHTASL's than from LPC's - based on the number of logs each gets.

Give me a break. If many people that need caches that are a few feet from their car then how would you expect these people do a tough hike? :) Obviously, there are a lot of these people because there are ton of LPCs. Besides that, the terrain rating clues everyone in as to what to expect. There is no way to clue us in as to whether or not a cache is an LPC.... :) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I hear the disabled reason a lot.

My wife and I both suffer from varying degrees of disability. (pretty minor now, compared to others) I would hate to think that being disabled means that the only caches I can hunt are the uninspired ones. Surely there isn't some aspect of human cacher nature that says a 1/1 hide can't be created without being lame. If that were the case, and my disability reaches the point that 1/1's are all I'm physically able to hunt, I'd have to gargle arsenic. A physical disability should not be a sentence to insipidities.

 

I bet it's true that more people turn away from LHTASL's than from LPC's - based on the number of logs each gets.

Just cuz lots of people find them, doesn't mean they don't stink.

Link to comment

I hear the disabled reason a lot.

My wife and I both suffer from varying degrees of disability. (pretty minor now, compared to others) I would hate to think that being disabled means that the only caches I can hunt are the uninspired ones. Surely there isn't some aspect of human cacher nature that says a 1/1 hide can't be created without being lame. If that were the case, and my disability reaches the point that 1/1's are all I'm physically able to hunt, I'd have to gargle arsenic. A physical disability should not be a sentence to insipidities.

I feel for ya man. You just need to learn who hides the lame ones and ignore their caches. That will increase your odds of success! :)
Link to comment

I guess my main issue with the LPC's is the lack of ingenuity.

I always wonder why the lamppost cache is the whipping boy for lack of ingenuity.

Because a lot of people feel that way..... One of the coolest things about geocaching is not knowing what cool places you'll discover. So a lot of the fun is about anticipation. LPCs are a let down for people like that. So if you want to hide a cache that you like, but may let down tons of people then hide an LPC....

I've heard this arguement many times before, and still don't get it. Someone placing a LPC - an easily gotten cache - is "letting down tons of people", as opposed to the long-hike-to-a-senic-location. How many more people log a LPC as opposed to the LHTASL? How many turn away from each type of cache (we can never know, because there is no log type "turned away"). I bet it's true that more people turn away from LHTASL's than from LPC's - based on the number of logs each gets.

Give me a break. If many people out there can barely walk a few feet from their car to get an LPC then how would you expect these people do a tough hike? B) Obviously, there are a lot of these people because there are ton of LPCs. Besides that, the terrain rating clues everyone in as to what to expect. There is no way to clue us in as to whether or not a cache is an LPC.... B)

:):):)

How do your comments have anything to do with your arguement that a LPC "may let down tons of people"? I was trying to see where the "tons" of people are - signing logs at LPC's or signing logs at LHTASL's.

Link to comment

I guess my main issue with the LPC's is the lack of ingenuity.

I always wonder why the lamppost cache is the whipping boy for lack of ingenuity.

Because a lot of people feel that way..... One of the coolest things about geocaching is not knowing what cool places you'll discover. So a lot of the fun is about anticipation. LPCs are a let down for people like that. So if you want to hide a cache that you like, but may let down tons of people then hide an LPC....

I've heard this arguement many times before, and still don't get it. Someone placing a LPC - an easily gotten cache - is "letting down tons of people", as opposed to the long-hike-to-a-senic-location. How many more people log a LPC as opposed to the LHTASL? How many turn away from each type of cache (we can never know, because there is no log type "turned away"). I bet it's true that more people turn away from LHTASL's than from LPC's - based on the number of logs each gets.

Give me a break. If many people out there can barely walk a few feet from their car to get an LPC then how would you expect these people do a tough hike? B) Obviously, there are a lot of these people because there are ton of LPCs. Besides that, the terrain rating clues everyone in as to what to expect. There is no way to clue us in as to whether or not a cache is an LPC.... B)

:):):)

How do your comments have anything to do with your arguement that a LPC "may let down tons of people"? I was trying to see where the "tons" of people are - signing logs at LPC's or signing logs at LHTASL's.

You need to analyze the reactions of everyone that actually visits the cache and the reasons that some ignore the cache. People ignore tough hikes because they can't do them. People ignore LPCs becasue they don't like them. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
People ignore tough hikes because they can't do them. People ignore LPCs becasue they don't like them.

Well said! (and a lot nicer than I would've said it) :)

 

I'm planning a trip from Central Florida to Kentucky soon, and within a couple hours I'll be outside my zone of knowledge. I've GSAK'ed all the caches along the way, so I'll have something to do whilst stretching my legs. I expect to encounter lots of lameness on this trip. Sadly, past experience is the only filter currently available for us to filter out lame cache®s. Once you're in new territory, you have no way of knowing who puts thought into their hides, vs. who plops out film canisters into the shrubbery of every fast food joint they pass.

Link to comment

You need to analyze the reactions of everyone that actually visits the cache and the reasons that some ignore the cache. People ignore tough hikes because they can't do them. People ignore LPCs becasue they don't like them.

I'd like to see your full analysis wherein you can make such blanket claims.

 

So the reason people ignore tough hikes is they can't do them. Such a nice blanket statement, too bad it's incorrect. I tend to ignore tough hikes to caches - not because I can't do them, I'm a mountaineer/rock climber, there isn't much terrain I can't handle - because of the time commitment to one cache. I'd rather get more bang for my buck.

Link to comment

You need to analyze the reactions of everyone that actually visits the cache and the reasons that some ignore the cache. People ignore tough hikes because they can't do them. People ignore LPCs becasue they don't like them.

I'd like to see your full analysis wherein you can make such blanket claims.

 

So the reason people ignore tough hikes is they can't do them. Such a nice blanket statement, too bad it's incorrect. I tend to ignore tough hikes to caches - not because I can't do them, I'm a mountaineer/rock climber, there isn't much terrain I can't handle - because of the time commitment to one cache. I'd rather get more bang for my buck.

I didn't say that was the only reason. It's certainly one of the main reasons. OK, if it makes you happy we can add your reason: There are people that are so into numbers that they ignore caches that won't crank up their numbers. Are you happy now? :) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I only have one LPC, which I placed after dislocating my kneecap. I could only hobble around then, and finding LPCs was better than staying at home and not caching at all. :)

 

The logs for that cache are sometimes more interesting than the logs on my more remote caches where people often just "cut and paste" the same log from the previous one on the trail . . . :)

 

Log and Log. B)B)

 

So . . . LPCs can serve a good purpose. B)

I hear the disabled reason a lot. All I know is that if that is the reason then there must be far more disabled people around here than I ever thought there were. I still think the real driver has to do with numbers mania. Anyhow, I always used to log LPCs and the like with a no effort brief log. Of course now I don't log them and I put them on my ignore list instead. :)

..and yet you cannot ignore the forum threads about them.... B)

Link to comment

My free two bits on this topic is this. We do caches within our physical limitations. We place caches not to hide the he double toothpicks out of them but for something amusing and different. Case in point the one we recently obtained permission for is one that will essentially stair at you and seemingly laugh do to the high traffic. Unlike others this one has eyes.

 

Keeping in mind the limitations of some a LPC may be the only kind some have access to find. Not everyone is built like a truck and can climb vertical walls to find a cache. Heck, If this thing was around 15 years ago vertical walls wouldn't have been a problem for me. Now a days not so much. I would hate to see something like this limited only to the physically fit. You'd be surprised at the type and number of people I've peaked interest in about geocaching. Many of which most likely wouldn't go above a two star rating. Keep in mind what the first cache was and it's difficulty.

 

That being said we recently found our first skirt lifter this past weekend. We didn't go out of our way to find it but it was on the way to our destination, different for us, and quick. Would we go out of our way in the future to seek similar ones out? Not likely but I do think they have their place.

Link to comment
I only have one LPC, which I placed after dislocating my kneecap. I could only hobble around then, and finding LPCs was better than staying at home and not caching at all. :)

 

The logs for that cache are sometimes more interesting than the logs on my more remote caches where people often just "cut and paste" the same log from the previous one on the trail . . . :)

 

Log and Log. B)B)

 

So . . . LPCs can serve a good purpose. :P

I hear the disabled reason a lot. All I know is that if that is the reason then there must be far more disabled people around here than I ever thought there were. I still think the real driver has to do with numbers mania. Anyhow, I always used to log LPCs and the like with a no effort brief log. Of course now I don't log them and I put them on my ignore list instead. :)

..and yet you cannot ignore the forum threads about them.... B)

....and I never will until there is an efficient way to remove them all from my PQs. B)
Link to comment

Drove 140 miles over to Lawrenceville Georgia for my grandson's birthday party today, grabbed a couple in his neighborhood on the way home just because they were there... if I'm driving down the road and my GPS says there's a cache 300' over there in the Publix parking lot I pretty much know what to expect before I turn in. I had fun finding them, seeing who'd been there.

 

2 more caches found and signed, and now I know that there's a cool park close to my son's house (Not Soccer) where I can take the grandson to play next trip. Yup, a SkirtLifter, but it introduced me to a place I didn't know about.

 

Like the 100+ other caches of all nature that I found last month, I won't log them online, but I will remember them.

 

We each have our own motivations, manners of play and ideas of fun; that's what makes this game so neat!

Link to comment
Drove 140 miles over to Lawrenceville Georgia for my grandson's birthday party today, grabbed a couple in his neighborhood on the way home just because they were there... if I'm driving down the road and my GPS says there's a cache 300' over there in the Publix parking lot I pretty much know what to expect before I turn in. I had fun finding them, seeing who'd been there.

 

2 more caches found and signed, and now I know that there's a cool park close to my son's house (Not Soccer) where I can take the grandson to play next trip. Yup, a SkirtLifter, but it introduced me to a place I didn't know about.

 

Like the 100+ other caches of all nature that I found last month, I won't log them online, but I will remember them.

 

We each have our own motivations, manners of play and ideas of fun; that's what makes this game so neat!

 

I'm glad you had fun. What do you mean by you're not logging them online? Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I only have one LPC, which I placed after dislocating my kneecap. I could only hobble around then, and finding LPCs was better than staying at home and not caching at all. :)

 

The logs for that cache are sometimes more interesting than the logs on my more remote caches where people often just "cut and paste" the same log from the previous one on the trail . . . :)

 

Log and Log. :)B)

 

So . . . LPCs can serve a good purpose. :P

I hear the disabled reason a lot. All I know is that if that is the reason then there must be far more disabled people around here than I ever thought there were. I still think the real driver has to do with numbers mania. Anyhow, I always used to log LPCs and the like with a no effort brief log. Of course now I don't log them and I put them on my ignore list instead. B)

..and yet you cannot ignore the forum threads about them.... B)

....and I never will until there is an efficient way to remove them all from my PQs. :P

There is. Just uncheck the "micro" size when you set up your PQ B)

Link to comment
I only have one LPC, which I placed after dislocating my kneecap. I could only hobble around then, and finding LPCs was better than staying at home and not caching at all. :)

 

The logs for that cache are sometimes more interesting than the logs on my more remote caches where people often just "cut and paste" the same log from the previous one on the trail . . . :)

 

Log and Log. :)B)

 

So . . . LPCs can serve a good purpose. :P

I hear the disabled reason a lot. All I know is that if that is the reason then there must be far more disabled people around here than I ever thought there were. I still think the real driver has to do with numbers mania. Anyhow, I always used to log LPCs and the like with a no effort brief log. Of course now I don't log them and I put them on my ignore list instead. B)

..and yet you cannot ignore the forum threads about them.... B)

....and I never will until there is an efficient way to remove them all from my PQs. :P

There is. Just uncheck the "micro" size when you set up your PQ B)

The problem is that wipes out many good micros....Over 40% of the caches around here are micros.
Link to comment

I'm glad you had fun. What do you mean by you're not logging them online?

I pretty much quit logging caches online unless they are really worthy of comment or need maintenance.

 

I mostly cache with others so my logs would be redundant anyway.

 

I have logged only about half my finds since I started, sometimes going months without logging any, yet there are few days I don't find at least one.

 

We do a lot of cache runs, where visitors will come to town and we'll go find 20 or 50 in a day. Logging all those just became a PITA, lots of time online plus folks don't care for cut-n-paste, and I mostly have nothing of interest to say that my companions haven't said.

 

There's a friend here in Alabama I like to play with, so anytime she gets close to my find count I will log some, bump it up a 100 or so just to get her goat, but otherwise I am content for the owners to see my sig in the cache log, and of course the folks I was with know that I was there.

 

That's enough for me.

 

I was a team captain at the Great Smoky Mountain Geoquest last weekend, for example, and my team attended 3 events and found mayby 40 caches over the weekend. I will log the events, but not the caches.

 

My team players may log all or none, that's up to them.

 

In refutation of the folks that are always screaming about numbers cachers, I know quite a few cachers who do like I do. On the other hand I don't know a single cacher that defines their enjoyment of the game by their numbers.

 

It's all about having fun, and that practice is fun for me!

Link to comment

I'm glad you had fun. What do you mean by you're not logging them online?

I pretty much quit logging caches online unless they are really worthy of comment or need maintenance.

 

I mostly cache with others so my logs would be redundant anyway.

 

I have logged only about half my finds since I started, sometimes going months without logging any, yet there are few days I don't find at least one.

 

We do a lot of cache runs, where visitors will come to town and we'll go find 20 or 50 in a day. Logging all those just became a PITA, lots of time online plus folks don't care for cut-n-paste, and I mostly have nothing of interest to say that my companions haven't said.

 

There's a friend here in Alabama I like to play with, so anytime she gets close to my find count I will log some, bump it up a 100 or so just to get her goat, but otherwise I am content for the owners to see my sig in the cache log, and of course the folks I was with know that I was there.

 

That's enough for me.

 

I was a team captain at the Great Smoky Mountain Geoquest last weekend, for example, and my team attended 3 events and found mayby 40 caches over the weekend. I will log the events, but not the caches.

 

My team players may log all or none, that's up to them.

 

In refutation of the folks that are always screaming about numbers cachers, I know quite a few cachers who do like I do. On the other hand I don't know a single cacher that defines their enjoyment of the game by their numbers.

 

It's all about having fun, and that practice is fun for me!

I know what you mean. It can be a PITA to log them especially if I can't even remember them. I've taken the strategy of not logging certain ones at all. I need to ignore them so I don't accidentally go to one of them again.

 

I do think if some people were completely honest that they would admit that the numbers thing is a big deal to them. It is not the only thing but it is a big part of it. I know people that admit that they target areas that have a high number of 1/1s because it's good for their numbers. We just had a guy just admit on this thread that he won't go on tough hikes for one cache because he can get more bang for the buck with other caches.....

Link to comment

I know what you mean. It can be a PITA to log them especially if I can't even remember them. I've taken the strategy of not logging certain ones at all. I need to ignore them so I don't accidentally go to one of them again.

I revisit caches a lot because someone with me may not have found it. I was recently voted Alabama's Favorite Phone-A-Friend by our caching association because I do remember most of them!

 

I do think if some people were completely honest that they would admit that the numbers thing is a big deal to them. It is not the only thing but it is a big part of it. I know people that admit that they target areas that have a high number of 1/1s because it's good for their numbers. We just had a guy just admit on this thread that he won't go on tough hikes for one cache because he can get more bang for the buck with other caches.....

I am quite sure there are some who highly value numbers.

 

There are more reason's to do what you describe than just numbers, however.

 

When folks cache with me I ask them beforehand what their interest is - neat locations, fun hikes, historical places, numbers, etc. and let their interests set the day's cache selection criteria.

 

Sure, sometimes it's fun just to do a lot of caches. In those cases you do 'cherry-pick' the drive-ups and quick easy caches... but the motivation is a fun day of caching more than it is to add numbers to your score.

 

Caching can be competitive, if you want it to be, but mostly we don't want it to be.

 

I was on a CacheLeague team where we had ten teams of ten cachers nation-wide compete for the most numbers in a 90-day period (my team won!) and our sole interest was in getting as many finds as was possible - we'd go to Nashville or some cache-rich ciity, rent a Suburban or a van we could all fit in and cache for 24 hours non-stop, getting hundreds in a weekend. It was fun, but it's not 'normal' geocaching, not something we'd do outside of that type of unusual circumstance.

 

On runs like that, yes, it IS all about the numbers, but those runs are rare and don't define any of our regular caching styles.

 

GeoWoodstock is a popular and growing annual event, originally conceived as a gathering of high-numbers cachers... in fact the event slogan is "Where it IS all about the numbers!" and during that week there are a bunch of us that do some serious numbers-chasing. Again, that's not our normal style, so saying that we cache for the numbers is only accurate for those events.

Link to comment

I know what you mean. It can be a PITA to log them especially if I can't even remember them. I've taken the strategy of not logging certain ones at all. I need to ignore them so I don't accidentally go to one of them again.

I revisit caches a lot because someone with me may not have found it. I was recently voted Alabama's Favorite Phone-A-Friend by our caching association because I do remember most of them!

 

I do think if some people were completely honest that they would admit that the numbers thing is a big deal to them. It is not the only thing but it is a big part of it. I know people that admit that they target areas that have a high number of 1/1s because it's good for their numbers. We just had a guy just admit on this thread that he won't go on tough hikes for one cache because he can get more bang for the buck with other caches.....

I am quite sure there are some who highly value numbers.

 

There are more reason's to do what you describe than just numbers, however.

 

When folks cache with me I ask them beforehand what their interest is - neat locations, fun hikes, historical places, numbers, etc. and let their interests set the day's cache selection criteria.

 

Sure, sometimes it's fun just to do a lot of caches. In those cases you do 'cherry-pick' the drive-ups and quick easy caches... but the motivation is a fun day of caching more than it is to add numbers to your score.

 

Caching can be competitive, if you want it to be, but mostly we don't want it to be.

 

I was on a CacheLeague team where we had ten teams of ten cachers nation-wide compete for the most numbers in a 90-day period (my team won!) and our sole interest was in getting as many finds as was possible - we'd go to Nashville or some cache-rich ciity, rent a Suburban or a van we could all fit in and cache for 24 hours non-stop, getting hundreds in a weekend. It was fun, but it's not 'normal' geocaching, not something we'd do outside of that type of unusual circumstance.

 

On runs like that, yes, it IS all about the numbers, but those runs are rare and don't define any of our regular caching styles.

 

GeoWoodstock is a popular and growing annual event, originally conceived as a gathering of high-numbers cachers... in fact the event slogan is "Where it IS all about the numbers!" and during that week there are a bunch of us that do some serious numbers-chasing. Again, that's not our normal style, so saying that we cache for the numbers is only accurate for those events.

I've been on some good caching runs myself, but I never got excited about finding an LPC after the first few that I found. Those are a big "BEEN THERE DONE THAT" for me....
Link to comment

We interrupt this spirited discussion to provide a minor clarification of the following quote:

GeoWoodstock is a popular and growing annual event, originally conceived as a gathering of high-numbers cachers... in fact the event slogan is "Where it IS all about the numbers!" and during that week there are a bunch of us that do some serious numbers-chasing. Again, that's not our normal style, so saying that we cache for the numbers is only accurate for those events.

While GeoWoodstock may have originally begun as a gathering of the power cachers and some reviewers, the NUMBERS that matter at Geowoodstock have gone way beyond one's find count. Yes, for some that number is important, but there are many other statistics involved in the sport and the events. You have to be there to understand, and this year over 1200 happy cachers will understand. There's is still time to register and add to that large number. :o

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion! Happy Caching all. :blink:

Link to comment

I'd like to thank everyone, on both sides of this issue, who has made this thread such an ongoing topic... since I'm new, I've only read the top few threads, and this was one of them. Lo and behold, my first micro was hidden under the maintenance skirt of a lamp post. I never would have found it without this thread. Thanks! :blink:

Link to comment

When first starting I had some DNF's and was about to give up until I found a lamp skirt one. Yes, if you get too skilled for one avoid them. They have a purpose. Remember many are just looking for their first find every day. Lets help them get started.

 

I was about about 20 caches into my geocaching life before I heard about the way to find these. Of course a lot of earlier frustration would have been averted had I known the insights. Now I can go back to those early DNF's and mark them as found.

 

Joyce

Link to comment
I'd like to thank everyone, on both sides of this issue, who has made this thread such an ongoing topic... since I'm new, I've only read the top few threads, and this was one of them. Lo and behold, my first micro was hidden under the maintenance skirt of a lamp post. I never would have found it without this thread. Thanks! :blink:
Most everything is fun and challenging when you are new. Just wait until you find your first guardrail cache! :o
Link to comment

You need to analyze the reactions of everyone that actually visits the cache and the reasons that some ignore the cache. People ignore tough hikes because they can't do them. People ignore LPCs becasue they don't like them.

I'd like to see your full analysis wherein you can make such blanket claims.

 

So the reason people ignore tough hikes is they can't do them. Such a nice blanket statement, too bad it's incorrect. I tend to ignore tough hikes to caches - not because I can't do them, I'm a mountaineer/rock climber, there isn't much terrain I can't handle - because of the time commitment to one cache. I'd rather get more bang for my buck.

I didn't say that was the only reason. It's certainly one of the main reasons. OK, if it makes you happy we can add your reason: There are people that are so into numbers that they ignore caches that won't crank up their numbers. Are you happy now? :blink:

I figured you'd try and dump me in the "all for the numbers" group (as I see from your second post about me). So if someone doesn't agree with you, they have to be in some group that you think has no valid opinion ("they like 'em just so they can run their numbers up"). Well, sorry to disappoint you, that's not my motivation at all. I like to see how many I have, but I'm not trying to push up my numbers. My "more bang for a buck" when spending multi-hours in the wilderness is doing a rock climb - much more fun than finding tupperware. And do I know some nice places for caches - great view, interesting 'path' to it, all those things you say make a "better" cache - but I don't think I'll be placing them. They'd probably get great logs, but so few would log them (having to climb 5.4+ rock in the backcountry) it's not worth the time and effort.

Link to comment
And I do know some nice places for caches - great view, interesting 'path' to it, but I don't think I'll be placing them. They'd probably get great logs, but so few would log them it's not worth the time and effort.

Different strokes 4 different folks, I reckon. What you've described sounds like it has the potential to be one of the kewlest caches ever hidden. To feel that it's not worth the effort simply because it would only generate a small number of logs, (even if those logs rave about the cache's quality), just seems sad to me. I know that it might not be what you meant, but what I interpret from your statement is, an LPC is worthy whilst a scenic 5/5 is not, just because the 1/1 will get more logs.

Link to comment
And I do know some nice places for caches - great view, interesting 'path' to it, but I don't think I'll be placing them. They'd probably get great logs, but so few would log them it's not worth the time and effort.

Different strokes 4 different folks, I reckon. What you've described sounds like it has the potential to be one of the kewlest caches ever hidden. To feel that it's not worth the effort simply because it would only generate a small number of logs, (even if those logs rave about the cache's quality), just seems sad to me. I know that it might not be what you meant, but what I interpret from your statement is, an LPC is worthy whilst a scenic 5/5 is not, just because the 1/1 will get more logs.

It's obvious that he has missed one of the best things about caching is discovering cool locations. These locations need cachers that know of these locations to hide caches there to create an exciting and fun experience.
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...