Jump to content

Skirt Lifters - Luv'em or Hate'em


Recommended Posts

Parking lot micros shouldn't be banned any more than a 4/4 ammo box at the top of a dormant volcano should be banned. Don't hunt them if you don't want to. Nobody makes you.

 

I hunt them, mostly because once I'm there in the parking lot it is only a matter of 15 seconds or so before it's found. Then, I'm on to bigger (hopefully) and better caches.

 

But, the caches placed are as diverse at the cachers, and rightfully should be.

 

Again, my input, for what it's worth.

 

I don't disagree at all. I'm not proposing any sort of restriction. I'm just asking for labeling to enable filtering for those of us who aren't interested.

 

I'm genuinely interested in knowing: Would you support the addition of a "Parking Lot" attribute? If not, why?

Link to comment
Here is a request for the GC.com powers that be, free from emotion, free from personal attacks:

 

Many members would appreciate a cache attribute indicating "Parking Lot Cache" or "Skirt Lifter". This would be just another attribute like "Dogs Allowed", "24/7", etc. It would allow those members who are not interested in this type of cache to filter them from queries/downloads. It seems like this functionality would be easy to provide.

 

I am not suggesting rules against this type of cache. I am only asking for (what seems to me to be) a fairly simple enhancement of GC.com functionality.

 

**********************

 

If implemented, couldn't this put the debate to rest, once and for all? Or is there some objection to labeling a cache a "Parking Lot" cache?

I suggested the same thing, but many are freaking out because they thing we want to eliminate them. I just want to eliminate them from my PQs. Just give me an easy way to filter them out with a PQ the same way some fitler out puzzle caches....
Link to comment

 

I'm genuinely interested in knowing: Would you support the addition of a "Parking Lot" attribute? If not, why?

I'm not sure. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other over it. I guess if we started having "Parking Lot" attributes, then we'd have to start having "Fallen Log" attributes, and then "Fence Post" and "Fake Rock" attributes would soon follow, wouldn't they?

 

So, I think the size of the caches should remain as attributes, but not necessarily the hiding spot.

Link to comment

 

I'm genuinely interested in knowing: Would you support the addition of a "Parking Lot" attribute? If not, why?

I'm not sure. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other over it. I guess if we started having "Parking Lot" attributes, then we'd have to start having "Fallen Log" attributes, and then "Fence Post" and "Fake Rock" attributes would soon follow, wouldn't they?

 

I don't think that's an apples-for-apples comparison, but perhaps we should have "Park", "Woods", "Meadow", etc. attributes, right along with "Parking Lot". I'm just trying to determine objectively why someone who enjoys Parking Lot caches would be resistant to label them such (or why someone who enjoys urban park caches would be resistant to label that type "Park").

Edited by skysensor
Link to comment

 

I don't think that's an apples-for-apples comparison, but perhaps we should have "Park", "Woods", "Meadow", etc. attributes, right along with "Parking Lot". I'm just trying to determine objectively why someone who enjoys Parking Lot caches would be resistant to label them such (and why someone who enjoys urban park caches would be resistant to label them "Park".

I think that might take some of the fun out of it for most cachers. The location being a mystery adds to the overall experience, I think.

Link to comment

 

I'm genuinely interested in knowing: Would you support the addition of a "Parking Lot" attribute? If not, why?

I'm not sure. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other over it. I guess if we started having "Parking Lot" attributes, then we'd have to start having "Fallen Log" attributes, and then "Fence Post" and "Fake Rock" attributes would soon follow, wouldn't they?

 

I don't think that's an apples-for-apples comparison, but perhaps we should have "Park", "Woods", "Meadow", etc. attributes, right along with "Parking Lot". I'm just trying to determine objectively why someone who enjoys Parking Lot caches would be resistant to label them such (and why someone who enjoys urban park caches would be resistant to label them "Park".

I have no idea either. :huh: The attribute is a great idea. ;)
Link to comment

 

I don't think that's an apples-for-apples comparison, but perhaps we should have "Park", "Woods", "Meadow", etc. attributes, right along with "Parking Lot". I'm just trying to determine objectively why someone who enjoys Parking Lot caches would be resistant to label them such (and why someone who enjoys urban park caches would be resistant to label them "Park".

I think that might take some of the fun out of it for most cachers. The location being a mystery adds to the overall experience, I think.

 

I think that level of detail is frequently revealed in the cache description. All I'd like is a way to automatically filter on them, instead of having to read those descriptions one by one. I don't understand why the request for this functionality generates the type of response it does. We're told "if you don't like them, don't hunt them." Absolutely right. But if we get the "Parking Lot" attribute, avoidance is made much simpler; and if you don't want to avoid them, you don't need to use the filter. Are those two positions really at odds? Seems like the logic is the same.

Link to comment
If LPCs are all that there were, I wouldnt have even bought a GPS. My wife and I found our first LPC on easter. Whoopee! (sarcasm). Really, I think that Geocaching should have a rule against these. They are not exciting.

Translation: "There is something out there I happen to dislike; therefore NOBODY should be allowed to enjoy it."

 

I guess I'll just never understand this bizarre (yet sadly very common) leap in logic. ;)

Ok So maybe i was a little harsh. :huh: I think there should be a rule of HOW MANY are in a certain area. I have nothing against micros, in fact i really enjoy them. But, LPCs defeat what i thought was a principal of geocaching-to get out there and enjoy nature, not a parking lot. However, i do understand some people like them so i'm not saying ban them altogether but it just seems like there are way too many. Sorry if i was too harsh.

So ... you don't want a total ban. Just a partial ban.

 

Modified translation: "There is something out there I happen to dislike; therefore only a limited number of people should be allowed to enjoy it."

 

I still disagree with your premise that skirt lifter caches need to be controlled just because some people think they’re lame. A partial ban is just as wrong as a total ban. Besides, even if we all agreed that it was okay to tell certain hiders that their cache has to go just because it lacks adequate pizzazz or because it caught some self-important style judge in a bad mood, attempting to enforce a creativity standard simply isn't practical. Do you reeeeeally want the reviewers to start rejecting and archiving cache listings based on someone’s arbitrary criteria of minimum-required magnificence? Whose criteria should they use? Would you be happy if they chose to use, say, KBI’s criteria? What if my definition of ‘lame’ is different from yours? What if one or two of your own otherwise popular hides get tossed out in the purge simply because they don’t happen to please the newly-appointed Creativity Czar?

 

I prefer entertaining hides over boring ones just like you, but I feel strongly that each cache hider has the right to make their cache exactly as inspired or uninspired (or hard or easy or quick or time-consuming or orthodox or weird or blue or green) as they like.

 

Enforcing the existing guidelines is important, if not critical. Legislating creativity, however, is wrong.

 

LPCs defeat what i thought was a principal of geocaching-to get out there and enjoy nature, not a parking lot.

Enjoying nature is one of the most popular benefits of geocaching, but I really don't think that's a primary goal. The primary goal of Geocaching is simply to hide and find hidden containers with logbooks using GPS. It's always nice when a cache prompts you to enjoy a pleasant natural location, a great view or a historically significant place, but it's certainly not required that a geocache do any of those things for you, and I personally don't demand it. I don't want it to be a requirement. Some people don’t really care where they cache, as long as the location complies with the guidelines and their own common sense. If those people are enjoying the way they play, why begrudge them their fun?

Link to comment

I would find one or two if they were around here...I am at the point now that finding a new cache requires at least an hours drive. Yes, I am jealous of you all that have the opportunity to be picky on the caches you find. I have resorted to finding the cool places in my area that don't have caches and trying to populate them, all the while hoping that somone beats me to it so I have a few more to find...numbers? I wish! :huh:

Link to comment
But if I feel that the LPC is lame and a detriment to the quality of geocaching as a whole, (as opposed to the 5 mile round-trip hike to the top of the mountain), why should I not be entitled to express that opinion?

Did someone say you weren’t entitled to express your opinion?

 

It seems to me the LPC supporters are too interested in stressing "either way is correct", and have convinced themselves my side doesn't believe that.

I am convinced that you don't believe that. If you truly do believe that "either way is correct," how can you also state that "the LPC is lame and a detriment to the quality of geocaching as a whole?" It is either acceptable to you that people enjoy hiding and finding the kinds of caches you happen to think of as lame, or it isn't. Which is it?

 

Are we on the same sheet of music? I thought my post made it clear that I accept that LPC's are approved and listed on this website (and I have for a long time). I guess it then goes without saying that it is acceptable that people enjoy hiding and finding these type of caches. I don't see however, how my expressing the opinion that I see it as a deterioration of the hobby, is a problem. I could see if these types of hides existed from the beginning. But they didn't. In the early days, no one was hiding keyholders and/or film canisters in parking lots under lamp post covers. I'm no big time old-timer, but they didn't start showing up in my area until 2005, and still haven't in many areas.

 

 

BTW, speaking for myself: I'm not an "LPC supporter." I'm an LPC defender. There IS a difference.

 

Please be careful that you understand this correctly. There's a big difference between defending LPCs and promoting LPCs. I'm proud to be called a Staunch Defender, but I certainly don't prefer to hunt LPCs myself, and I've yet to see anyone come out in favor of actually promoting uninspired, predictable or boring hides in favor of other types of caches.

 

Yes, I defend the right of so-called lame hides to exist. That doesn’t mean that I insist they exist, as many have incorrectly concluded.

 

No problem. I understand your position fully, and had no misconceptions at all. :huh:

Link to comment
It seems to me the LPC supporters are too interested in stressing "either way is correct", and have convinced themselves my side doesn't believe that.

I am convinced that you don't believe that. If you truly do believe that "either way is correct," how can you also state that "the LPC is lame and a detriment to the quality of geocaching as a whole?" It is either acceptable to you that people enjoy hiding and finding the kinds of caches you happen to think of as lame, or it isn't. Which is it?

Are we on the same sheet of music? I thought my post made it clear that I accept that LPC's are approved and listed on this website (and I have for a long time). I guess it then goes without saying that it is acceptable that people enjoy hiding and finding these type of caches.

That sounds very reasonable. Thanks for the clarification.

 

I don't see however, how my expressing the opinion that I see it as a deterioration of the hobby, is a problem.

Though I still disagree with your opinion, I see what you mean now. I saw a contradiction in your post where there was none. I stand corrected. ;)

 

If you truly believe vanilla will be the doom of the ice cream industry, that’s your opinion, and you have a right to your opinion. Thanks, though, for not telling me that I shouldn’t enjoy vanilla. That's a lot better than I get from certain others.

 

I could see if these types of hides existed from the beginning. But they didn't. In the early days, no one was hiding keyholders and/or film canisters in parking lots under lamp post covers.

Huh? :huh: Why should that matter? Why should the age or seniority of the hide method make any difference? By that logic, a half-buried five gallon bucket next to an uninteresting stretch of highway should trump all other hiding styles.

 

In the early days no one was doing multis or puzzles or geocoins either. Does that mean those elements will also cause "deterioration of the hobby?"

 

I hear statements like yours repeated pretty much continuously, but so far I've seen zero convincing arguments explaining how skirt lifter type hides will cause the death of geocaching.

Link to comment

My area has recently been spammed with a series of 25 of these. Can someone tell me the quickest, easiest way to ignore a series of caches (i.e. those with a common name)? I started to open up each one and click the "Ignore Listing" link, but that was taking too much time.

Link to comment
My area has recently been spammed with a series of 25 of these. Can someone tell me the quickest, easiest way to ignore a series of caches (i.e. those with a common name)? I started to open up each one and click the "Ignore Listing" link, but that was taking too much time.
There is no other way to ignore them. It's like those telemarketing phone calls. You just have to hang up on each one.....one by one.... :huh: I'm sure that many enjoy those too so that is why we have them... ;)
Link to comment
Or as opposed to you learning how to deal with them?
"Deal with them" as in filtering them out? I've not seen an effective way to do this. No one has shown me how. Filter out 1/1 micros, sure, but that doesn't take care of a group of caches of which LPCs are a part.

 

You’re demanding never to be disappointed, CR. That’s just not possible with this game. You’re asking too much.
Actually, if you read my recent posts I'm trying to not use absolutes as I know folks like you would try to call me on the exceptions. I don't mind not being wowed every hunt I'm on. I take exception when whole areas are filled with caches which disappoint me--where there are too few of the available caches that can prompt me out of my car.

 

There's no call for banning here. Just an expression of opinion as per the OP request and hopefully a few readers will take it to heart and better our hobby.

Link to comment
My area has recently been spammed with a series of 25 of these. Can someone tell me the quickest, easiest way to ignore a series of caches (i.e. those with a common name)? I started to open up each one and click the "Ignore Listing" link, but that was taking too much time.
There is no other way to ignore them. It's like those telemarketing phone calls. You just have to hang up on each one.....one by one.... ;) I'm sure that many enjoy those too so that is why we have them... :rolleyes:

 

That post is quite brilliant, TG. Of course you'd be hard pressed to find any one who enjoys receiving telemarketing calls. But I'll bet you there's a telemarketing forum out there somewhere on the internet, and theres like the same 5 posters who keep repeating over and over "some people like the calls". :huh:

Link to comment
It seems to me the LPC supporters are too interested in stressing "either way is correct", and have convinced themselves my side doesn't believe that.

I am convinced that you don't believe that. If you truly do believe that "either way is correct," how can you also state that "the LPC is lame and a detriment to the quality of geocaching as a whole?" It is either acceptable to you that people enjoy hiding and finding the kinds of caches you happen to think of as lame, or it isn't. Which is it?

Are we on the same sheet of music? I thought my post made it clear that I accept that LPC's are approved and listed on this website (and I have for a long time). I guess it then goes without saying that it is acceptable that people enjoy hiding and finding these type of caches.

That sounds very reasonable. Thanks for the clarification.

 

I don't see however, how my expressing the opinion that I see it as a deterioration of the hobby, is a problem.

Though I still disagree with your opinion, I see what you mean now. I saw a contradiction in your post where there was none. I stand corrected. :huh:

 

If you truly believe vanilla will be the doom of the ice cream industry, that’s your opinion, and you have a right to your opinion. Thanks, though, for not telling me that I shouldn’t enjoy vanilla. That's a lot better than I get from certain others.

 

I could see if these types of hides existed from the beginning. But they didn't. In the early days, no one was hiding keyholders and/or film canisters in parking lots under lamp post covers.

Huh? ;) Why should that matter? Why should the age or seniority of the hide method make any difference? By that logic, a half-buried five gallon bucket next to an uninteresting stretch of highway should trump all other hiding styles.

 

In the early days no one was doing multis or puzzles or geocoins either. Does that mean those elements will also cause "deterioration of the hobby?"

 

I hear statements like yours repeated pretty much continuously, but so far I've seen zero convincing arguments explaining how skirt lifter type hides will cause the death of geocaching.

 

Yeech. That's why I don't like the ice cream analogy. Of course if I don't like Vanilla, I don't think it's lame, or will be the doom of the industry. Now if all Vanilla was made half-arsed, with inferior ingredients compared to what flavor I like, that would be a different story.

 

OK, a little too literal on the early days. :unsure: Yes, the first cache was buried, on private property without permission, and contained food and cigarettes. And the oldest existing cache (Mingo in Kansas) is a half-buried bucket off of an interstate exit. Also I just found Pennsylvania's first cache (Sept. '00) a few weeks ago, and it was nothing spectacular; a .25 mile walk with only 100 feet of bushwacking. My point was the general placement of caches from say '00-'02 on public greenspace, such as parks and hiking trails.

 

I just kind of sensed Team GeoBlast being beaten down, and maybe thinking he couldn't express his opinion on LPC's because they have every right to exist, and some people like them. I could be totally wrong though. :rolleyes: No sense in me repeating all the same stuff over and over, your last point(s) is obviously where we disagree.

Link to comment
Or as opposed to you learning how to deal with them?
"Deal with them" as in filtering them out? I've not seen an effective way to do this.

No. "Deal with them" as in not letting them bother you. They don't bother me. Why do they bother you?

 

When I want to steer clear of them I find it very easy to avoid them, myself -- and I don't even use PQs. I don't understand why you can't.

 

You’re demanding never to be disappointed, CR. That’s just not possible with this game. You’re asking too much.
Actually, if you read my recent posts I'm trying to not use absolutes as I know folks like you would try to call me on the exceptions. I don't mind not being wowed every hunt I'm on. I take exception when whole areas are filled with caches which disappoint me--where there are too few of the available caches that can prompt me out of my car.

I think I see the problem. Right there is the difference between you and me, I think. Where you "take exception," and use terms like "being robbed" and "why should I allow this" ... I, on the other hand, simply shrug my shoulders and move on. Those caches aren't my favorite, but I just can't seem to get worked up over their mere existence the way you and some others do. I know that when I'm not in the mood for LPCs I need only drive past them to get to the other, cooler caches that are always out there, up in the mountains or just down the road.

 

There's no call for banning here.

Glad to hear it. :rolleyes:

 

Just an expression of opinion as per the OP request and hopefully a few readers will take it to heart and better our hobby.

I actually agree with your sentiment there, CR. I don't mind the crappy caches, but I just can't bring myself to place one. As you and I and Trailgators and Kitfox and White Urkel and Riffster and the others continue to lead by example, maybe we will help more new cachers to see how much better things can be. :laughing:

Link to comment
My area has recently been spammed with a series of 25 of these. Can someone tell me the quickest, easiest way to ignore a series of caches (i.e. those with a common name)? I started to open up each one and click the "Ignore Listing" link, but that was taking too much time.
There is no other way to ignore them. It's like those telemarketing phone calls. You just have to hang up on each one.....one by one.... :laughing: I'm sure that many enjoy those too so that is why we have them... :rolleyes:

That post is quite brilliant, TG. Of course you'd be hard pressed to find any one who enjoys receiving telemarketing calls. But I'll bet you there's a telemarketing forum out there somewhere on the internet, and theres like the same 5 posters who keep repeating over and over "some people like the calls". <_<

Abandoning sound logic so early in the thread? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
I just kind of sensed Team GeoBlast being beaten down, and maybe thinking he couldn't express his opinion on LPC's because they have every right to exist, and some people like them. I could be totally wrong though. :laughing: No sense in me repeating all the same stuff over and over, your last point(s) is obviously where we disagree.

Opinions are fine. Remember: I share your opinion. I'm not a big fan of those hides either. I just don't see the need to stress over them, complain about them or berate/belittle those who hide them.

Link to comment

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think a lot of the angst about LPCs originates by how a person caches. If a cacher likes to keep a certain area around their home coordinates "clear" of caches, like a three-mile radius, five-mile radius, or a ten-mile radius, they get discouraged when a rash of caches gets placed, especially if they are like those placed in a nearby community here. These came to be called "S.C.U.M." for Santee Carpy Urban Micro." :laughing:

 

I don't cache that way, so LPCs are not a problem for me. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
My area has recently been spammed with a series of 25 of these. Can someone tell me the quickest, easiest way to ignore a series of caches (i.e. those with a common name)? I started to open up each one and click the "Ignore Listing" link, but that was taking too much time.
There is no other way to ignore them. It's like those telemarketing phone calls. You just have to hang up on each one.....one by one.... :rolleyes: I'm sure that many enjoy those too so that is why we have them... <_<

 

That post is quite brilliant, TG. Of course you'd be hard pressed to find any one who enjoys receiving telemarketing calls. But I'll bet you there's a telemarketing forum out there somewhere on the internet, and theres like the same 5 posters who keep repeating over and over "some people like the calls". :ph34r:

Um. You don't like the ice cream analogy but the telemarketing analogy is brilliant. Sorry. telemarketers continue to make calls because they get a certain percentage of sales out of them. Some people may be quite happy to have their dinner disturbed to find out about some product they didn't know they needed.

 

Clearly many people don't like LPCs. But I can see just by the number of logs than many people will look for and find LPCs. From my own experience I know that sometimes they can be just what a person wants to do.

 

The complaint that you can't filter them out using PQs or GSAK alone is valid. You can use Google Maps to see if a cache is in a parking lot and eliminate or you can use the method of just not following your GPSr when the arrow points into a parking lot and drive on to the next cache. Or there is sbell's method of eliminating 1/1 since most LPCs would be rated 1/1. You will eliminate many non-LPCs but the caches you do find will less likely be LPCs and more likely be the kind of cache you like to find. When I go in the supermarket and find 3 freezer cases of vanilla I don't complain, I just find the freezer case with the flavors I like. :laughing: (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

 

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think a lot of the angst about LPCs originates by how a person caches. If a cacher likes to keep a certain area around their home coordinates "clear" of caches, like a three-mile radius, five-mile radius, or a ten-mile radius, they get discouraged when a rash of caches gets placed, especially if they are like those placed in a nearby community here.

You mean there are people who insist on eating every kind of ice cream in for sale in their local supermarket and they complain when there are too many kinds of vanilla and they don't like vanilla :rolleyes:

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

...You mean there are people who insist on eating every kind of ice cream in for sale in their local supermarket and they complain when there are too many kinds of vanilla and they don't like vanilla :rolleyes:

 

Not exactly, but to borrow your anology. T here are people who like to eat at every new resteraunt in their area when it opens. They get discouraged if all they see for a year is fast food joints. :laughing:

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
My area has recently been spammed with a series of 25 of these. Can someone tell me the quickest, easiest way to ignore a series of caches (i.e. those with a common name)? I started to open up each one and click the "Ignore Listing" link, but that was taking too much time.
There is no other way to ignore them. It's like those telemarketing phone calls. You just have to hang up on each one.....one by one.... :laughing: I'm sure that many enjoy those too so that is why we have them... :rolleyes:

That post is quite brilliant, TG. Of course you'd be hard pressed to find any one who enjoys receiving telemarketing calls. But I'll bet you there's a telemarketing forum out there somewhere on the internet, and theres like the same 5 posters who keep repeating over and over "some people like the calls". <_<

Abandoning sound logic so early in the thread? :rolleyes:

 

Oh, c'mon that is one funny analogy. The brillance is in the humor maybe? Not mine, TG's.

Link to comment
I just don't see the need to stress over them, complain about them or berate/belittle those who hide them.

So instead you berate/belittle those who express their dislike for them and who try to encourage better hides.

 

Brilliant irony.

Not quite, Fizzy. You've apparently been skimming instead of reading – or listening to someone else's version of the debate instead of reading it for yourself, maybe?

 

(1) I do not berate/belittle those who express their dislike for LPCs. I merely challenge those who claim there’s a need to ban or control LPCs – or who try to tell me that LPCs cause harm to the game – to defend their statements.

 

(2) I do not berate/belittle those who try to encourage better hides. I applaud those who try to encourage better hides. I'm one of them.

 

If you disagree with either of those two statements and believe I've been inconsistent, please show me where I've (1) challenged someone's right to their opinion, or where I've (2) berated or belittled someone for wanting to encourage better hides. Producing either inconsistency via a link or quote will prove me wrong, but of course to defend your post you'll need to show both.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Obfuscation – intentional confusion of the issue – is a common logical fallacy, is it not? What's the formal name of that particular logical fallacy, Fizzy? Aren't you the logic expert?

 

Brilliant irony.

Link to comment
My area has recently been spammed with a series of 25 of these. Can someone tell me the quickest, easiest way to ignore a series of caches (i.e. those with a common name)? I started to open up each one and click the "Ignore Listing" link, but that was taking too much time.
There is no other way to ignore them. It's like those telemarketing phone calls. You just have to hang up on each one.....one by one.... :laughing: I'm sure that many enjoy those too so that is why we have them... :rolleyes:

That post is quite brilliant, TG. Of course you'd be hard pressed to find any one who enjoys receiving telemarketing calls. But I'll bet you there's a telemarketing forum out there somewhere on the internet, and theres like the same 5 posters who keep repeating over and over "some people like the calls". <_<

Abandoning sound logic so early in the thread? :rolleyes:

Oh, c'mon that is one funny analogy. The brillance is in the humor maybe? Not mine, TG's.

Yes, it WAS funny. Honestly. It made me laugh.

 

It just wasn't relevant. Faulty logic which appeals to emotion instead of reason.

 

If you think it was relevant, please explain to me how an unwanted telemarketer's call is analogous to a cacher voluntarily seeking a skirt lifter cache.

Link to comment
My area has recently been spammed with a series of 25 of these. Can someone tell me the quickest, easiest way to ignore a series of caches (i.e. those with a common name)? I started to open up each one and click the "Ignore Listing" link, but that was taking too much time.
There is no other way to ignore them. It's like those telemarketing phone calls. You just have to hang up on each one.....one by one.... :laughing: I'm sure that many enjoy those too so that is why we have them... <_<

That post is quite brilliant, TG. Of course you'd be hard pressed to find any one who enjoys receiving telemarketing calls. But I'll bet you there's a telemarketing forum out there somewhere on the internet, and theres like the same 5 posters who keep repeating over and over "some people like the calls". :ph34r:

Abandoning sound logic so early in the thread? :rolleyes:

Oh, c'mon that is one funny analogy. The brillance is in the humor maybe? Not mine, TG's.

Yes, it WAS funny. Honestly. It made me laugh.

 

It just wasn't relevant. Faulty logic which appeals to emotion instead of reason.

 

If you think it was relevant, please explain to me how an unwanted telemarketer's call is analogous to a cacher voluntarily seeking a skirt lifter cache.

 

OK, since my bad joke went over, well, bad. I'll explain. The original post by Trailgators I thought was a great analogy of how ignoring LPC's for those of us who don't like them was similar to receiving a telemarketers call; we have to "pick them up" (click on the link in the publish email), and ignore on a one by one basis as we receive them. Now as far as "some people like receiving telemarketer calls", that was just a poor attempt at humor. Sorry you spent time replying to it, Mr. T :rolleyes: If it's any consolation, I liked your post.

Link to comment
OK, since my bad joke went over, well, bad. I'll explain. The original post by Trailgators I thought was a great analogy of how ignoring LPC's for those of us who don't like them was similar to receiving a telemarketers call; we have to "pick them up" (click on the link in the publish email), and ignore on a one by one basis as we receive them. Now as far as "some people like receiving telemarketer calls", that was just a poor attempt at humor. Sorry you spent time replying to it, Mr. T :rolleyes: If it's any consolation, I liked your post.

Like I said, it worked on an emotional level, if not a logical one. I got the joke, and I liked it.

 

How's this for an analogy: Register at National Do Not Call list = click on "Ignore Listing" link on cache page = problem solved.

 

It's not a perfect answer. Some of the calls will still get through. Each cache has to be clicked on individually. Life's just not fair sometimes.

 

And yes, there are some people who actually like receiving telemarketer calls. My Mom is one of them. She loves to screw with them to see how long she can keep them on the line with her creatively meaningless babble. She's pretty good at it! There's always a way to make lemonade out of the lemons ... if you take the right approach.

 

On the other hand, I know a couple of permanently cranky people who, if they ever joined someone on a cache hunt, could probably experience one of the coolest cache hides around and still come up with a way to convincingly describe it as an annoyingly pointless waste of time to their muggle friends.

 

Caching enjoyment and caching disappointment don't come from the caches. They come from within you. Annoyed griping vs. peaceful acceptance is a personal choice. Some folks seem to prefer the former. I've been much happier with the latter. :laughing:

Link to comment

You really don't see this comment as a personal insult?

Honestly? No Sir. I do not. The remark was deliberately open ended, not assigned to any particular individual.

 

Can someone tell me the quickest, easiest way to ignore a series of caches?

When you learn who places the type of caches you dislike, you can sort GSAK by the hider's name and simply delete all their entries. Not a perfect solution, but it's worked for me so far.

 

There is no other way to ignore them. It's like those telemarketing phone calls. You just have to hang up on each one.....one by one.... :D I'm sure that many enjoy those too so that is why we have them... :D

Thanx TG! I needed a good chuckle! :)

 

As you and I and Trailgators and Kitfox and White Urkel and Riffster and the others continue to lead by example, maybe we will help more new cachers to see how much better things can be. :D

And there was much rejoicing... B)

 

How's this for an analogy: Register at National Do Not Call list

Off topic, I know, but still kinda wierd: I've lived in my house for years without a single telemarketer call. Then I read an article about this "Do Not Call" registry, and just for grins & giggles, I submitted my data. The next day, I got my first telemarketer call. :):D

Link to comment
Um. You don't like the ice cream analogy...

 

I like the ice cream analogy. It's as if ice cream was sold in unlabelled containers. Just as you don't know for sure what the cache is like until you get there, you don't know what kind of ice cream is in the container until you open it.

 

But you really enjoy ice cream and and a big part of your enjoyment is not knowing what flavor you are going to find when you open the container. One day it's chocolate, one day it's rocky road, one day it's pistachio, vanilla, etc...

 

You try vanilla and aren't crazy about it, but are willing to deal with the rare container of vanilla that you happen on because all the other flavors are so good.

 

Then you start finding vanilla popping up more and more. First it's 1 out of every 50 containers you buy. Then it's one out of every 20. Before you know it every other container is vanilla.

 

You go to the Icecream.com forums and complain, but the many people there are unsympathetic. Some like vanilla and tell you that since you don't like vanilla, don't eat it. But it's not that simple you protest, because you don't know it's vanilla until you purchased it and opened it.

 

So you complain about the preponderance of vanilla in the Icecream.com forums and call for more variety and you are shouted down as trying to force your preferences on everybody else.

Link to comment
Um. You don't like the ice cream analogy...

I like the ice cream analogy. It's as if ice cream was sold in unlabelled containers. Just as you don't know for sure what the cache is like until you get there, you don't know what kind of ice cream is in the container until you open it.

 

But you really enjoy ice cream and and a big part of your enjoyment is not knowing what flavor you are going to find when you open the container. One day it's chocolate, one day it's rocky road, one day it's pistachio, vanilla ...

... tomato ... tunafish ... :D

 

(Don't forget, some caches are actually repulsive to some people.)

 

You try vanilla and aren't crazy about it, but are willing to deal with the rare container of vanilla that you happen on because all the other flavors are so good.

 

Then you start finding vanilla popping up more and more. First it's 1 out of every 50 containers you buy. Then it's one out of every 20. Before you know it every other container is vanilla.

 

You go to the Icecream.com forums and complain, but the many people there are unsympathetic. Some like vanilla and tell you that since you don't like vanilla, don't eat it. But it's not that simple you protest, because you don't know it's vanilla until you purchased it and opened it.

 

So you complain about the preponderance of vanilla in the Icecream.com forums and call for more variety and you are shouted down as trying to force your preferences on everybody else.

We're talking about unlabeled ice cream containers now, right? Your point might apply if geocaches, like the ice cream in your analogy, were also unlabeled, but as we all know this is not the case.

 

In your version of the ice cream analogy I would find myself scratching my head as the only person who seems to be able to

  • usually detect the vanilla flavoring without tasting the actual ice cream,
  • cope emotionally with the disappointment of occasional vanilla ingestion without resorting to public complaining or calling for various forms of Vanilla Control, or
  • enjoy vanilla (in the absence of other available flavors) in the first place.

Also -- in your version of the ice cream analogy; would not the participants in this unlabeled ice cream plan have made a conscious, voluntary decision to be participants? Would they not possess the option to bail out of the Mystery Ice Cream Club at any time? Wouldn't they be responsible for understanding the risk they were taking in the first place? Would they not therefore be at fault for their own disappointment were they to continue with their voluntary participation? Would you file such anti-vanilla complaints if this fully-disclosed and understood mystery flavor plan were something you'd signed up for out of your own free will?

 

And further: since the flavors are placed in the freezer not by the store but only by other ice cream eaters, fellow participants in the club (keeping your analogy geocache-relevant), would that not be a strong, grass-roots, free-market indication of the popularity of vanilla?

 

I guess I'll just never understand why the mere existence of a substantial number of less-than-personally-desireable geocaches is so deeply troubling to some people. Those caches simply don't bother me. Never have. Maybe I'm mentally defective. If so, I think I'll be happier if I avoid the medical treatment that brings me in line with "normal" thinking.

 

Skirt lifters don’t bother me. Sometimes I like them! [<--- sad, insane babbling of crazy person who is best ignored by proper-thinking geocachers. Don't listen to him! You might catch his disgusting disease!]

 

 

 

[EDIT: more foaming at the mouth, and a little drool for effect]

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
Um. You don't like the ice cream analogy...

 

I like the ice cream analogy. It's as if ice cream was sold in unlabelled containers. Just as you don't know for sure what the cache is like until you get there, you don't know what kind of ice cream is in the container until you open it.

Or you could read the ice cream page before you drive to the store and see if others have mentioned it being Vanilla.

 

If you drive up to the ice cream store and see that it's located in a Vanill*Mart, don't even buy any, keep driving.

 

If you download a DQ (query for ice cream) you can filter out a HUGE number of the vanilla ice cream containers you'll ever see or read about and never have to be bothered. Sure, you'll also filter out some rocky road, which may be your favorite, but you'll also get a lot of other rocky road.

 

It's not like you can't avoid most of the vanilla if you just try a little bit.

Link to comment
Um. You don't like the ice cream analogy...

I like the ice cream analogy. It's as if ice cream was sold in unlabelled containers. Just as you don't know for sure what the cache is like until you get there, you don't know what kind of ice cream is in the container until you open it.

 

But you really enjoy ice cream and and a big part of your enjoyment is not knowing what flavor you are going to find when you open the container. One day it's chocolate, one day it's rocky road, one day it's pistachio, vanilla ...

... tomato ... tunafish ... :D

 

(Don't forget, some caches are actually repulsive to some people.)

 

You try vanilla and aren't crazy about it, but are willing to deal with the rare container of vanilla that you happen on because all the other flavors are so good.

 

Then you start finding vanilla popping up more and more. First it's 1 out of every 50 containers you buy. Then it's one out of every 20. Before you know it every other container is vanilla.

 

You go to the Icecream.com forums and complain, but the many people there are unsympathetic. Some like vanilla and tell you that since you don't like vanilla, don't eat it. But it's not that simple you protest, because you don't know it's vanilla until you purchased it and opened it.

 

So you complain about the preponderance of vanilla in the Icecream.com forums and call for more variety and you are shouted down as trying to force your preferences on everybody else.

We're talking about unlabeled ice cream containers now, right? Your point might apply if geocaches, like the ice cream in your analogy, were also unlabeled, but as we all know this is not the case. Also -- in your version of the ice cream analogy; would not the participants in this unlabeled ice cream plan have made a conscious, voluntary decision to be participants? Would they not possess the option to bail out of the Mystery Ice Cream Club at any time? Wouldn't they be responsible for understanding the risk they were taking in the first place? Would they not therefore be at fault for their own disappointment were they to continue with their voluntary participation?

So your message is if you don't like half the ice cream being vanilla then quit. :D Did you ever go into Baskin Robbins and look through the glass and see that half the containers were vanilla?
Link to comment

I just recently completed one of these caches. My first one. While I was looking, all I could think about is… who hid a cache on private property? I know this is another topic. It was located at a Bob’s Discount store; not a Wall-Mart. I can be all about the numbers, but, I live in an area where this type of hide is not really necessary. We have lots of parks, shore sides, and other public open spaces.

 

I can see doing this as a stage in a multi, but it becomes like roadside caches that are hide-a-keys in the guardrail. After a while, they lose their appeal, and you tend to pass by them.

 

If you have nowhere else to hide a cache, and, you really, really, have to get one out. This certainly is one way. Not terribly creative after the first one or two though.

Link to comment
So your message is if you don't like half the ice cream being vanilla then quit. :D

No. That's NOT my message. That's inaccurate, and a strawman misrepresentation of my message.

 

Quitting is only the last resort. I employ a much better strategy that I greatly prefer, one that I strongly recommend that folks at least TRY to use for themselves BEFORE they do anything as extreme and unnecessary as quitting (or letting those hides bother them) (or complaining in the forums*).

 

Did you ever go into Baskin Robbins and look through the glass and see that half the containers were vanilla?

No, but if I ever did see such a mix in a freezer display I'm fairly sure I could manage to cope with it happily. I'd handle it pretty much the same way I currently deal with lamp post caches.

 

If such a display of ice cream DID somehow cause me to unavoidably suffer intolerable frustration, distress and gnashing of teeth, I'm also fully confident in my ability to locate the exit, and in the future to avoid the situation that caused me such mental anguish.

 

*Please note than nowhere in that statement do I challenge anyone's right to their opinion. Pointing out that I think someone's opinion is unreasonable or illogical is neither "shouting people down" nor "challenging someone's right to express their opinion." It is merely me expressing MY opinion.

Link to comment
So your message is if you don't like half the ice cream being vanilla then quit. :D

No. That's NOT my message. That's inaccurate, and a strawman misrepresentation of my message.

 

Quitting is only the last resort. I employ a much better strategy that I greatly prefer, one that I strongly recommend that folks at least TRY to use for themselves BEFORE they do anything as extreme and unnecessary as quitting (or letting those hides bother them) (or complaining in the forums*).

 

Did you ever go into Baskin Robbins and look through the glass and see that half the containers were vanilla?

No, but if I ever did see such a mix in a freezer display I'm fairly sure I could manage to cope with it happily. I'd handle it pretty much the same way I currently deal with lamp post caches.

 

If such a display of ice cream DID somehow cause me to unavoidably suffer intolerable frustration, distress and gnashing of teeth, I'm also fully confident in my ability to locate the exit, and in the future to avoid the situation that caused me such mental anguish.

Geocaching is the Mystery Ice cream Club" so your comment "Would they not possess the option to bail out of the Mystery Ice Cream Club at any time?" sounded like if you don't like most of the ice cream being vanilla then bail (quit)....

 

Nobody is stressing because Baskin Robbins and every ice cream store in every city seem to be putting out 20 tubs of the same vanilla ice cream in their displays. We just think it doesn't make any sense and these stores should consider having many different flavors. It's called the voice of the customer....

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
Geocaching is the Mystery Ice cream Club" so your comment "Would they not possess the option to bail out of the Mystery Ice Cream Club at any time?" sounded like if you don't like most of the ice cream being vanilla then bail (quit)....

Close, but I wasn't telling anyone to quit. I was trying to make the point that it doesn't make any sense to me for someone to complain about an activity that they voluntarily choose to do. If geocaching were being forced on you, I would understand your objection; for that matter if it were being forced on me as well I'd be right in there with you complaining about the skirt lifters.

 

Nobody is stressing because Baskin Robbins and every ice cream store in every city seem to be putting out 20 tubs of the same vanilla ice cream in their displays. We just think it doesn't make any sense and these stores should consider having many different flavors. It's called the voice of the customer....

Not exactly. You're NOT a customer. You're a fellow participant. We don't pay cache hiders to entertain us. If anything, we pay the website to broker the listing info, but even that payment is optional.

 

You pay Baskin Robbins for ice cream. You do not pay a cache hider for the right to hunt and find his geocache. I'm fairly certain such a cache would never get approved -- especially if it were a skirt-lifter.

 

When you complain about a cache hide you're criticizing a fellow player's creativity, not the product or service quality of a business who you rightfully expect to please you because you paid them. You're criticizing another cacher who, just like yourself, is behaving in a way that he finds entertaining to him. He's not a retail business who dadgum well better listen to your demands; he's just having fun, and if you don't enjoy his type of cache you're welcome to steer clear of it.

 

Popularity of a cache is not the only measure of success. Even if an otherwise guideline-compliant cache happens to annoy a majority of cachers, that doesn't matter. It's not relevant. Someone likes it -- even if the only person who likes it the hider and no one else. You can easily avoid it. You've already explained that you avoid them anyway -- what's the problem? Why complain? Instead, lead by example with your own awesome hides and forget grumbling about the lame ones, just bypass them.

 

Not telling you how to behave -- it's just a friendly suggestion. :D

Link to comment
Geocaching is the Mystery Ice cream Club" so your comment "Would they not possess the option to bail out of the Mystery Ice Cream Club at any time?" sounded like if you don't like most of the ice cream being vanilla then bail (quit)....

Close, but I wasn't telling anyone to quit. I was trying to make the point that it doesn't make any sense to me for someone to complain about an activity that they voluntarily choose to do. If geocaching were being forced on you, I would understand your objection; for that matter if it were being forced on me as well I'd be right in there with you complaining about the skirt lifters.

 

Nobody is stressing because Baskin Robbins and every ice cream store in every city seem to be putting out 20 tubs of the same vanilla ice cream in their displays. We just think it doesn't make any sense and these stores should consider having many different flavors. It's called the voice of the customer....

Not exactly. You're NOT a customer. You're a fellow participant. We don't pay cache hiders to entertain us. If anything, we pay the website to broker the listing info, but even that payment is optional.

 

You pay Baskin Robbins for ice cream. You do not pay a cache hider for the right to hunt and find his geocache. I'm fairly certain such a cache would never get approved -- especially if it were a skirt-lifter.

 

When you complain about a cache hide you're criticizing a fellow player's creativity, not the product or service quality of a business who you rightfully expect to please you because you paid them. You're criticizing another cacher who, just like yourself, is behaving in a way that he finds entertaining to him. He's not a retail business who dadgum well better listen to your demands; he's just having fun, and if you don't enjoy his type of cache you're welcome to steer clear of it.

 

Popularity of a cache is not the only measure of success. Even if an otherwise guideline-compliant cache happens to annoy a majority of cachers, that doesn't matter. It's not relevant. Someone likes it -- even if the only person who likes it the hider and no one else. You can easily avoid it. You've already explained that you avoid them anyway -- what's the problem? Why complain? Instead, lead by example with your own awesome hides and forget grumbling about the lame ones, just bypass them.

 

Not telling you how to behave -- it's just a friendly suggestion. :D

You are wrong. I am a customer of every cache I find. Payment isn't only financial. :D I am paying with my free time and effort in a hobby that I enjoy. I think it getting overrun with certain kinds of caches. I don't want to "pay" for certain kinds of caches anymore, and I just want to filter them out of my PQs. Pretty simple...
Link to comment

I personally don't mind 'em (but then again, there's only been one lamppost cache around here), but I'd think a quick drop of the coords into google maps on satellite view would tell you right quickly if it's an LPC or not. Or at least give you a very good idea of if it's in a parking lot.

Link to comment

Luv em! Anything that allows me to use the GPSr and log a find has my complete respect!

 

editing to add: plus I love knowing that little caches are all around us and the Wal Mart shoppers don't even know.

Edited by Kacky
Link to comment
I personally don't mind 'em (but then again, there's only been one lamppost cache around here), but I'd think a quick drop of the coords into google maps on satellite view would tell you right quickly if it's an LPC or not. Or at least give you a very good idea of if it's in a parking lot.
Google maps is often off by as much as 200 feet. Besides that, I just want to filter them out and load my filtered PQ and go caching. I have started ignoring all caches from certain people but that is a time consumming process because you have to do them one-by-one and then you have to tell the site that you are sure that you want to ignore that cache. If the site is slow it gets longer. Besides that some of these folks seem to hide them faster than I can keep up with ignoring them. Hmmm, maybe there could be an option to hide all caches from certain people including the new ones they come out with!!! :D
Link to comment

I just want to filter them out of my PQs. Pretty simple...

Then filter out all 1/1s and Micros, you'll rid yourself of the majority of these types. Pretty simple....

That is what I did when I was visiting in Colorado and we were doing some Urban caches with my cousins. It was a really fun caching afternoon, and I wondered what was different. :D

 

I had actually forgotten I had filtered out all the 1/1s and Micros . . . :D

 

I really should do that locally. :D

 

I just want to filter them out of my PQs. Pretty simple...

I just wonder if someone who places an LPC would actually use an Attribute for "Parking Lot" on their caches page that you could use for the PQ filter? :)

 

How many of the currently-existing LPC cache owners will go back and edit their cache pages to add such an Attribute? :)

Link to comment
You are wrong. I am a customer of every cache I find. Payment isn't only financial. :D I am paying with my free time and effort ...

Really? So when you find and log a cache owned by me, I'm receiving "free time and effort" from you? Man, have I been missing out?!? Have I been accidentally throwing away all those "free time and effort" credit certificates than arrive in the mail from the website? Are they getting caught in my spam filter?

 

[KBI takes a moment to check the wastebasket and the spam box, then returns to the keyboard]

 

Nope, no profits yet! I am the owner of several popular caches, but I have received no income, not in any form. You are NOT a customer. It appears to be you who is wrong about this cache hider / customer relationship.

 

I think it getting overrun with certain kinds of caches. I don't want to "pay" for certain kinds of caches anymore ...

To say "sometimes I find caches that I don't particularly enjoy" is understandable, and pretty much describes the way we all feel. I first learned about this hobby via a newspaper article. The story was accurate, well-researched and well-written, and I understood how geocaching worked. Before ever finding my first cache I could have predicted that I would occasionally be disappointed. As my teenage daughter would say: "Duh." To turn that inherent and unchangeable fact of life into a frequent and public complaint, or to demand that something be done about it, however, is what doesn't make any sense to me. I tolerate lame caches just fine without doing any of that.

 

You're demanding too much from this volunteer-driven hobby. But that's just my opinion.

 

and I just want to filter them out of my PQs. Pretty simple...

A filter? An attribute?

 

You don't want to find any caches that have anything to do with light poles? As CoyoteRed and others have correctly pointed out: Some, if only a very few, light pole type caches (or 1/1 rated caches) are very creatively designed and are a lot of fun. Filtering out ALL light pole caches is guaranteed to cause you to miss out on some potentially fun ones as well. I suspect that a light pole filter isn't really what you want ... but I may be wrong. If I'm wrong, then maybe you should try sbel111 or Mushtang's filtering suggestions -- sounds like what you need.

 

Isn't it maybe more accurate to say that you want to filter all the "lame" caches out of your PQs, and that what you really want is a "lame cache" attribute? Tell me, how many cache owners do you expect will warm up to the idea of marking their cache page with a "this cache is lame" icon?

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...