Skirt Lifters - Luv'em or Hate'em

[+KBI]

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.

[+TrailGators]

You are wrong. I am a customer of every cache I find. Payment isn't only financial. 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?

 

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.

This is where we strongly differ in opinion. I view a cache hider as one who hides caches hoping to attract and please caching customers. The currency for the finder is time and effort. The benefit to the customer is enjoyment. The profit to the hider is each cacher his product pleases and being viewed in a very positive light in the caching community for his creative hides. There are some hiders out there who make very little profit.... Edited April 15, 2007 by TrailGators

[+briansnat]

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.

 

The day I have to research every cache before I go out is the day I dust off my golf clubs. I like to load up my GPS with a PQ and head out, pick a waypoint and go. More and more I don't like where it is taking me, particularly when I'm caching away from home.

 

And a problem with your "solution" is that not every cache in a parking lot is lame. I've found some really neat places for caches in parking lots. A lone grave in the middle of a mall parking lot, an underground tunnel, an historic marker and actually one with an incredible view.

[+Kabuthunk]

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!!!

Oh, I know the feeling you're referring to. There are two people who made a massive series that's mostly "film-canister or pill container in a forest" around here. Luckly, all of those have either one of two naming systems. Since I don't want to ignore them (since other caches NOT in this series by the two people are still enjoyable), if I select a cache and see it's name is that of this series... I just keep on going. Don't even really acknowledge them. Luckly, just a few weeks ago, I finished resolving all of my previous DNF's with this series... so any others that I've never looked for yet quite likely never will be

 

EDIT: Doh, didn't notice that Briansnat replied to me as well. In either case... looks like my area might just be lucky. The only caches I dislike here all have a naming system that's easy to avoid at least. But yeah... you've got a point. Parking lot-related caches can definitely be fun if well done.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Kabuthunk

[Mushtang]

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....

Half the 1/1s I have found are fun to find. So that method won't work...

Yes, it will work, because it will also eliminate the other half of the 1/1s that you didn't enjoy... which will still leave you with so many other caches that there is no way you'll be able to find them all.

 

If you could go from 50% or more of all the caches you're aware of being the kind you dislike, to only 5% of all the caches you're aware of being the kind you dislike, and you could do this with a simple filter, why wouldn't you?

 

I'm starting to think that most of the anti-LPC crowd really enjoys complaining about LPCs and aren't really interested in a solution at all.

[+skysensor]

I'm starting to think that most of the anti-LPC crowd really enjoys complaining about LPCs and aren't really interested in a solution at all.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

If that's the type of generality you want to deal in:

 

I'm starting to think that most of the pro-LPC crowd really simply wants to avoid the addition of a "Parking Lot" attribute so that those that hide them don't have to "admit" what they are.

 

How's that?

 

The solution we (those you label "anti-LPC") want is an attribute that can be filtered on. This should be easy for the site to provide. How would anyone be adversely affected by it? Those who want to hunt them can (by not filtering), those who don't want to hunt them can avoid them (by filtering). This seems like a logical enhancement. Why the debate rages on and on is beyond my comprehension.

[+skysensor]

Has anyone been caching today?

[Mushtang]

I'm starting to think that most of the anti-LPC crowd really enjoys complaining about LPCs and aren't really interested in a solution at all.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

If that's the type of generality you want to deal in:

 

I'm starting to think that most of the pro-LPC crowd really simply wants to avoid the addition of a "Parking Lot" attribute so that those that hide them don't have to "admit" what they are.

 

How's that?

 

The solution we (those you label "anti-LPC") want is an attribute that can be filtered on. This should be easy for the site to provide. How would anyone be adversely affected by it? Those who want to hunt them can (by not filtering), those who don't want to hunt them can avoid them (by filtering). This seems like a logical enhancement. Why the debate rages on and on is beyond my comprehension.

Where have I ever said, "That won't work" when talking about an attribute? Where have I in any way suggested that an attribute would bother me at all?

 

If the site makes one available, I say use them! Until then, I'm offering a solution that will give the anti-LPC crowd a way to avoid most of them, and still have plenty of the kind they prefer.

 

I see no pot and kettle situation here.

[Mushtang]

Has anyone been caching today?

I haven't.

 

If you want to discuss if people have cached today, start another topic. This thread is about LPCs.

[CoyoteRed]

Yes, it will work, because it will also eliminate the other half of the 1/1s that you didn't enjoy... which will still leave you with so many other caches that there is no way you'll be able to find them all.

Well, I've been doing some research on this premise and I have to say it will not work nearly as well as you suggest.

 

I just spent some time with my friend GSAK looking at 1/1 micros. A very large percentage of those caches I enjoyed, some I really enjoyed. Then I looked at the micros that I remembered I didn't enjoy for whatever reason and few were 1/1's. None that I remember or identify as a LPC was a 1/1.

 

It doesn't seem you solution would work at all.

 

Well, let's try bumping the ratings cutoff to 1.5 or 2.0. While it did eliminate a larger percentage of lame caches, it also eliminated a larger percentage of enjoyable caches. That's no good.

 

That's just the micros. Add to the mix the same thinking that produces your typical LPC and you have a much larger percentage of caches that are simply not enjoyable by a large portion of the caching community. The problem isn't just about LPCs or micros. The problem doesn't correlate to type, size or rating.

 

I'm starting to think that most of the anti-LPC crowd really enjoys complaining about LPCs and aren't really interested in a solution at all.

Oh, we're interested in a solution. It's just none have been presented by the pro-LPC crowd as remotely workable.

[CoyoteRed]

If the site makes one available, I say use them!

Did Jeremy fix the exclude attribute function of the PQ's?

[+TrailGators]

If the site makes one available, I say use them! Until then, I'm offering a solution that will give the anti-LPC crowd a way to avoid most of them, and still have plenty of the kind they prefer.

There is no good solution. Briansnat's post above explained very well why the solutions being prposed don't work. Besides that, if they did work well, we wouldn't be discussing it.....

[Mushtang]

The problem isn't just about LPCs or micros. The problem doesn't correlate to type, size or rating.

In that case, I think KBI is right, and you're asking for a Lamness filter, or a filter for Caches that CR Won't Enjoy.

 

You're asking too much. You've got to learn to deal with the existence of caches that other people enjoy.

[Mushtang]

If the site makes one available, I say use them!

Did Jeremy fix the exclude attribute function of the PQ's?

I didn't know it was broken. Try posting a thread in the website forum.

[+KBI]

The solution we (those you label "anti-LPC") want is an attribute that can be filtered on. This should be easy for the site to provide. How would anyone be adversely affected by it?

As Briansnat pointed out, simply identifying a cache as being in a parking lot does not identify it an an undesireable ("lame") find. I see what you're after, and I wish it could work for you, but your solution is no more ideal than Mushtang's or Sbell111's suggestions.

[Clan Riffster]

TG, I feel your customer/supplier analogy is right on the mark. Each cache that I hide pays me huge benefits in the logs I receive. Each cache I hunt requires an investment in time. Money is not the single determining factor when considering if an activity can be compared to shopping. Perhaps the lame caches of every variety could be equated to that junk we see for sale on the idiot box so often? The stuff with the "AS SEEN ON TV" label affixed to the packaging? There are people who buy that junk by the truck load, which I suppose is what feeds the market. I imagine that market would dry up overnight if there were some kind of quality assurance standard.

 

Hmmm.... Quality control....

[+TrailGators]

The solution we (those you label "anti-LPC") want is an attribute that can be filtered on. This should be easy for the site to provide. How would anyone be adversely affected by it?

As Briansnat pointed out, simply identifying a cache as being in a parking lot does not identify it an an undesireable ("lame") find. I see what you're after, and I wish it could work for you, but your solution is no more ideal than Mushtang's or Sbell111's suggestions.

I think being able to ignore all of a certain cachers caches with one click is a viable solution.

[Mushtang]

Well, let's try bumping the ratings cutoff to 1.5 or 2.0. While it did eliminate a larger percentage of lame caches, it also eliminated a larger percentage of enjoyable caches. That's no good.

Dude, you have to figure out what works best in your area for sure. No one single filter is going to do the trick everywhere.

 

Maybe you have to eliminate micros rated X/1, someone else can get by with only filtering out micros, someone else has to filter out all 1/1s regardless of size, etc.

 

If you're not going to accept also filtering out some caches that you would enjoy, to get rid of a LOT of caches you wouldn't enjoy, which would still leave you with more caches than you can ever find, then this solution isn't going to work for you, nor would any other filtering solution that the web site could ever add.

 

Fortunately I don't have this problem, and my posts were only trying to help you out with some suggestions of things to try. I'm not offended if you don't want to use them.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Mushtang

[+KBI]

That's just the micros. Add to the mix the same thinking that produces your typical LPC and you have a much larger percentage of caches that are simply not enjoyable by a large portion of the caching community.

Speak for yourself. Don't presume to speak for me, or to assume what I or anyone else will like or dislike.

 

I respect your right to your opinion. I have little respect for those who would tell me what my preference is, or what it should be.

[CoyoteRed]

In that case, I think KBI is right, and you're asking for a Lamness filter, or a filter for Caches that CR Won't Enjoy.

 

You're asking too much. You've got to learn to deal with the existence of caches that other people enjoy.

Not really.

 

If you'd note that when folks say, "I'd rather have any cache than no cache at all" they're not saying "I'd rather have a lame cache than no cache at all." Being lame is not a prerequisite for folks to enjoy a cache. The cache can be a good one and those folks who don't care if is a good cache will enjoy it just as much. It's the same for folks who simply want to play with their GPS or want a smilie. A decent cache will work just as well for their purposes.

[+KBI]

I'm starting to think that most of the anti-LPC crowd really enjoys complaining about LPCs and aren't really interested in a solution at all.

Oh, we're interested in a solution. It's just none have been presented by the pro-LPC crowd as remotely workable.

If the site makes one available, I say use them! Until then, I'm offering a solution that will give the anti-LPC crowd a way to avoid most of them, and still have plenty of the kind they prefer.

There is no good solution. Briansnat's post above explained very well why the solutions being prposed don't work. Besides that, if they did work well, we wouldn't be discussing it.....

I kinda like the solution that I use myself. I've described it repeatedly. It's called "So what if it's a lame cache? Avoid it if you think you see it coming. Otherwise, get over it and move on." Nobody has explained to me what's wrong with that one. It works great! Try it sometime.

[+KBI]

TG, I feel your customer/supplier analogy is right on the mark. Each cache that I hide pays me huge benefits in the logs I receive. Each cache I hunt requires an investment in time. Money is not the single determining factor when considering if an activity can be compared to shopping. Perhaps the lame caches of every variety could be equated to that junk we see for sale on the idiot box so often? The stuff with the "AS SEEN ON TV" label affixed to the packaging? There are people who buy that junk by the truck load, which I suppose is what feeds the market. I imagine that market would dry up overnight if there were some kind of quality assurance standard.

 

Hmmm.... Quality control....

If you're arguing that skirt lifter caches are less than worthy based on traffic count numbers, I'm afraid the facts are not on your side.

[+KBI]

The solution we (those you label "anti-LPC") want is an attribute that can be filtered on. This should be easy for the site to provide. How would anyone be adversely affected by it?

As Briansnat pointed out, simply identifying a cache as being in a parking lot does not identify it an an undesireable ("lame") find. I see what you're after, and I wish it could work for you, but your solution is no more ideal than Mushtang's or Sbell111's suggestions.

I think being able to ignore all of a certain cachers caches with one click is a viable solution.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. Sounds reasonable. Gonna suggest it in the website forum?

[CoyoteRed]

It works great! Try it sometime.

Actually, most of us are relegated to using this one. I take exception to it working "great." Those lame caches still clog the PQs and we have to deal with them somehow in some fashion. I don't see how that is "great."

[+TrailGators]

I'm starting to think that most of the anti-LPC crowd really enjoys complaining about LPCs and aren't really interested in a solution at all.

Oh, we're interested in a solution. It's just none have been presented by the pro-LPC crowd as remotely workable.

If the site makes one available, I say use them! Until then, I'm offering a solution that will give the anti-LPC crowd a way to avoid most of them, and still have plenty of the kind they prefer.

There is no good solution. Briansnat's post above explained very well why the solutions being prposed don't work. Besides that, if they did work well, we wouldn't be discussing it.....

I kinda like the solution that I use myself. I've described it repeatedly. It's called "So what if it's a lame cache? Avoid it if you think you see it coming. Otherwise, get over it and move on." Nobody has explained to me what's wrong with that one. It works great! Try it sometime.

Thanks for recommending what we are already doing. It is not effective.....comprende? Edited April 15, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

In that case, I think KBI is right, and you're asking for a Lamness filter, or a filter for Caches that CR Won't Enjoy.

 

You're asking too much. You've got to learn to deal with the existence of caches that other people enjoy.

Not really.

No? You're saying it's not okay for people to hide caches that others enjoy unless CoyoteRed also enjoys them?

 

If you'd note that when folks say, "I'd rather have any cache than no cache at all" they're not saying "I'd rather have a lame cache than no cache at all."

As a matter of fact, I would rather have a lame cache than no cache at all. I have said so many times. Can't you debate without putting words in other people's mouths?

 

Being lame is not a prerequisite for folks to enjoy a cache.

No, it wouldn't. That doesn't make any sense. Did anyone that you can quote actually propose that as a premise, or are you making that up?

 

The cache can be a good one and those folks who don't care if is a good cache will enjoy it just as much. It's the same for folks who simply want to play with their GPS or want a smilie. A decent cache will work just as well for their purposes.

And so will a lame one -- but since you can't stand these, all you need to do is steer clear of them -- or laugh them off when you find them.

[+KBI]

I kinda like the solution that I use myself. I've described it repeatedly. It's called "So what if it's a lame cache? Avoid it if you think you see it coming. Otherwise, get over it and move on." Nobody has explained to me what's wrong with that one. It works great! Try it sometime.

Thanks for recommending what we are already doing. It is not effective.....comprende?

Then you're obviously not doing it the way I do it. Works great for me.

[CoyoteRed]

The cache can be a good one and those folks who don't care if is a good cache will enjoy it just as much. It's the same for folks who simply want to play with their GPS or want a smilie. A decent cache will work just as well for their purposes.

And so will a lame one -- but since you can't stand these, all you need to do is steer clear of them -- or laugh them off when you find them.

But, it will not work just as well for those you prefer a decent cache over a lame one. This is what you seem to not understand. A lame cache only fulfills the requirements of those who don't care if it's a decent cache while a decent cache fulfills the requirement for both groups. Is that a hard concept to understand?

[+KBI]

It works great! Try it sometime.

Actually, most of us are relegated to using this one. I take exception to it working "great."

See my response to TrailGators above, post #377.

 

 

Those lame caches still clog the PQs and we have to deal with them somehow in some fashion. I don't see how that is "great."

Life's just not fair, is it CR?

 

As I've said before, I don't think the caches themselves are your problem:

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.

[+TrailGators]

I kinda like the solution that I use myself. I've described it repeatedly. It's called "So what if it's a lame cache? Avoid it if you think you see it coming. Otherwise, get over it and move on." Nobody has explained to me what's wrong with that one. It works great! Try it sometime.

Thanks for recommending what we are already doing. It is not effective.....comprende?

Then you're obviously not doing it the way I do it. Works great for me.

It works "great" for you because you like LPCs. What the heck are you avoiding?

[CoyoteRed]

Life's just not fair, is it CR?

And I suppose we're not allowed to attempt to better our lot. Is that what you mean? That's what I'm hearing.

[+KBI]

The cache can be a good one and those folks who don't care if is a good cache will enjoy it just as much. It's the same for folks who simply want to play with their GPS or want a smilie. A decent cache will work just as well for their purposes.

And so will a lame one -- but since you can't stand these, all you need to do is steer clear of them -- or laugh them off when you find them.

But, it will not work just as well for those you prefer a decent cache over a lame one. This is what you seem to not understand. A lame cache only fulfills the requirements of those who don't care if it's a decent cache while a decent cache fulfills the requirement for both groups. Is that a hard concept to understand?

I understand fully. That's why I suggested before that if this inherent fact of geocaching is a thorn in your side you are absolutely unable to tolerate, then maybe you should consider a different hobby.

 

I remain unconvinced that a “my cache is lame” attribute will ever catch on in popularity among cache owners. Nothing short of that (unworkable) solution, near as I can tell, will ever make you happy.

[+KBI]

Life's just not fair, is it CR?

And I suppose we're not allowed to attempt to better our lot. Is that what you mean? That's what I'm hearing.

Strange that that's what you're hearing, because that's not at all what I'm saying. Has anyone actually said that? Got a link?

[+KBI]

I kinda like the solution that I use myself. I've described it repeatedly. It's called "So what if it's a lame cache? Avoid it if you think you see it coming. Otherwise, get over it and move on." Nobody has explained to me what's wrong with that one. It works great! Try it sometime.

Thanks for recommending what we are already doing. It is not effective.....comprende?

Then you're obviously not doing it the way I do it. Works great for me.

It works "great" for you because you like LPCs. What the heck are you avoiding?

What I'm avoiding is letting the existence of those hides bother me in any way. How many different ways can I say it? They don't bother me. Why do you let them bother you? I don't see the problem.

 

And saying I "like" them is a bit of an oversimplification. I "tolerate" them. If there's nothing else within walking or driving distance, I can enjoy them. I don't prefer them.

 

Any of this sounding familiar?

[+TrailGators]

I kinda like the solution that I use myself. I've described it repeatedly. It's called "So what if it's a lame cache? Avoid it if you think you see it coming. Otherwise, get over it and move on." Nobody has explained to me what's wrong with that one. It works great! Try it sometime.

Thanks for recommending what we are already doing. It is not effective.....comprende?

Then you're obviously not doing it the way I do it. Works great for me.

It works "great" for you because you like LPCs. What the heck are you avoiding?

What I'm avoiding is letting the existence of those hides bother me in any way. How many different ways can I say it? They don't bother me. Why do you let them bother you? I don't see the problem.

 

And saying I "like" them is a bit of an oversimplification. I "tolerate" them. If there's nothing else within walking or driving distance, I can enjoy them. I don't prefer them.

 

Any of this sounding familiar?

So you find caches that you "tolerate?" What's the point of that?

[CoyoteRed]

Life's just not fair, is it CR?

And I suppose we're not allowed to attempt to better our lot. Is that what you mean? That's what I'm hearing.

Strange that that's what you're hearing, because that's not at all what I'm saying. Has anyone actually said that? Got a link?

No need for a link. I quoted it. You quoted me quoting you. Here it is again. Why the need for a link? I hope you're not trying to reduce the discussion into a semantics argument. Just stick with the discussion at hand.

[+KBI]

You are wrong. I am a customer of every cache I find. Payment isn't only financial. 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?

 

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.

This is where we strongly differ in opinion.

Yes, we apparently do strongly differ in opinion.

 

I view the businessman/customer relationship as an economic relationship bound by a contract. That contract comes with a promise of satisfaction.

 

I view the cache hider/cache finder relationship as a relationship between fellow, volunteer game players, and it is bound by NO contract. Nobody EVER promised you that you would enjoy ANY geocache hide. How can you reasonably demand otherwise?

 

I hide caches that I think people will enjoy, based on my own experience. If one or a few individuals dislike my hides, what do I care? If NOBODY is logging my finds and I get nothing but complaints, then of course I'll probably change something -- but this is hardly the case with LPCs, is it? LPC hides are being hidden, found, logged and enjoyed by the thousands every day. Only a vocal few in the forums are complaining. The rest of us are having a good time.

[CoyoteRed]

What I'm avoiding is letting the existence of those hides bother me in any way. How many different ways can I say it? They don't bother me. Why do you let them bother you? I don't see the problem.

 

And saying I "like" them is a bit of an oversimplification. I "tolerate" them. If there's nothing else within walking or driving distance, I can enjoy them. I don't prefer them.

I don't understand why you're even here arguing, then. Are you trying to force us to not be bothered by them? Force us to tolerate them? Are we not allowed to counsel others towards increasing the average quality of the caches in our hobby? I don't get it. What is your goal in this discussion?

[+KBI]

It works "great" for you because you like LPCs. What the heck are you avoiding?

What I'm avoiding is letting the existence of those hides bother me in any way. How many different ways can I say it? They don't bother me. Why do you let them bother you? I don't see the problem.

 

And saying I "like" them is a bit of an oversimplification. I "tolerate" them. If there's nothing else within walking or driving distance, I can enjoy them. I don't prefer them.

 

Any of this sounding familiar?

So you find caches that you "tolerate?" What's the point of that?

I have listed, many times, all the various elements of every cache hunt that I enjoy. I won't repeat the list again, but I have never demanded that that list include a view or a surprise or trade items or a history lesson or anything else wonderful or creative. I like all those things, but I still enjoy geocaching in their absence.

 

Does that answer your question?

[+KBI]

Life's just not fair, is it CR?

And I suppose we're not allowed to attempt to better our lot. Is that what you mean? That's what I'm hearing.

Strange that that's what you're hearing, because that's not at all what I'm saying. Has anyone actually said that? Got a link?

No need for a link. I quoted it. You quoted me quoting you. Here it is again. Why the need for a link?

In that case, please tell me how my saying "life's not fair" is equal to me claiming that you're "not allowed to attempt to better [your] lot."

[+TrailGators]

It works "great" for you because you like LPCs. What the heck are you avoiding?

What I'm avoiding is letting the existence of those hides bother me in any way. How many different ways can I say it? They don't bother me. Why do you let them bother you? I don't see the problem.

 

And saying I "like" them is a bit of an oversimplification. I "tolerate" them. If there's nothing else within walking or driving distance, I can enjoy them. I don't prefer them.

 

Any of this sounding familiar?

So you find caches that you "tolerate?" What's the point of that?

I have listed, many times, all the various elements of every cache hunt that I enjoy. I won't repeat the list again, but I have never demanded that that list include a view or a surprise or trade items or a history lesson or anything else wonderful or creative. I like all those things, but I still enjoy geocaching in their absence.

 

Does that answer your question?

The bottomline is that your system works "great" for you because you "tolerate" caches and so there are no caches that you avoid.

[CoyoteRed]

Life's just not fair, is it CR?

And I suppose we're not allowed to attempt to better our lot. Is that what you mean? That's what I'm hearing.

Strange that that's what you're hearing, because that's not at all what I'm saying. Has anyone actually said that? Got a link?

No need for a link. I quoted it. You quoted me quoting you. Here it is again. Why the need for a link?

In that case, please tell me how my saying "life's not fair" is equal to me claiming that you're "not allowed to attempt to better [your] lot."

Better yet, explain what you meant by "life's just not fair" and we'll just go with your explanation. After all, I did ask for clarification and indicated what I was getting from what you were saying. If the meaning for the statement is different from what I indicated then I would think a clarification is in order. I'm only guessing while you are the authority of what you were saying.

 

So, what did you mean?

[+KBI]

[duplicate post ]

Edited April 15, 2007 by KBI

[+KBI]

What I'm avoiding is letting the existence of those hides bother me in any way. How many different ways can I say it? They don't bother me. Why do you let them bother you? I don't see the problem.

 

And saying I "like" them is a bit of an oversimplification. I "tolerate" them. If there's nothing else within walking or driving distance, I can enjoy them. I don't prefer them.

I don't understand why you're even here arguing, then. Are you trying to force us to not be bothered by them? Force us to tolerate them? Are we not allowed to counsel others towards increasing the average quality of the caches in our hobby? I don't get it. What is your goal in this discussion?

*sigh*

 

I'm not saying any of those things. Quite the contrary: I have taken great pains to specifically explain that I am NOT trying to "force" ANYTHING on ANYBODY.

 

 

Are you trying to force us to not be bothered by them?

No, I'm trying to

convince

you and all the other complainers that there is nothing to be bothered by -- nothing to complain about.

 

Force us to tolerate them?

No need for me to do that. Based on the very fact that you're still a participating geocacher you have obviously

chosen,

by your own free will, to tolerate them.

 

Are we not allowed to counsel others towards increasing the average quality of the caches in our hobby?

Did I ever say that? Besides: The posts I see every time this thread comes up don't look like any kind of "counseling" to me. All I see is complaining.

 

I don't get it.

[No comment.]

 

What is your goal in this discussion?

To defend my statements.

 

Every time I dare to suggest that a cache has a right to exist regardless of it's creativity level, I get attacked. Every time I dare to suggest that a cache hider should be allowed to hide their own cache any way they please (within the guidelines), I get attacked. Every time I dare to suggest that the complainers should consider learning some way to peacefully co-exist with these hides, as I have, I get attacked. Every time I dare to suggest that the complainers simply steer clear of the hides they don't like, I get bombarded with lame excuses why it's so

hard

to figure out which ones to avoid. Every time I dare to suggest that "lame" is really only in the eye of the GPS holder, people

really

freak out.

 

Believe it or not, I'm only trying to help. I cache happy. You apparently don't. I want you to be able to cache happy like me -- and to learn to deal with the fact that those horribly uncreative hides are simply a fact of life, and that they are never going to go away.

[+KBI]

It works "great" for you because you like LPCs. What the heck are you avoiding?

What I'm avoiding is letting the existence of those hides bother me in any way. How many different ways can I say it? They don't bother me. Why do you let them bother you? I don't see the problem.

 

And saying I "like" them is a bit of an oversimplification. I "tolerate" them. If there's nothing else within walking or driving distance, I can enjoy them. I don't prefer them.

 

Any of this sounding familiar?

So you find caches that you "tolerate?" What's the point of that?

I have listed, many times, all the various elements of every cache hunt that I enjoy. I won't repeat the list again, but I have never demanded that that list include a view or a surprise or trade items or a history lesson or anything else wonderful or creative. I like all those things, but I still enjoy geocaching in their absence.

 

Does that answer your question?

The bottomline is that your system works "great" for you because you "tolerate" caches and so there are no caches that you avoid.

NOW YOU"VE GOT IT!!!!

 

[+KBI]

Better yet, explain what you meant by "life's just not fair" and we'll just go with your explanation. After all, I did ask for clarification and indicated what I was getting from what you were saying. If the meaning for the statement is different from what I indicated then I would think a clarification is in order. I'm only guessing while you are the authority of what you were saying.

Then why did you see the need to toss in a distracting and obscure strawman comment? It obviously didn't help your effort to obtain clarification on the original statement.

 

So, what did you mean?

I meant that life's not fair.

 

I meant that people are going to hide caches that fail to adequately or satisfactorily entertain CoyoteRed, and there's nothing CoyoteRed can do about it. I meant that I really wish you could accept that fact. I meant that no matter what clever methods, electronic or otherwise, you manage to invent to try to protect yourself from the unpleasant discomfort of being disappointed by a geocache, it is still going to happen. I meant that you will, at some point, have to come to terms with that truth.

 

I'm not picking on you, I promise. People hide caches that fail to adequately or satisfactorily entertain KBI, and there's nothing I can do about it either. For some reason, however, I was able to understand that fact from my very first day of caching, and it has simply never troubled me.

Edited April 15, 2007 by KBI

[+TrailGators]

It works "great" for you because you like LPCs. What the heck are you avoiding?

What I'm avoiding is letting the existence of those hides bother me in any way. How many different ways can I say it? They don't bother me. Why do you let them bother you? I don't see the problem.

 

And saying I "like" them is a bit of an oversimplification. I "tolerate" them. If there's nothing else within walking or driving distance, I can enjoy them. I don't prefer them.

 

Any of this sounding familiar?

So you find caches that you "tolerate?" What's the point of that?

I have listed, many times, all the various elements of every cache hunt that I enjoy. I won't repeat the list again, but I have never demanded that that list include a view or a surprise or trade items or a history lesson or anything else wonderful or creative. I like all those things, but I still enjoy geocaching in their absence.

 

Does that answer your question?

The bottomline is that your system works "great" for you because you "tolerate" caches and so there are no caches that you avoid.

NOW YOU"VE GOT IT!!!!

 

I had it all along. You just gave me what I needed. We need a recommendation from someone that has tested and used an effective method to actually and effectively avoid these caches. Edited April 15, 2007 by TrailGators

[CoyoteRed]

What is your goal in this discussion?

To defend my statements.

 

Every time I dare to suggest that a cache has a right to exist regardless of it's creativity level, I get attacked. Every time I dare to suggest that a cache hider should be allowed to hide their own cache any way they please (within the guidelines), I get attacked. Every time I dare to suggest that the complainers should consider learning some way to peacefully co-exist with these hides, as I have, I get attacked. Every time I dare to suggest that the complainers simply steer clear of the hides they don't like, I get bombarded with lame excuses why it's so

hard

to figure out which ones to avoid. Every time I dare to suggest that "lame" is really only in the eye of the GPS holder, people

really

freak out.

 

That's nice.

 

However, the "right to exist" is different than published for the enjoyment of others.

 

As soon as any cache is published, it is presented as an effort of one person to entertain another in one form or another. It doesn't simply exist for existence sake. If it did, then it wouldn't need to be published.

 

The idea of holding others to a certain level of creativity doesn't impact the existence of any particular cache, only the presentation of a cache for the enjoyment of others.

 

It's kind of like the hobby of painting (art, not house). I can certainly paint to my heart's content, but as soon as I present my work at a gallery I had better be at a certain level of skill or my viewers will complain. Now, I'm sure someone might suggest that my pathetic attempts should be considered just as valid as Renior, but, come on, really?

 

That nice that you defend those would choose to place a cache any way they see fit. On the other hand, what about those who ask others to consider the enjoyment of others when designing a cache placement? Shouldn't the enjoyment of those seeking the cache count for something--much like those viewing art in a gallery?

[+KBI]

I had it all along. You just gave me what I needed. We need a recommendation from someone that has tested and used an effective method to actually and effectively avoid these caches.

Good luck.

 

If you discover a watertight method of avoiding caches YOU are guaranteed to dislike while not missing out on a single cache YOU are likely to enjoy, let me know.

 

In the meantime, please consider my suggestions, and ... have fun.

[CoyoteRed]

I meant that people are going to hide caches that fail to adequately or satisfactorily entertain CoyoteRed, and there's nothing CoyoteRed can do about it. I meant that I really wish you could accept that fact. I meant that no matter what clever methods, electronic or otherwise, you manage to invent to try to protect yourself from the unpleasant discomfort of being disappointed by a geocache, it is still going to happen. I meant that you will, at some point, have to come to terms with that truth.

Thank you for the explanation.

 

I think you have at least one assumption wrong. I don't need to satisfied with every cache I come across. I realize not everyone is going to have the skills to create a good cache. It could be any number of reasons like the creator is a 10 year old. I realize this fact. I don't have a problem with this, believe it or not.

 

What I have a problem with is experienced cachers not even bothering to consider entertaining others beyond the excuse to increase either the hider's numbers or the finder's. There's really no excuse for such pathetic attempts by these cachers. They are capable of so much more, yet it seems as though they think we're not worth it.