Crappy Caches, Crappy Complaints

[+Tweedledum & Tweedledee]

There are a couple of new threads out right now, and I'm sure many others in the past that a simply rants about crappy caches. My question is, why does everyone feel that a crappy cache means that the rules of geocaching arn't working and we need more rules to prevent them? Why don't people take the approach that if it's a bad cache (in their opinion) to just skip it. Why do so many cachers feel that they must find every cache even if it's no fun? I can see a problem if a cache is unsafe, but so many complants have been simply that they don't like it.

[+Miragee]

There are a couple of new threads out right now, and I'm sure many others in the past that a simply rants about crappy caches. My question is, why does everyone feel that a crappy cache means that the rules of geocaching arn't working and we need more rules to prevent them? Why don't people take the approach that if it's a bad cache (in their opinion) to just skip it. Why do so many cachers feel that they must find every cache even if it's no fun? I can see a problem if a cache is unsafe, but so many complants have been simply that they don't like it.

I was caching with a couple of cachers one day. They were returning to a crappy location to find a cache they had previously DNF'd. I said, "Why? Why do you have to come back here once you have been here? Why do you have to find this cache?"

 

If I DNF a cache in an area I don't care to return to, I won't "clear" that DNF . . . ever.

 

Their reason for returning to find a cache in a bad location is that they need to "clear" a specific area they have defined. Therefore, they have to find all the caches, which means complaining about the crappy ones they are forced to look for . . .

[+Team GeoBlast]

There are a couple of new threads out right now, and I'm sure many others in the past that a simply rants about crappy caches. My question is, why does everyone feel that a crappy cache means that the rules of geocaching arn't working and we need more rules to prevent them? Why don't people take the approach that if it's a bad cache (in their opinion) to just skip it. Why do so many cachers feel that they must find every cache even if it's no fun? I can see a problem if a cache is unsafe, but so many complants have been simply that they don't like it.

 

A combination of factors:

 

1. Some cachers would be uncomfortable if they didn't have something to complain about. They complain here in the forum far more than they possibly could geocache.

2. Some "crappy" caches could effect the game on a global level, the WalMart CPC thread for example. So it's not just crappy (your words) it's potentially harmful.

3. Some people aren't tech savvy enough to use the available software well enough to figure out a way to filter them out so they have to find them in the physical world.

4. If the "crappy" complaints are about bad coords or poorly written or misleading instructions, some see that as someone else being careless and wasting their personal recreation time.

5. Some old timers have never progressed in their thinking that geocaching is now more than an "ammo box in the woods" and don't recognize that there's a slice of the geocaching population today that doesn't even want to go into the woods.

 

And the list goes on, so as you can see there's actually lots of answers to your question. I just wish it didn't dominate the discussions in here so much and perhaps this is what you are alluding to as well. There's such a huge upside to the hobby that is way more fun to talk about IMO.

[+Chuy!]

I don't like it when cachers say a cache is crappy, but their log entry is all nice and purty. There have been a few caches I don't like and I'll say so on my log entry. You don't need to be rude, but I think it's acceptable to say "one for the #s" or something along those lines.

 

BTW I am one that has to keep an area "clean", but I don't mind returning if the cache is worth the trip. But, its crappy, I'll post a short log, like "TNLN".

[+Team GeoBlast]

There are a couple of new threads out right now, and I'm sure many others in the past that a simply rants about crappy caches. My question is, why does everyone feel that a crappy cache means that the rules of geocaching arn't working and we need more rules to prevent them? Why don't people take the approach that if it's a bad cache (in their opinion) to just skip it. Why do so many cachers feel that they must find every cache even if it's no fun? I can see a problem if a cache is unsafe, but so many complants have been simply that they don't like it.

I was caching with a couple of cachers one day. They were returning to a crappy location to find a cache they had previously DNF'd. I said, "Why? Why do you have to come back here once you have been here? Why do you have to find this cache?"

 

If I DNF a cache in an area I don't care to return to, I won't "clear" that DNF . . . ever.

 

Their reason for returning to find a cache in a bad location is that they need to "clear" a specific area they have defined. Therefore, they have to find all the caches, which means complaining about the crappy ones they are forced to look for . . .

 

I think that people that cache to clear out a specific geographical area should go in with a better understanding of what they are getting into. You are going to find the best and worst in that one particular area but acting like there is some mandate that you cache this way is annoying to others not on the same mission. It's pretty unrealistic to think that this approach isn't going to come with some sheer delight and disappointment. Hopefully they are sharing these equally with the people that have to listen to their exploits.

[+Kealia]

5. Some old timers have never progressed in their thinking that geocaching is now more than an "ammo box in the woods" and don't recognize that there's a slice of the geocaching population today that doesn't even want to go into the woods.

 

I think this comment is a bit narrow minded. For some, it has nothing to do with "progressing in their thinking". Some were around when the game was "young" and remember a kind of purity to the game where most caches consisted of regular size containers hidden in great spots, or on great hikes.

 

When they see the changes and evolution that the game is taking, they have a sense of pride and ownership in the game as well as a vested interest in keeping the game the way they like it. Will it work? Who knows - but they (as does everybody else) certainly have the right to voice their opinions.

 

Think of how ANYTHING would be today if there wasn't a group of supports who defended how they thought it should be and helped to shape it and help or stop the evolution versus just sitting back and accepting it.

[+StarBrand]

Coming to the realization that some caches are just not worth looking for is sheer bliss. You can even drive close, get out and hike for a while and then arrive "on scene" look around and decide no way. Walk away.

 

If I am not having fun looking for a cache after just a few minutes - time to walk away.

 

Sadly - not many cachers ever get to that point. So they complain.

 

I too wish every cache offered some stunning view or bit of history or unknown thing or place. But they don't. I complain a little but also know I can simply cross them off my list.

[+Kealia]

Coming to the realization that some caches are just not worth looking for is sheer bliss. You can even drive close, get out and hike for a while and then arrive "on scene" look around and decide no way. Walk away.

 

If I am not having fun looking for a cache after just a few minutes - time to walk away.

 

Sadly - not many cachers ever get to that point. So they complain.

 

I too wish every cache offered some stunning view or bit of history or unknown thing or place. But they don't. I complain a little but also know I can simply cross them off my list.

 

Amen brother.

[+carleenp]

Coming to the realization that some caches are just not worth looking for is sheer bliss. You can even drive close, get out and hike for a while and then arrive "on scene" look around and decide no way. Walk away.

 

If I am not having fun looking for a cache after just a few minutes - time to walk away.

 

Sadly - not many cachers ever get to that point. So they complain.

 

I too wish every cache offered some stunning view or bit of history or unknown thing or place. But they don't. I complain a little but also know I can simply cross them off my list.

 

What he said.

[+jcblough]

To me, a "crappy" cache is one that is just tossed out there w/ no thought or preparation or is poorly hid. The problem with those isn't that it cost people time looking for an uninteresting cache, it's that that cache takes up a 1/10 of a mile radius in a spot that now no one else - someone that might actually step off a trail to hide something can use. I hate that more than anything.

 

As far as looking for them goes, if the area is terrible, I just don't go back. No shame in a DNF.

[+wimseyguy]

Different motivations for different days is how I play. Complaining doesn't really accomplish anything, but it seems to make some people happy. Hmm, I guess that is what it accomplishes for them.

 

But, the more effort you put into your hide, the more effort I'll put into finding it and posting a nice log on your cache page.

[+Juicepig]

Ignore lists are for Ignor-ants

 

I don't complain about micros, but the majority of ones that are placed around my place are ammo cans or otherwise large ones. So I guess I am just lucky! If you don't like the looks of a cache, by all means - ignore it. That's just not how I play!

 

If I find a hide that I don't like, I will just write a log like "TNLN" - If I can't find it, then I come back. I enjoy a good hide, even if the coordinates are off 50m (that shouldn't be an excuse!), and its in a rotten place (I will make sure I schedule a decent cache that same day to level off the experience)

[+Kealia]

Coming to the realization that some caches are just not worth looking for is sheer bliss. You can even drive close, get out and hike for a while and then arrive "on scene" look around and decide no way. Walk away.

 

If I am not having fun looking for a cache after just a few minutes - time to walk away.

 

Sadly - not many cachers ever get to that point. So they complain.

 

I too wish every cache offered some stunning view or bit of history or unknown thing or place. But they don't. I complain a little but also know I can simply cross them off my list.

 

Amen brother.

[+Renegade Knight]

Crap is as crap does.

[+Klatch]

5. Some old timers have never progressed in their thinking that geocaching is now more than an "ammo box in the woods" and don't recognize that there's a slice of the geocaching population today that doesn't even want to go into the woods.

 

I think this comment is a bit narrow minded. For some, it has nothing to do with "progressing in their thinking". Some were around when the game was "young" and remember a kind of purity to the game where most caches consisted of regular size containers hidden in great spots, or on great hikes.

 

When they see the changes and evolution that the game is taking, they have a sense of pride and ownership in the game as well as a vested interest in keeping the game the way they like it. Will it work? Who knows - but they (as does everybody else) certainly have the right to voice their opinions.

 

Think of how ANYTHING would be today if there wasn't a group of supports who defended how they thought it should be and helped to shape it and help or stop the evolution versus just sitting back and accepting it.

Very well said, Kealia.

[+AStargirl]

Crap is as crap does.

 

Smells bad?

[+egami]

5. Some old timers have never progressed in their thinking that geocaching is now more than an "ammo box in the woods" and don't recognize that there's a slice of the geocaching population today that doesn't even want to go into the woods.

 

I think this comment is a bit narrow minded. For some, it has nothing to do with "progressing in their thinking". Some were around when the game was "young" and remember a kind of purity to the game where most caches consisted of regular size containers hidden in great spots, or on great hikes.

 

When they see the changes and evolution that the game is taking, they have a sense of pride and ownership in the game as well as a vested interest in keeping the game the way they like it. Will it work? Who knows - but they (as does everybody else) certainly have the right to voice their opinions.

 

Think of how ANYTHING would be today if there wasn't a group of supports who defended how they thought it should be and helped to shape it and help or stop the evolution versus just sitting back and accepting it.

 

How is that being narrow-minded? That's a bit of a baseless attack over a comment that isn't directed at anyone as a whole. The fact is that statement is dead on accurate. I have read multiple posts from cachers here with this mentality....as that poster stated, "some" harbor this mentality, not "all" or "most".

 

I am not trying to take anything away from your point. I can respect your sense of ownership in the game, but also don't be dismiss that there are many newer, youthful geocachers that take just as much a sense of ownership and have just as much passion for the game.

 

Does being "old school" inherently give you more ownership? To me, harboring that attitude would be a bit narrow-minded. I am not accusing you of doing that. I am just making the comment. I can respect someone that cached longer than me, but not when the try to undermine an opinion on the basis of how long they've been around.

Edited April 19, 2007 by egami

[+StarBrand]

Dimissing anybody's opinion because they are "old school" or new is wrong. Things have changed - I would contend the changes are not good ones. My thoughts - my opinions. Some believe the changes are good and need to be wholly accepted. Neither side is completely right or wrong. It is all in how you handle the debate.....

 

fine line between complaints and ranting.

 

fine line between complaints and debate.

 

fine line between debate and sheer argument.

 

Debate should lead to comprimise. Not to division.

 

NOT crossing the lines is the hard thing to do.

[+tozainamboku]

5. Some old timers have never progressed in their thinking that geocaching is now more than an "ammo box in the woods" and don't recognize that there's a slice of the geocaching population today that doesn't even want to go into the woods.

 

I think this comment is a bit narrow minded. For some, it has nothing to do with "progressing in their thinking". Some were around when the game was "young" and remember a kind of purity to the game where most caches consisted of regular size containers hidden in great spots, or on great hikes.

 

When they see the changes and evolution that the game is taking, they have a sense of pride and ownership in the game as well as a vested interest in keeping the game the way they like it. Will it work? Who knows - but they (as does everybody else) certainly have the right to voice their opinions.

 

Think of how ANYTHING would be today if there wasn't a group of supports who defended how they thought it should be and helped to shape it and help or stop the evolution versus just sitting back and accepting it.

When the game started, the early adopters were people who already had GPSrs. These people were likely to already be involved in outdoor activities like hiking, fishing, and 4x4 off roading. So it made sense that early cache were hidden where you had to hike to or were in interesting or scenic locations. Even so, it didn't take long before people began hiding caches in urban locations. An urban cache would be found sooner and generally by more people. And they were easier to maintain. As geocaching popularity grew, new cachers joined that had never gone hiking in the woods before. They bought their first GPSr just for geocaching - or maybe if it had autorouting to use for automobile navigation. Caches that you could drive right up to gained in popularity. Micro caches began to become more popular allowing hides in more and more urban locations. GPS equipped cell phones allowed a whole new group of cachers including teenagers who don't have a car and can only cache where they can get to with public transportation or on their bicycles. Geoacaching has evolved much to the chagrin of many early adopters. Still there are many more hiking caches and caches in interesting and scenic spots then there use to be. If you like the geocache for these reason the good news is that the urban caches aren't stopping you. Geocaching.com has also progressed. Premium members can get pocket queries and use bookmark lists. New mapping options allow was to visualize where caches are located. Using these tools, it is not hard to select cache that are more likely to fit your criteria. The games has changed because of all the new cachers that have joined who have a different view of why caching is from than some of the early adopters. But the game has evolved ways to allow the different views to coexist. I think the old timers have every right to say that they don't care for certain kinds of caches. A certain amount of complaining about not being able to filter these out is justified, but it really isn't that hard. By the time I started in 2003 there were already more urban caches than hiking caches at least where I live in So. California. Yet it was easy for me using terrain ratings and geocaching maps to determine which caches I was most interested in doing. Today there are more tools and I can do this job with less work. I've also accepted the new styles of hides and will look for them sometimes when I'm in the mood for that kind of activity. So I view the changes to geocaching as giving me more choices. Certainly not as taking anything away.

[+Tweedledum & Tweedledee]

It's about a silly as people on the forums thinking that they need to reply to every post, no matter how crappy it is. Not that anyone on here does that...

[+Kealia]

How is that being narrow-minded? That's a bit of a baseless attack over a comment that isn't directed at anyone as a whole. The fact is that statement is dead on accurate. I have read multiple posts from cachers here with this mentality....as that poster stated, "some" harbor this mentality, not "all" or "most".

Ok, I didn't "attack" anybody. Somebody made a generalization and I responded to the comment, I didn't attack the person that made it. I see that he/she said "some", but trying to determine someone else's state of mind is a leap.

 

I am not trying to take anything away from your point. I can respect your sense of ownership in the game, but also don't be dismiss that there are many newer, youthful geocachers that take just as much a sense of ownership and have just as much passion for the game.

Absolutely agree.

 

Does being "old school" inherently give you more ownership? To me, harboring that attitude would be a bit narrow-minded. I am not accusing you of doing that. I am just making the comment. I can respect someone that cached longer than me, but not when the try to undermine an opinion on the basis of how long they've been around.

Absolutely not. Being around longer doesn't mean your opinion carries more weight or that you are any smarter/better than anybody else. If that's the way my post came across that certainly wasn't my intent.

[+egami]

Ok, I didn't "attack" anybody. Somebody made a generalization and I responded to the comment, I didn't attack the person that made it. I see that he/she said "some", but trying to determine someone else's state of mind is a leap.

 

Tossing around terms like "narrow-minded" aren't going to generally be accepted as complimentary, and are often times viewed as an attack, but I am not going to argue that aspect.

 

My disagreement is that the statement you quoted is indeed factually correct. It is not a generalization because the poster specifically stated it was "some" people that were like that in that group and that is factually true. He didn't try to make is sound like all, or a majority, acted in that manner.

Edited April 20, 2007 by egami

[+Kealia]

Yes but keep in mind that calling a statement narrow minded is MUCH different than calling out a person as narrow minded.

 

In any case, just pointing out the differnt views that SOME folks have.

[vtmtnman]

 

5. Some old timers have never progressed in their thinking that geocaching is now more than an "ammo box in the woods" and don't recognize that there's a slice of the geocaching population today that doesn't even want to go into the woods.

 

 

I love the woods with all my being,but the ammo box thing is DEAD on.People complain about lame micros and whatnot,yet all of their caches are the same thing...yay, another ammo can under another pile of sticks.

 

Perhaphs some cachers need different challenges or maybe they don't have the time to devote to heading out to the forest to find those.Maybe some cachers can't physically do them,or maybe there's parents that don't have time to do them,yet they could spare a moment at the grocery store to do a quick park and grab.I am all for being traditional with things,but sometimes "outside the box" thinking is a good thing.

 

It's always about the hunt until someone mentions a micro....

[+1911]

5. Some old timers have never progressed in their thinking that geocaching is now more than an "ammo box in the woods" and don't recognize that there's a slice of the geocaching population today that doesn't even want to go into the woods.

 

I think this comment is a bit narrow minded. For some, it has nothing to do with "progressing in their thinking". Some were around when the game was "young" and remember a kind of purity to the game where most caches consisted of regular size containers hidden in great spots, or on great hikes.

 

When they see the changes and evolution that the game is taking, they have a sense of pride and ownership in the game as well as a vested interest in keeping the game the way they like it. Will it work? Who knows - but they (as does everybody else) certainly have the right to voice their opinions.

 

Think of how ANYTHING would be today if there wasn't a group of supports who defended how they thought it should be and helped to shape it and help or stop the evolution versus just sitting back and accepting it.

When the game started, the early adopters were people who already had GPSrs. These people were likely to already be involved in outdoor activities like hiking, fishing, and 4x4 off roading. So it made sense that early cache were hidden where you had to hike to or were in interesting or scenic locations. Even so, it didn't take long before people began hiding caches in urban locations. An urban cache would be found sooner and generally by more people. And they were easier to maintain. As geocaching popularity grew, new cachers joined that had never gone hiking in the woods before. They bought their first GPSr just for geocaching - or maybe if it had autorouting to use for automobile navigation. Caches that you could drive right up to gained in popularity. Micro caches began to become more popular allowing hides in more and more urban locations. GPS equipped cell phones allowed a whole new group of cachers including teenagers who don't have a car and can only cache where they can get to with public transportation or on their bicycles. Geoacaching has evolved much to the chagrin of many early adopters. Still there are many more hiking caches and caches in interesting and scenic spots then there use to be. If you like the geocache for these reason the good news is that the urban caches aren't stopping you. Geocaching.com has also progressed. Premium members can get pocket queries and use bookmark lists. New mapping options allow was to visualize where caches are located. Using these tools, it is not hard to select cache that are more likely to fit your criteria. The games has changed because of all the new cachers that have joined who have a different view of why caching is from than some of the early adopters. But the game has evolved ways to allow the different views to coexist. I think the old timers have every right to say that they don't care for certain kinds of caches. A certain amount of complaining about not being able to filter these out is justified, but it really isn't that hard. By the time I started in 2003 there were already more urban caches than hiking caches at least where I live in So. California. Yet it was easy for me using terrain ratings and geocaching maps to determine which caches I was most interested in doing. Today there are more tools and I can do this job with less work. I've also accepted the new styles of hides and will look for them sometimes when I'm in the mood for that kind of activity. So I view the changes to geocaching as giving me more choices. Certainly not as taking anything away.

 

This topic or a variation of it has been around since I first started caching and I dont think it will ever go away

what this poster said about sums it up for me. different strokes for different folks

[+TrailGators]

Coming to the realization that some caches are just not worth looking for is sheer bliss. You can even drive close, get out and hike for a while and then arrive "on scene" look around and decide no way. Walk away.

 

If I am not having fun looking for a cache after just a few minutes - time to walk away.

 

Sadly - not many cachers ever get to that point. So they complain.

 

I too wish every cache offered some stunning view or bit of history or unknown thing or place. But they don't. I complain a little but also know I can simply cross them off my list.

I complain and vent. Sorry. But I also ignore caches and I try to think of solutions. Right now I am proposing an enhancement to the ignore feature that will allow us to ignore all the caches from certain cachers. I have noticed that a handful of cachers seem to be the Johnny Appleseeds of caches I dislike. So this feature will instantly clear my map of all their hides! Good-bye Johnny! Edited April 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+El Diablo]

There are a couple of new threads out right now, and I'm sure many others in the past that a simply rants about crappy caches. My question is, why does everyone feel that a crappy cache means that the rules of geocaching arn't working and we need more rules to prevent them? Why don't people take the approach that if it's a bad cache (in their opinion) to just skip it. Why do so many cachers feel that they must find every cache even if it's no fun? I can see a problem if a cache is unsafe, but so many complants have been simply that they don't like it.

 

Maybe it's because we hate to see our sport/hobby/game deteriorate. It's not that the old timers are objective to change. We started changing the sport from day one. I hid the first multiple cache in the area, and the first puzzle cache. I realize you aren't the one that mentioned oldtimers, I'm just to lazy to quote everyone seperately.

 

Also most oldtimers are the first to protest the addition to new rules or guidelines to the sport/hobby/game. We've always wanted the freedom to evolve the game/hobby/sport.

 

Now back on topic to address the concern over crappy caches. I'm speaking from my personal opinion and not for all oldtimers. It used to be unique to find a cache. It didn't matter if it was a nice hike in the woods, or a simple urban cache. They both had something in common. They had a purpose. Either to take you to a place you might not know exsisted, a scenic view, or maybe just a nice stroll in nature. Either way at the end of the cache you felt good for the most part.

 

Let's jump to today. Every Wal-Mart, or actually every shopping center now has a cache hidden in the vicinity. Some in the parking lot, some behind the store near the dumpsters. Of course there are the more creative ones with the magnetic holders on the back of a stop sign, or on a guardrail in the middle of nowhere.

 

I don't want new rules or guidelines. Hide what you want. However I will continue to rant about crappy caches and what they have done to this sport/game/hobby.

 

El Diablo

[Mr.Yuck]

5. Some old timers have never progressed in their thinking that geocaching is now more than an "ammo box in the woods" and don't recognize that there's a slice of the geocaching population today that doesn't even want to go into the woods.

 

I think this comment is a bit narrow minded. For some, it has nothing to do with "progressing in their thinking". Some were around when the game was "young" and remember a kind of purity to the game where most caches consisted of regular size containers hidden in great spots, or on great hikes.

 

When they see the changes and evolution that the game is taking, they have a sense of pride and ownership in the game as well as a vested interest in keeping the game the way they like it. Will it work? Who knows - but they (as does everybody else) certainly have the right to voice their opinions.

 

Think of how ANYTHING would be today if there wasn't a group of supports who defended how they thought it should be and helped to shape it and help or stop the evolution versus just sitting back and accepting it.

 

Oh, never mind.

Edited April 20, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[Mr.Yuck]

Ok, I didn't "attack" anybody. Somebody made a generalization and I responded to the comment, I didn't attack the person that made it. I see that he/she said "some", but trying to determine someone else's state of mind is a leap.

 

Tossing around terms like "narrow-minded" aren't going to generally be accepted as complimentary, and are often times viewed as an attack, but I am not going to argue that aspect.

 

My disagreement is that the statement you quoted is indeed factually correct. It is not a generalization because the poster specifically stated it was "some" people that were like that in that group and that is factually true. He didn't try to make is sound like all, or a majority, acted in that manner.

 

I too was quite offended by the "progressing in their thinking" comment. Probably as offended as you were about the "narrow minded" comment. And I'm sure I would have typed a response very similiar to Kealia's if he didn't beat me to it. I don't think for one minute people needing to "progress in their thinking" is factually true, but rather an opinion held by some. But with a subject like Crappy caches, this thread is going to be an huge angst magnet. Not that either one of you have exhibited any.

Edited April 20, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+egami]

Yes but keep in mind that calling a statement narrow minded is MUCH different than calling out a person as narrow minded.

 

In any case, just pointing out the differnt views that SOME folks have.

 

If you go re-read what I wrote I never accused you of attacking the person. However, attacking a statement someone made is no different then attacking them. It's their ideology and it's part of them no matter how you choose to twist it.

Edited April 20, 2007 by egami

[+egami]

I too was quite offended by the "progressing in their thinking" comment. Probably as offended as you were about the "narrow minded" comment. And I'm sure I would have typed a response very similiar to Kealia's if he didn't beat me to it. I don't think for one minute people needing to "progress in their thinking" is factually true, but rather an opinion held by some. But with a subject like Crappy caches, this thread is going to be an huge angst magnet. Not that either one of you have exhibited any.

 

I am sorry you were offended. That would mean that you were one of the individuals that is guilty of this...otherwise, why take offense.

 

However, I wasn't offended by any comment. I was simply asking where a baseless attack was coming from.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that there are a few cachers that harbor the mentality that this person pointed out. Thankfully it's just "some" of them as he stated. And, yes, I don't have any problem with him mentioning the "progresssion in their thinking" as being at issue because the "few" individuals that are like this to appear to have some issue with their ability to reason if they are weighing their opinions against others on the basis of how long they've been geocaching.

Edited April 20, 2007 by egami

[+halffast]

I gotta quit reading these forums.I have a cache ready to place but need to set it up with certain obsticles to make it work.I have searched for 6 months and haven't found that spot.I have been to great veiws,and great places,and seen interesting things in my search , but still havn't placed it.I would like it to be a cache that is not one talked about being crappy but I'm sure there will be some that will think it is.I have a few caches that when I placed at a interesting place to me still get the TNLN logs.Now I wonder if they are crappy to.I dont think they are but some must or they would have said otherwise.Unless some cachers just make a quick log on the find.

[+egami]

I gotta quit reading these forums.I have a cache ready to place but need to set it up with certain obsticles to make it work.I have searched for 6 months and haven't found that spot.I have been to great veiws,and great places,and seen interesting things in my search , but still havn't placed it.I would like it to be a cache that is not one talked about being crappy but I'm sure there will be some that will think it is.I have a few caches that when I placed at a interesting place to me still get the TNLN logs.Now I wonder if they are crappy to.I dont think they are but some must or they would have said otherwise.Unless some cachers just make a quick log on the find.

 

The thing to remember is that there is a tremendous amount of diversity in cachers. It's not your job to place a cache that appeals to everyone. What is important is that appeals to you and adheres to the basic guidelines. Just because someone doesn't like your cache location doesn't mean that most people also do not.

[Mr.Yuck]

I too was quite offended by the "progressing in their thinking" comment. Probably as offended as you were about the "narrow minded" comment. And I'm sure I would have typed a response very similiar to Kealia's if he didn't beat me to it. I don't think for one minute people needing to "progress in their thinking" is factually true, but rather an opinion held by some. But with a subject like Crappy caches, this thread is going to be an huge angst magnet. Not that either one of you have exhibited any.

 

I am sorry you were offended. That would mean that you were one of the individuals that is guilty of this...otherwise, why take offense.

 

However, I wasn't offended by any comment. I was simply asking where a baseless attack was coming from.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that there are a few cachers that harbor the mentality that this person pointed out. Thankfully it's just "some" of them as he stated. And, yes, I don't have any problem with him mentioning the "progresssion in their thinking" as being at issue because the "few" individuals that are like this to appear to have some issue with their ability to reason if they are weighing their opinions against others on the basis of how long they've been geocaching.

 

And now you are throwing around words like "guilty" and "mentality"? In August 2003, I discovered the greatest hobby in the world, which took me to awesome parks and hiking trails in my own backyard that I had no idea existed. If I have the opinion that the game is deteriorating into one played in parking lots, almost exclusively on private property without permission for soggy logscraps in film canisters, then I have every right to express that opinion. If you feel that people with differing opinions than yourself are "guilty" and harbor a "mentality", then perhaps your opinion is narrow minded.

[+egami]

And now you are throwing around words like "guilty" and "mentality"? In August 2003, I discovered the greatest hobby in the world, which took me to awesome parks and hiking trails in my own backyard that I had no idea existed. If I have the opinion that the game is deteriorating into one played in parking lots, almost exclusively on private property without permission for soggy logscraps in film canisters, then I have every right to express that opinion. If you feel that people with differing opinions than yourself are "guilty" and harbor a "mentality", then perhaps your opinion is narrow minded.

 

Go back and carefully read, again, what my contention is...then come back and show me where my opinion is narrow-minded.

 

Not once did I say your opinion isn't valid. You are confounding the issue.

[Mr.Yuck]

And now you are throwing around words like "guilty" and "mentality"? In August 2003, I discovered the greatest hobby in the world, which took me to awesome parks and hiking trails in my own backyard that I had no idea existed. If I have the opinion that the game is deteriorating into one played in parking lots, almost exclusively on private property without permission for soggy logscraps in film canisters, then I have every right to express that opinion. If you feel that people with differing opinions than yourself are "guilty" and harbor a "mentality", then perhaps your opinion is narrow minded.

 

Go back and carefully read, again, what my contention is...then come back and show me where my opinion is narrow-minded.

 

Not once did I say your opinion isn't valid. You are confounding the issue.

 

Confounding what issue? That you think people who hold a certain position on an issue that differs from yours are "guilty of harboring a mentaliity", and "have an issue with their ability to reason". I needn't go on.

 

Welcome to Plonksville, population you.

Edited April 20, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+egami]

Confounding what issue? That you think people who hold a certain position on an issue that differs from yours are "guilty of harboring a mentaliity", and "thankfully it's just some of them", and "have an issue with their ability to reason". I needn't go on.

 

Welcome to Plonksville, population you.

 

Yes, some people are guilty of harboring the mentality that since they've been caching longer their opinion outvalues someone elses on the basis that they've cached longer. That is plain and simple ignorance and logically an incorrect assumption.

 

If you believe your opinion has more simply on that basis then yes I have an issue with that.

[+KBI]

5. Some old timers have never progressed in their thinking that geocaching is now more than an "ammo box in the woods" and don't recognize that there's a slice of the geocaching population today that doesn't even want to go into the woods.

I think this comment is a bit narrow minded. For some, it has nothing to do with "progressing in their thinking". Some were around when the game was "young" and remember a kind of purity to the game where most caches consisted of regular size containers hidden in great spots, or on great hikes.

 

When they see the changes and evolution that the game is taking, they have a sense of pride and ownership in the game as well as a vested interest in keeping the game the way they like it. Will it work? Who knows - but they (as does everybody else) certainly have the right to voice their opinions.

 

Think of how ANYTHING would be today if there wasn't a group of supports who defended how they thought it should be and helped to shape it and help or stop the evolution versus just sitting back and accepting it.

When the game started, the early adopters were people who already had GPSrs. These people were likely to already be involved in outdoor activities like hiking, fishing, and 4x4 off roading. So it made sense that early cache were hidden where you had to hike to or were in interesting or scenic locations. Even so, it didn't take long before people began hiding caches in urban locations. An urban cache would be found sooner and generally by more people. And they were easier to maintain. As geocaching popularity grew, new cachers joined that had never gone hiking in the woods before. They bought their first GPSr just for geocaching - or maybe if it had autorouting to use for automobile navigation. Caches that you could drive right up to gained in popularity. Micro caches began to become more popular allowing hides in more and more urban locations. GPS equipped cell phones allowed a whole new group of cachers including teenagers who don't have a car and can only cache where they can get to with public transportation or on their bicycles. Geoacaching has evolved much to the chagrin of many early adopters. Still there are many more hiking caches and caches in interesting and scenic spots then there use to be. If you like the geocache for these reason the good news is that the urban caches aren't stopping you. Geocaching.com has also progressed. Premium members can get pocket queries and use bookmark lists. New mapping options allow was to visualize where caches are located. Using these tools, it is not hard to select cache that are more likely to fit your criteria. The games has changed because of all the new cachers that have joined who have a different view of why caching is from than some of the early adopters. But the game has evolved ways to allow the different views to coexist.....the old timers have every right to say that they don't care for certain kinds of caches. A certain amount of complaining about not being able to filter these out is justified, but it really isn't that hard.....

Toz, that is a very thorough, very well-balanced and very well-written history of the issue. I think Groundspeak should add it to the official FAQ. Showing new cachers (and many existing ones) the reasons behind what they might otherwise be inclined to rant against from their limited and potentially selfish point of view might head off some of the future complaining.

[+KBI]

Welcome to Plonksville, population you.

Do you find it's easier to be comfortable with your own debate position when you electronically ignore those who disagree with your position?

 

When you debate these issues with others outside the forums and face to face, do you respond to uncomfortable rebuttals by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly?

[Mr.Yuck]

5. Some old timers have never progressed in their thinking that geocaching is now more than an "ammo box in the woods" and don't recognize that there's a slice of the geocaching population today that doesn't even want to go into the woods.

I think this comment is a bit narrow minded. For some, it has nothing to do with "progressing in their thinking". Some were around when the game was "young" and remember a kind of purity to the game where most caches consisted of regular size containers hidden in great spots, or on great hikes.

 

When they see the changes and evolution that the game is taking, they have a sense of pride and ownership in the game as well as a vested interest in keeping the game the way they like it. Will it work? Who knows - but they (as does everybody else) certainly have the right to voice their opinions.

 

Think of how ANYTHING would be today if there wasn't a group of supports who defended how they thought it should be and helped to shape it and help or stop the evolution versus just sitting back and accepting it.

When the game started, the early adopters were people who already had GPSrs. These people were likely to already be involved in outdoor activities like hiking, fishing, and 4x4 off roading. So it made sense that early cache were hidden where you had to hike to or were in interesting or scenic locations. Even so, it didn't take long before people began hiding caches in urban locations. An urban cache would be found sooner and generally by more people. And they were easier to maintain. As geocaching popularity grew, new cachers joined that had never gone hiking in the woods before. They bought their first GPSr just for geocaching - or maybe if it had autorouting to use for automobile navigation. Caches that you could drive right up to gained in popularity. Micro caches began to become more popular allowing hides in more and more urban locations. GPS equipped cell phones allowed a whole new group of cachers including teenagers who don't have a car and can only cache where they can get to with public transportation or on their bicycles. Geoacaching has evolved much to the chagrin of many early adopters. Still there are many more hiking caches and caches in interesting and scenic spots then there use to be. If you like the geocache for these reason the good news is that the urban caches aren't stopping you. Geocaching.com has also progressed. Premium members can get pocket queries and use bookmark lists. New mapping options allow was to visualize where caches are located. Using these tools, it is not hard to select cache that are more likely to fit your criteria. The games has changed because of all the new cachers that have joined who have a different view of why caching is from than some of the early adopters. But the game has evolved ways to allow the different views to coexist.....the old timers have every right to say that they don't care for certain kinds of caches. A certain amount of complaining about not being able to filter these out is justified, but it really isn't that hard.....

Toz, that is a very thorough, very well-balanced and very well-written history of the issue. I think Groundspeak should add it to the official FAQ. Showing new cachers (and many existing ones) the reasons behind what they might otherwise be inclined to rant against from their limited and potentially selfish point of view might head off some of the future complaining.

 

I agree, hats off to Mr. T! I don't know about the FAQ though. I still can't figure out why the classic Guide to hiding your first geocache page makes it sound as though all caches should be of the type that us Puritans like.

[+sbell111]

5. Some old timers have never progressed in their thinking that geocaching is now more than an "ammo box in the woods" and don't recognize that there's a slice of the geocaching population today that doesn't even want to go into the woods.

 

I think this comment is a bit narrow minded. For some, it has nothing to do with "progressing in their thinking". Some were around when the game was "young" and remember a kind of purity to the game where most caches consisted of regular size containers hidden in great spots, or on great hikes.

 

When they see the changes and evolution that the game is taking, they have a sense of pride and ownership in the game as well as a vested interest in keeping the game the way they like it. Will it work? Who knows - but they (as does everybody else) certainly have the right to voice their opinions.

 

Think of how ANYTHING would be today if there wasn't a group of supports who defended how they thought it should be and helped to shape it and help or stop the evolution versus just sitting back and accepting it.

I find your post to be hilarious. You see, I looked up a post that I made whining about meaningless micros. It was dated thirteen months before you started playing the game.

 

My point is that the 'old days' weren't nearly as rosey as some posters would make them appear. The truth is, there has been very little change to how caches are hidden since the early days. I think the only change is that there are a honking lot of caches out there. Back when I started, there were very, very few. We would go out to find the only cache within a reasonable distance and it may or may not have been a totally boring cache, but it at least got us out of the house. Nothing has changed except the number of caches that we now have to choose from.

 

Luckily, while it may be difficult to specifically sort out the ones that we hate, it is very easy to sort out the ones that we're darn sure that we'll like. Some complain that this limits their caching because they miss out on the 'maybe good' caches. My response to this argument is 'So what? You still have eleventeen bajillion caches that you know that you'll like. Stop your bellyaching and go find those caches.'

[Mr.Yuck]

Welcome to Plonksville, population you.

Do you find it's easier to be comfortable with your own debate position when you electronically ignore those who disagree with your position?

 

When you debate these issues with others outside the forums and face to face, do you respond to uncomfortable rebuttals by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly?

 

Do you ask this question in millions of other internet forums and usenet, where this is a well-accepted (and I might mention highly recommended) practice? This particular plonkee seems to believe anyone with opinions on a subject (forget we're in the geocaching.com forums, pretend we're talking about widgets) differing from theirs posesses less than desireable character traits, and that this is apparently "factual" in his own words. Upon further review, the Plonk stands.

[+sbell111]

Welcome to Plonksville, population you.

Do you find it's easier to be comfortable with your own debate position when you electronically ignore those who disagree with your position?

 

When you debate these issues with others outside the forums and face to face, do you respond to uncomfortable rebuttals by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly?

 

Do you ask this question in millions of other internet forums and usenet, where this is a well-accepted (and I might mention highly recommended) practice? This particular plonkee seems to believe anyone with opinions on a subject (forget we're in the geocaching.com forums, pretend we're talking about widgets) differing from theirs posesses less than desireable character traits, and that this is apparently "factual" in his own words. Upon further review, the Plonk stands.

Wow. I thought you were describing yourself, for a second.

[+egami]

Do you ask this question in millions of other internet forums and usenet, where this is a well-accepted (and I might mention highly recommended) practice?

 

He asks the question because you apparently can't discuss things from a logical position.

 

This particular plonkee seems to believe anyone with opinions on a subject (forget we're in the geocaching.com forums, pretend we're talking about widgets) differing from theirs posesses less than desireable character traits, and that this is apparently "factual" in his own words. Upon further review, the Plonk stands.

 

Now we've regressed to outright name-calling.

 

Again, I challenge you to quote me where I stated anything of the sort. You're welcome to your opinion and I've never stated otherwise.

 

However, you need to accept the fact that when you support and believe the ideology that a cacher that has more experience caching automatically has more merit on their opinions because they've been caching longer that you're making a logically fallable assumption.

[+KBI]

Welcome to Plonksville, population you.

Do you find it's easier to be comfortable with your own debate position when you electronically ignore those who disagree with your position?

 

When you debate these issues with others outside the forums and face to face, do you respond to uncomfortable rebuttals by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly?

Do you ask this question in millions of other internet forums and usenet, where this is a well-accepted (and I might mention highly recommended) practice?

I've been involved in public discussions where the practice was commonly used, yes. But not since about the 8th grade.

 

If there is something unreasonable, illogical or unfair about something someone has said, you're free to point out the faulty logic, bad reasoning or unfairness. Hiding from the other person's arguments doesn't do much for the credibility of your own position, however. It makes you sound insecure about your beliefs.

 

That's just my opinion, of course. If you disagree, then maybe you'd fell better adding me to your ignore list as well.

[Mr.Yuck]

Welcome to Plonksville, population you.

Do you find it's easier to be comfortable with your own debate position when you electronically ignore those who disagree with your position?

 

When you debate these issues with others outside the forums and face to face, do you respond to uncomfortable rebuttals by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly?

Do you ask this question in millions of other internet forums and usenet, where this is a well-accepted (and I might mention highly recommended) practice?

I've been involved in public discussions where the practice was commonly used, yes. But not since about the 8th grade.

 

If there is something unreasonable, illogical or unfair about something someone has said, you're free to point out the faulty logic, bad reasoning or unfairness. Hiding from the other person's arguments doesn't do much for the credibility of your own position, however. It makes you sound insecure about your beliefs.

 

That's just my opinion, of course. If you disagree, then maybe you'd fell better adding me to your ignore list as well.

 

OK, KBI, you probably don't ignore anyone in these forums. There is an option where you can still see the post, if you so choose. So in fairness I just looked at his last two posts. Surprise, he said the exact same thing in both posts. No need to respond to the same thing over and over. He's towing the party line, too, I might add. And still throwing around his opinion and perception as if it's some sort of undisputed fact. Excuse me now, I have a couple of caches to find.

[+Renegade Knight]

Crap is as crap does.

 

Smells bad?

It depends on how much of a stink the crappy cache complainers who consciously choose to contemplate and complain want to make.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

My point is that the 'old days' weren't nearly as rosey as some posters would make them appear. The truth is, there has been very little change to how caches are hidden since the early days. I think the only change is that there are a honking lot of caches out there. Back when I started, there were very, very few. We would go out to find the only cache within a reasonable distance and it may or may not have been a totally boring cache, but it at least got us out of the house. Nothing has changed except the number of caches that we now have to choose from.

 

Luckily, while it may be difficult to specifically sort out the ones that we hate, it is very easy to sort out the ones that we're darn sure that we'll like. Some complain that this limits their caching because they miss out on the 'maybe good' caches. My response to this argument is 'So what? You still have eleventeen bajillion caches that you know that you'll like. Stop your bellyaching and go find those caches.'

(Empasis mine) Exactly! Using GSAK, this is very true. Doing a couple of quick filters in the GSAK database around the "centerpoint" for the day's caching "adventure" before putting the waypoints into your GPSr and Palm would give a cacher the more difficult, challenging Terrain '1' caches, as well as the caches with a Terrain rating of '2 1/2' and above . . .

 

Easy peasey . . .

 

When I was traveling, I filtered out the caches with a Difficulty rating of '2' and above because I didn't want to spend a lot of time searching . . . I just wanted to take a quick break from the road. Doing the reverse should give a cacher only the better, unique, cleverly-cammoed, hair-pulling, urban caches like this one.

[+KBI]

Welcome to Plonksville, population you.

Do you find it's easier to be comfortable with your own debate position when you electronically ignore those who disagree with your position?

 

When you debate these issues with others outside the forums and face to face, do you respond to uncomfortable rebuttals by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly?

Do you ask this question in millions of other internet forums and usenet, where this is a well-accepted (and I might mention highly recommended) practice?

I've been involved in public discussions where the practice was commonly used, yes. But not since about the 8th grade.

 

If there is something unreasonable, illogical or unfair about something someone has said, you're free to point out the faulty logic, bad reasoning or unfairness. Hiding from the other person's arguments doesn't do much for the credibility of your own position, however. It makes you sound insecure about your beliefs.

 

That's just my opinion, of course. If you disagree, then maybe you'd fell better adding me to your ignore list as well.

 

OK, KBI, you probably don't ignore anyone in these forums. There is an option where you can still see the post, if you so choose. So in fairness I just looked at his last two posts. Surprise, he said the exact same thing in both posts. No need to respond to the same thing over and over. He's towing the party line, too, I might add. And still throwing around his opinion and perception as if it's some sort of undisputed fact.

You have objections. I bolded your objections. Why not respond to HIM with those objections instead of pretending he isn't there?

 

Again, it doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong; hiding from the other person's arguments doesn't do much for the credibility of your own position. I have never understood why a person who is so insecure about their own arguments that they resort to 'plonking' would publicly admit doing so.

 

This side issue is off topic. That's my fault. If you want any more responses from me on this, please PM me or start a plonking thread.

 

 

Excuse me now, I have a couple of caches to find.

Well okay then. Bye!

[Mr.Yuck]

Welcome to Plonksville, population you.

Do you find it's easier to be comfortable with your own debate position when you electronically ignore those who disagree with your position?

 

When you debate these issues with others outside the forums and face to face, do you respond to uncomfortable rebuttals by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly?

Do you ask this question in millions of other internet forums and usenet, where this is a well-accepted (and I might mention highly recommended) practice?

I've been involved in public discussions where the practice was commonly used, yes. But not since about the 8th grade.

 

If there is something unreasonable, illogical or unfair about something someone has said, you're free to point out the faulty logic, bad reasoning or unfairness. Hiding from the other person's arguments doesn't do much for the credibility of your own position, however. It makes you sound insecure about your beliefs.

 

That's just my opinion, of course. If you disagree, then maybe you'd fell better adding me to your ignore list as well.

 

OK, KBI, you probably don't ignore anyone in these forums. There is an option where you can still see the post, if you so choose. So in fairness I just looked at his last two posts. Surprise, he said the exact same thing in both posts. No need to respond to the same thing over and over. He's towing the party line, too, I might add. And still throwing around his opinion and perception as if it's some sort of undisputed fact.

You have objections. I bolded your objections. Why not respond to HIM with those objections instead of pretending he isn't there?

 

Again, it doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong; hiding from the other person's arguments doesn't do much for the credibility of your own position. I have never understood why a person who is so insecure about their own arguments that they resort to 'plonking' would publicly admit doing so.

 

This side issue is off topic. That's my fault. If you want any more responses from me on this, please PM me or start a plonking thread.

 

Excuse me now, I have a couple of caches to find.

Well okay then. Bye!

 

Got it, will PM in the near future. Only found 1, oh well.