ONCE AND FOR ALL... No more beatin' around the bush.

[+briansnat]

Sure I can. Have we met? No? Then I still haven't met anyone who fawns over lamp posts.

I haven't met anyone who fawns over a pile of sticks, but you still like to hunt those caches. Many, many examples have been given of people who enjoy looking for those caches that you deride.

 

Tsk, tsk tsk, people still getting hung up over the hiding method. It's not the pile of sticks, or the lamp post. It's where that pile of sticks or lamp post are.

[Mr.Yuck]

For the record, I don't defend lame caches. I defend the right of all cachers to place any cache that meets the guidelines for publication. Is there anyone here who doesn't agree with that?

 

Coyote Red keeps talking about the banning of virtuals. It's funny if you think about it. GC.com banned virts in part because reviewers couldn't objectively determine which ones had enough WOW! factor. Rather than try to apply subjective standards that pleased almost no one, they BANNED the entire category! I guess we'll just have to ban regular caches now.

 

While Coyote Red keeps talking about the banning of virtuals, You keep talking about caches that meet the guidelines for publication. I would argue that the overwhelming majority of parking lot LPC's, for example, do not meet the guidelines for publication, as they're on private property without permission, approved under a "look the other way and assume permission" policy.

 

[Edit] By the way, not trying to stir up the ol' "adequate permission" debate, but just trying to point out the blanket statement about "meeting guidelines for publication" is not without a grey area, in some people's opinion

Edited May 7, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+sbell111]

... Sure those parking lot and loading dock caches are popular, but is it really the cache that everyone thinks is so wonderful, or is the opportunity for a quick smiley what draws so many? I argue its the latter. ...

Certainly some people just find those for the quick smiley, but is there anything wrong with that? What about the people who openly praise those hides in their logs? Does their opinion not matter?

You conveniently leave out the rest of my post to so you don't have to address those points.

I addressed one of 'those points' in a different post and chose not to address the rest. Surely, I don't have to hit on every part of every post everybody makes.

And do people really praise shopping mall LPCs caches in their logs? I see mostly stuff like "thanks for the smiley" and "thanks for the quick find" which tend to bolster my argument. Do they really garner logs like this and this (both urban caches). I doubt it.

Sigh. This has been addressed before, but I'll do it again. Please stand by.

[+sbell111]

Sure I can. Have we met? No? Then I still haven't met anyone who fawns over lamp posts.

I haven't met anyone who fawns over a pile of sticks, but you still like to hunt those caches. Many, many examples have been given of people who enjoy looking for those caches that you deride.

 

Tsk, tsk tsk, people still getting hung up over the hiding method. It's not the pile of sticks, or the lamp post. It's where that pile of sticks or lamp post are.

Actually, you are wrong. It is about whether people enjoy placing and finding the cache.

[+briansnat]

This whole argument reminds me of some other ones I've been involved with on other forums.

 

The immigration argument-

 

Side 1: Illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

Side 2: Why do you hate immigrants?

 

Whether Christians should drink-

 

Side 1: There is nothing wrong with a glass of wine or beer now and then.

 

Side 2: The Bible condemns drunkeness.

 

Here it's:

 

Side 1: Lets try to raise the bar with our cache hides.

 

Side 2: How dare you tell us we can't place urban caches.

[Trinity's Crew]

For the record, I don't defend lame caches. I defend the right of all cachers to place any cache that meets the guidelines for publication. Is there anyone here who doesn't agree with that?

 

Coyote Red keeps talking about the banning of virtuals. It's funny if you think about it. GC.com banned virts in part because reviewers couldn't objectively determine which ones had enough WOW! factor. Rather than try to apply subjective standards that pleased almost no one, they BANNED the entire category! I guess we'll just have to ban regular caches now.

 

While Coyote Red keeps talking about the banning of virtuals, You keep talking about caches that meet the guidelines for publication. I would argue that the overwhelming majority of parking lot LPC's do not meet the guidelines for publication, as they're on private property without permission, approved under a "look the other way and assume permission" policy.

If you have specific knowledge of caches that violate the guidelines I would urge you to post an SBA to those caches immediately.

[+briansnat]

Sigh. This has been addressed before, but I'll do it again. Please stand by.

 

I'll wait for a link to the log that says "Thanks for the cache in this beautiful parking lot. The lining job was superp. Loved the shade of yellow they used. I never would have discovered this parking lot if not for geocaching. And that Home Depot, it was a sight to behold. This is my favorite cache ever".

[+sbell111]

And do people really praise shopping mall LPCs caches in their logs? I see mostly stuff like "thanks for the smiley" and "thanks for the quick find" which tend to bolster my argument. Do they really garner logs like this and this (both urban caches). I doubt it.

Sigh. This has been addressed before, but I'll do it again. Please stand by.

Logs from a shopping center LPC:

on a great day to cache--keep up the good work--i love this type of hide --do more like this

(#132) tagging along with XXXXX and XXXXX. XXXXX cache raid #2 for me... nice hide. TFTC.

 

<Had to break this post into two as I was running up against the quote limit.>

Edited May 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

<Continued from previous post>

We found this on a quick run in the area chasing 3100. The weather was really nice and we could almost smell spring in the air. Thanks for the the hunting opportunity.

Quick find. I shop here all the time, so it was also convenient. Thanks.

Thanks for the quick find while heading home from taking my kids to school!

Found with Mom and Dad as TEAM XXXXX after we went to a cold windy event in the park! I got really cold and was glad to get the van warm again! I like these places! TFTF

Thanks to all who have taken the time to place these caches and better this great sport.

We noticed a cache coming up as we were approaching our turn off, so we detoured a bit to go find it.

 

Nice quick one. Thanks for bringing us here!

I had to run a very quick errand during lunch and this one was way too close to pass up. Thanks for placing it.

 

A little patience was required to make sure that the coast was clear, but it was worth it.

Found on the way to help paint XXXXX's new crib. Thanks for taking the time to hide it. Found with the rest of Team XXXXX, the gang from XXXXX University.

Found it. #10 for this afternoon which brings me up to 780. I don't have problems with a lightpole cache. Thanks.

All of these people (and more) clearly enjoyed this cache. Did they enjoy it for the same reasons that you would enjoy a cache? Clearly not. Is that a bad thing? Certainly not.

Edited May 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Here it's:

 

Side 1: Lets try to raise the bar with our cache hides.

 

Side 2: How dare you tell us we can't place urban caches.

Actually it's more like this:

 

Side 1: I don't like those caches. We must do better.

 

Side 2: Lots of people like them, why don't you just go find those caches that you do like.

[+bilbad]

Personally I like Wal-Mart LPCs cause I can Geocache while my wife shops!

 

Seriously though I hate walking in 2 miles to find a lame cache or doing a multi where one point is so wet you can not get to the next... or.. finding that elusive (tongue in cheek) cache that was expressly placed to advertise a place of business. I have been surprised at times as well.. I did a cache yesterday that was placed by a business owner but the owner was also knowledgeable about the local history and I was on a "caching" tour of this particular history. It turned out that what I thought might be a "lame" cache was very informative and rewarding. I try to weed out those caches I may not enjoy but have been disappointed by one I thought would be cool or surprised by one I took a chance on that I thought would be lame. I havn't found 100s of caches yet but I always have fun. I agree with the OP in his initial post and would expand it further as a bit of advise... when you find a cache you enjoyed, note the owner and go find any other caches that were placed by that same person. This bit of foresite has made my caching experiences more rewarding to me. I must say one thing as well "It is not the hiders fault if you are not having a good time... It is the finders problem." The hider has already had thier fun, weather it be devious, entertaining, a pain in the butt, or down right mean. Don't let it "steal" your fun.

[Trinity's Crew]

This whole argument reminds me of some other ones I've been involved with on other forums.

 

The immigration argument-

 

Side 1: Illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

Side 2: Why do you hate immigrants?

 

Their presence is illegal. Whether I hate them or love them is inconsequential.

 

Whether Christians should drink-

 

Side 1: There is nothing wrong with a glass of wine or beer now and then.

 

Side 2: The Bible condemns drunkeness.

Those who see nothing wrong with a drink now and then are often described as tolerant. Those who expect others to stop drinking because they don't like it are often described as intolerant. Are you tolerant or intolerant of others when it comes to cache placement?

Here it's:

 

Side 1: Lets try to raise the bar with our cache hides.

 

Side 2: How dare you tell us we can't place urban caches.

Or... Side 2: That's a great idea! I would love to try and raise the bar with our cache hides, but it seems more like you are just complaining about your dislikes.

[+briansnat]

Here it's:

 

Side 1: Lets try to raise the bar with our cache hides.

 

Side 2: How dare you tell us we can't place urban caches.

Actually it's more like this:

 

Side 1: I don't like those caches. We must do better.

 

Side 2: Lots of people like them, why don't you just go find those caches that you do like.

 

Side 1: It's getting harder and harder for me to do so because of all the clutter.

 

Side 2: You have sit in front of your computer and start researching caches. Look at sat photos, dowload Google Earth, go to the library, learn GIS.

 

Side 1: I liked it better when I could turn my GPS on and head out the door.

[+sbell111]

Side 1: It's getting harder and harder for me to do so because of all the clutter.

 

Side 2: You have sit in front of your computer and start researching caches. Look at sat photos, dowload Google Earth, go to the library, learn GIS. A few simple PQs will help you weed out a ton of caches that you will likely not enjoy and leave you with tons of caches that you will likely enjoy.

 

Side 1: I liked it better when I could turn my GPS on and head out the door.

Side 2: It used to be that there were only a cache or two in the area to find. We were grateful for anything, good or bad. Now there are so many caches that we can afford to be selective. Edited May 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+The Jester]

...

Side 1: I liked it better when I could turn my GPS on and head out the door.

I liked it better when I could buy gas for less than a dollar. Reality has changed.

[Mr.Yuck]

For the record, I don't defend lame caches. I defend the right of all cachers to place any cache that meets the guidelines for publication. Is there anyone here who doesn't agree with that?

 

Coyote Red keeps talking about the banning of virtuals. It's funny if you think about it. GC.com banned virts in part because reviewers couldn't objectively determine which ones had enough WOW! factor. Rather than try to apply subjective standards that pleased almost no one, they BANNED the entire category! I guess we'll just have to ban regular caches now.

 

While Coyote Red keeps talking about the banning of virtuals, You keep talking about caches that meet the guidelines for publication. I would argue that the overwhelming majority of parking lot LPC's do not meet the guidelines for publication, as they're on private property without permission, approved under a "look the other way and assume permission" policy.

If you have specific knowledge of caches that violate the guidelines I would urge you to post an SBA to those caches immediately.

 

Oh stop it. Like I'm going to post SBA's on thousands of LPC's in people's parking lots because the hider doesn't have permission. I have much more important things to do, like having to research them on a on-by-one basis as they are published, so I can ignore them.

[+briansnat]

<Continued from previous post>

We found this on a quick run in the area chasing 3100. The weather was really nice and we could almost smell spring in the air. Thanks for the the hunting opportunity.

Quick find. I shop here all the time, so it was also convenient. Thanks.

Thanks for the quick find while heading home from taking my kids to school!

Found with Mom and Dad as TEAM XXXXX after we went to a cold windy event in the park! I got really cold and was glad to get the van warm again! I like these places! TFTF

Thanks to all who have taken the time to place these caches and better this great sport.

We noticed a cache coming up as we were approaching our turn off, so we detoured a bit to go find it.

 

Nice quick one. Thanks for bringing us here!

I had to run a very quick errand during lunch and this one was way too close to pass up. Thanks for placing it.

 

A little patience was required to make sure that the coast was clear, but it was worth it.

Found on the way to help paint XXXXX's new crib. Thanks for taking the time to hide it. Found with the rest of Team XXXXX, the gang from XXXXX University.

Found it. #10 for this afternoon which brings me up to 780. I don't have problems with a lightpole cache. Thanks.

All of these people (and more) clearly enjoyed this cache. Did they enjoy it for the same reasons that you would enjoy a cache? Clearly not. Is that a bad thing? Certainly not.

 

I don't see a single glowing log there. They basically seem to back up my premise that people find these more for the convenient, quick smiley, than with any great enthusiasm.

 

Find me some LPCs with logs like these (note the first two are urban caches):

 

September 16, 2006 by CoolCache (68 found)

WOW!! What a cool place! We were fortunate in that the next door neighbor was doing yardwork and offered to show us the petroglyphs. While searching for the second petroglyph, I happened to look in one direction as the neighbor was turning in the other, and I saw the cache!!! I quickly took some pictures and ran to the car with the excuse of getting a CITO bag. There really was a lot of CITO, so be careful. Cache is hidden very well! TNLNSL. Thanks for taking us to such a wonderful place.

 

September 24, 2006 by Apparently Liked It (1261 found)

 

"Call me Ishmael."

 

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair."

 

"The cold passed reluctantly from the earth, and the retiring fogs revealed an army stretched out on the hills, resting."

 

American literature is replete with wondrous opening sentences, they set the stage, flavor and tone for the experience to come.

 

It is not my intention to equalize this cache with Melville, Dickens and Crane, but when you turn the bend on the trail from the Grace Lord parking area on Morris Avenue, the opening visual of the cache is presented, and you identify that this is going to be an distinguished geocache experience.

 

I will be circumspect with my comments to preserve the experience for others.

 

I observed the remnants of the railroad turntable. I believe that the many historical ruins around the area are not from the same time period. Each ruin should be taken on its own. I arrived at the first stage, mitigated the bounce and found the cache. I observed the kiln and what I believe is a storage area for finished product or the material waiting to be processed. The coordinates for the second stage were very accurate, combined with the hint, made the recovery of the second stage cache a fun challenging task. The final cache was hidden in the expected location, the coordinates, after some bounce settled nicely on the GZ.

 

TNLN, SL.

 

Thanks for a superlative multi cache, well done.

 

 

March 18, 2006 by Thoughtitwasgood (303 found)

It was a perfect day to come up for this cache, clear and cool. As I was getting closer to the top, the views from the trail were really great, but at the top, that's amazing. You can see for miles in every direction. Looking past the Wanaque Reservoir and the bridge on 287, NYC was visible like a post card.

 

Thanks for bringing me to the best view around.

 

March 3 by GreatfulCacher (13 found)

WOW! What a Very Cool Place! Really enjoyed this one. Took time to enjoy,and look around..also wonderful view of NYC skyline in far distance! Third find of the day,and once again the coordinates were right on! Were muggles coming and going. Took lots of photos. Will try to upload later. TNLNSL

 

January 19, 2003 by Wowed (52 found)

Wow! Wow! Wow! I realize now that I need to get in shape! No complaints though...I read the posts about the hike and went anyway. I'm a glutton for punishment!

 

This was a GREAT workout and the views were tremendous!

 

November 11, 2005 by liked it (368 found)

Now this is a most excellent spot. My nephew called it his favorite cache location yet. He actually stumbled on the nearby letterbox first. The boy's a natural.

 

The views today were awesome (see the attached pics). Lot's of cedars (apparantly a briansnat favorite, if you know his caches) and boulders . A great lunching spot. While the trees are a little past peak, it's still worth a visit.

 

October 8, 2006 by Satisfied (359 found)

This is definitely one of the most satisfying finds of my geocaching career. I came up from the Spider Tree, which. at the time. thought was the On the Road to Charlotteburg cache (didn't pay much attention to which side of the road the caches were on).

 

I had no idea what this one was all about. I saw the gray wall of rock through the forest as I hiked closer and was wondering what it was. Then I saw that there was a cache nearby and headed over. My jaw dropped when I came out of the woods...what an amazing boulder field.

 

So I started at the bottom and began picking my way up through the maze. My GPS pointed to a couple of spots, and I started looking amongst the thousands upon thousands of possible hiding places. Many of the spots look just like there is a cache hidden there too.

 

While climbing around, my imagination came up with quite a few scenarios of weird creatures hiding in the rocks or, more likely, nasty falls that could ruin your day.

 

I figured I'd never find this cache. I had no clue...didn't have the cache sheet as this one wasn't on my itinerary for today.

 

So I decided I'd just continue up and see what happened. I took a break to survey the landscape. I would not want to try this one in the summer. Today was about 70 degrees and it was mighty warm out in the field.

 

While looking around, I saw a spot that seemed to make a lot of sense, so I headed there. I found the cache after a bit of climbing around...quite a thrill. I sat and enjoyed the landscape for a bit. Dropped off a Green Jeep TB and continued my adventure.

 

Thanks a lot for this one. Now I need to know what fractured the mountain.

Edited May 7, 2007 by briansnat

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I don't see a single glowing log there. They basically seem to back up my premise that people find these more for the convenient, quick smiley, than with any great enthusiasm.

 

Exactly. Correct as always. I won't break them down one by one, but at least two of them scream "it's all about the numbers", and at least two of them were probably cut-and-pasted dozens of times that day. One of them, "Thanks to all who have taken the time to place these caches and better this great sport.", who knows, could have been cut and pasted by the same cacher thousands of times for cache logs. Others are generally just polite people thanking the hider for the 30 seconds of effort to increment their find count cache.

[+Jhwk]

Here it's:

 

Side 1: Lets try to raise the bar with our cache hides.

 

Side 2: How dare you tell us we can't place urban caches.

Actually it's more like this:

 

Side 1: I don't like those caches. We must do better.

 

Side 2: Lots of people like them, why don't you just go find those caches that you do like.

 

Side 1: It's getting harder and harder for me to do so because of all the clutter.

 

Side 2: You have sit in front of your computer and start researching caches. Look at sat photos, dowload Google Earth, go to the library, learn GIS.

 

Side 1: I liked it better when I could turn my GPS on and head out the door.

 

It's getting harder for you because of your personal preference. I still just turn on my GPSr and hit goto.

 

On a side note *** WHat about the original cache? What was so great about the location, or container. Where was the wow factor, other than it was GC #1?

 

You bring me to a spot and hide something, my task is to find it. That's what I take out of caching. That, and it gets me off of the couch for a few hours/miles.

[+TrailGators]

I haven't met anyone who fawns over a pile of sticks

It's not the pile of sticks that are important, it's where you find the pile of sticks. Forget about caching for a second, and pretend you are putting together a list of cool places to go for a walk around your town. Would you honestly recommend a walk around a parking lot at Wal-Mart or a walk by a trash dumpster behind Target? Since it's so important to you guys to have walks like that on the list, I simply want to be able to remove these people's recommendations from my list. I don't want "just" a walking smiley. I want a nice walk!

[+briansnat]

Here it's:

 

Side 1: Lets try to raise the bar with our cache hides.

 

Side 2: How dare you tell us we can't place urban caches.

Actually it's more like this:

 

Side 1: I don't like those caches. We must do better.

 

Side 2: Lots of people like them, why don't you just go find those caches that you do like.

 

Side 1: It's getting harder and harder for me to do so because of all the clutter.

 

Side 2: You have sit in front of your computer and start researching caches. Look at sat photos, dowload Google Earth, go to the library, learn GIS.

 

Side 1: I liked it better when I could turn my GPS on and head out the door.

 

It's getting harder for you because of your personal preference. I still just turn on my GPSr and hit goto.

 

 

Duh, hence my complaint.

[marnen]

If a cache is only found twice in 5 years, does that mean no one likes it?

I said "being hunted", not "being found". And the answer would be "it depends". If it's a difficulty 5 on a remote mountaintop, then twice in 5 years doesn't indicate anything. If it's a LPC at Wal-Mart (which is what I was talking about), then twice in 5 years indicates that no one cares to look for it.

[+tozainamboku]

For me, nature is never boring.

And none of that has any more to do with geocaching than shopping at the mall or going to a movie.

The experience you have going to a cache and returning from a cache doesn't have anything to do with geocaching? Come again? If the game you play doesn't start until you locate the cache, and ends the instant you close the cache, then you have my pity, but you will never have my empathy. When I evaluate a particular cache, I prefer an holistic viewpoint that includes what I saw, felt & heard while on my way to the cache. For me, it's the total experience that counts, not just the box. You're method of play might vary, which is fine. No one is claiming that you should appreciate the surrounding environment while you hunt, and if you don't, it's really your loss, in my opinion.

Thats kind of funny. The lamp post caches I have found that stick out in my mind are the ones where something interesting happened on my way to or from the cache or may even not on my way to or from the cache but where the cache set up something interesting later. Quite frankly, I agree that the best part of geocaching is the adventure of going to the cache and of searching. Opening the box, signing the log, and trading don't do much for me. But if I'm with a bunch of my friends on a cache run through the city and we find a few LPCs along with some nice little urban park hides, I had fun that day. On another day I may take a hike with other friends or go for a walk by myself. In any case I try to enjoy myself. The caches don't matter much.

 

It is a very rare occurance to find a cache where the cache itself is the highlight of the hunt. Certainly one might have a cache that takes you on a hike or to a place that you wouldn't have gone had there not been a cache there. If these were the only places caches could be we wouldn't have many caches. That might be enough for the side that insist all caches should be like this. But others want to participate in geocaching more often. They may have a competive streak and like to get their numbers up or it may just be an activity they can do istead of sitting at home watching TV (or posting on the Groundspeak forums ) - "Load up the GPS and run out the door". Not every cache has to be a great location or a unique hide.

 

On occasion I have posted logs asking why a cacher hid the cache where he did. Once I complained about a "lame" hide because the hider said on the cache page that the reason he hid the cache was to keep his find to hide ration less than 10:1. The hider asked me to change my log as being off topic but he also expanded on his reasons. He was what I would refer to as an urban cacher. The location was far less important to him than the ability to find a cache. He complained that no one was hiding caches in the area where he worked and he was trying to encourage more hides in that part of town. He has been sucessful in getting many new geocachers to place cachers here. On the other hand, I can see the point. An area that had a few caches that were in more interesting places and included some of my favorite caches now has a lot of caches in parking lots, newsracks, and alleys. The nature of the game has change as a new bread of cacher has joined. I can understand the desire to let these people know that instead of just placing a cache to keep their find to hide ratio as some number, they could try to find places that other cachers might find interesting. However, most of these people could care less. Their purposes is to have more caches to find.

[+sbell111]

I don't see a single glowing log there. They basically seem to back up my premise that people find these more for the convenient, quick smiley, than with any great enthusiasm.

Exactly. Correct as always. I won't break them down one by one, but at least two of them scream "it's all about the numbers", and at least two of them were probably cut-and-pasted dozens of times that day. One of them, "Thanks to all who have taken the time to place these caches and better this great sport.", who knows, could have been cut and pasted by the same cacher thousands of times for cache logs. Others are generally just polite people thanking the hider for the 30 seconds of effort to increment their find count cache.

Once again, their reason for enjoying the cache is unimportant. They liked the cache. You should not have the right to tell anyone what caches they are allowed to enjoy, as long as they meet the guidelines. Edited May 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

I don't see a single glowing log there. They basically seem to back up my premise that people find these more for the convenient, quick smiley, than with any great enthusiasm.

Exactly. Correct as always. I won't break them down one by one, but at least two of them scream "it's all about the numbers", and at least two of them were probably cut-and-pasted dozens of times that day. One of them, "Thanks to all who have taken the time to place these caches and better this great sport.", who knows, could have been cut and pasted by the same cacher thousands of times for cache logs. Others are generally just polite people thanking the hider for the 30 seconds of effort to increment their find count cache.

Once again, their reason for enjoying the cache is unimportant. They liked the cache. You should not have the right to tell anyone what caches they are allowed to enjoy, as long as they meet the guidelines.

 

And maybe if hiders put some thought into their caches these people would enjoy them even more.

[+sbell111]

I don't see a single glowing log there. They basically seem to back up my premise that people find these more for the convenient, quick smiley, than with any great enthusiasm.

Exactly. Correct as always. I won't break them down one by one, but at least two of them scream "it's all about the numbers", and at least two of them were probably cut-and-pasted dozens of times that day. One of them, "Thanks to all who have taken the time to place these caches and better this great sport.", who knows, could have been cut and pasted by the same cacher thousands of times for cache logs. Others are generally just polite people thanking the hider for the 30 seconds of effort to increment their find count cache.

Once again, their reason for enjoying the cache is unimportant. They liked the cache. You should not have the right to tell anyone what caches they are allowed to enjoy, as long as they meet the guidelines.

And maybe if hiders put some thought into their caches these people would enjoy them even more.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact is, every cache is never going to be great in everybody's opinion. That cache, however, was clearly enjoyed by plenty.

 

If whether people like a cache were the deciding factor as to whether the cache were viable, that cache certainly would pass the test.

Edited May 7, 2007 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

I haven't met anyone who fawns over a pile of sticks

It's not the pile of sticks that are important, it's where you find the pile of sticks. Forget about caching for a second, and pretend you are putting together a list of cool places to go for a walk around your town. Would you honestly recommend a walk around a parking lot at Wal-Mart or a walk by a trash dumpster behind Target? Since it's so important to you guys to have walks like that on the list, I simply want to be able to remove these people's recommendations from my list. I don't want "just" a walking smiley. I want a nice walk!

This is the "Tour Guide" argument. Geocaching has never promised to be a way for you to find nice places to walk, or to tour all the great locations of a city. If that's what you want, there are other ways to get there, which will have a much higher percentage chance of taking you to someplace you'd enjoy if you pick a random walking path, or a random site seeing tour.

 

Geocaching is about finding containers that other folks have left for you to find, signing the log book, logging your find online, and being part of a secret that non-geocachers aren't in on. If you're expecting (demanding) anything else in addition, you're expecting too much. Sure, the tagline for the company is "The Language of Location", but isn't every geocache in a location? It doesn't say "The Language of Locations that are also nice places to walk".

 

Nowhere do the quidelines state that you have to hide a cache only in a place that all cachers want to come to, and nowhere does it say you have to find every cache.

[+TrailGators]

What would be interesting is to hide two different LPCs. Both would be in virtually identical locations (Wal-Mart parking lots). So the "enjoyment" level would be basically identical for each. One LPC would be a standard LPC. The second LPC would be a "Note Only" LPC. The "note only" LPC would not permit people to log "Finds" but it would allow them to log a "Note." If someone logged a find it would be deleted from the "Note Only" LPC but it would not be deleted from the standard LPC. I believe deleting logs is permissable within the guidelines if you say so in the cache page (if it's not let me know).

 

Anyhow, what do you think would happen? Would less people "enjoy" one LPC over the other? Would a lot people not bother finding the "Note Only" LPC?

[+Renegade Knight]

I defend all things lame that are, so that all things wonderful can be.

[+Renegade Knight]

...maybe if hiders put some thought into their caches these people would enjoy them even more.

Very true.

So is the corollary.

 

If finders put some thought into their seeking, they would enjoy their finds more.

[+cache_test_dummies]

If someone logged a find it would be deleted from the "Note Only" LPC but it would not be deleted from the standard LPC. I believe deleting logs is permissable within the guidelines if you say so in the cache page (if it's not let me know).

A Note Only cache was attempted back at the beginning of 2005. After a brief experimental period, the Note Only restriction was lifted at the request of the local reviewer. I doubt if a cache with a Note Only restriction would be allowed today.

[+TrailGators]

I defend all things lame that are, so that all things wonderful can be.

So in other words, if there wasn't the ground then the mountains wouldn't be as spectacular?

[+TrailGators]

If someone logged a find it would be deleted from the "Note Only" LPC but it would not be deleted from the standard LPC. I believe deleting logs is permissable within the guidelines if you say so in the cache page (if it's not let me know).

A Note Only cache was attempted back at the beginning of 2005. After a brief experimental period, the Note Only restriction was lifted at the request of the local reviewer. I doubt if a cache with a Note Only restriction would be allowed today.

Is there something in the current guidelines that would restrict it?

[+cache_test_dummies]

If someone logged a find it would be deleted from the "Note Only" LPC but it would not be deleted from the standard LPC. I believe deleting logs is permissable within the guidelines if you say so in the cache page (if it's not let me know).

A Note Only cache was attempted back at the beginning of 2005. After a brief experimental period, the Note Only restriction was lifted at the request of the local reviewer. I doubt if a cache with a Note Only restriction would be allowed today.

Is there something in the current guidelines that would restrict it?

I believe that the restriction was lifted in regard to the Solicitation guideline (caches that promote a social agenda).

[+Renegade Knight]

I defend all things lame that are, so that all things wonderful can be.

So in other words, if there wasn't the ground then the mountains wouldn't be as spectacular?

 

If everone though that only mountains and forests were beautiful and the plains were lame then there would be no room for someone who enjoyed big sky to come along and show us that too is a thing of beauty.

 

or for the scientific types.

 

If you try to lop off the low end of the bell curve, the rules, regs, and practice that results will tend to lop off the high end.

 

Translated. You can make the cache experince more fun on average, but the price is that some of the best caches that people can come up with will also be discouraged.

 

Case in point.

A lame cache in a guard rail near a grafitti ridden underpass. Yup, lame by most standards.

 

But that cache has a story. The story goes that when the interstate was built that they found an indian graveyard and showed it disrespect. This angered the spirits and to this day they will push your car out of the underpass if you stop and wait.

 

Lame cache, cool story. Some people like stories like that and want to know these things. They would stand in the underpass close their eyes and see if they could feel the spirits. It's a big world full of all kinds of possibilites. I've seen a lot of waterfalls and forests. Not so many angry spirits.

[+TrailGators]

If someone logged a find it would be deleted from the "Note Only" LPC but it would not be deleted from the standard LPC. I believe deleting logs is permissable within the guidelines if you say so in the cache page (if it's not let me know).

A Note Only cache was attempted back at the beginning of 2005. After a brief experimental period, the Note Only restriction was lifted at the request of the local reviewer. I doubt if a cache with a Note Only restriction would be allowed today.

Is there something in the current guidelines that would restrict it?

I believe that the restriction was lifted in regard to the Solicitation guideline (caches that promote a social agenda).

Yes the reviewer said "the premise of the cache is to promote an agenda (not a fan of cache statistics) which is not an accepted use of the web site." Hmmm, so then we have to use our imaginations with this scenario unless someone figures out a workaround. So what do you think would happen if the experiment were conducted?

[+TrailGators]

Lame cache, cool story. Some people like stories like that and want to know these things. They would stand in the underpass close their eyes and see if they could feel the spirits. It's a big world full of all kinds of possibilites. I've seen a lot of waterfalls and forests. Not so many angry spirits.

That wouldn't be a lame cache to me because it had a cool story. Wouldn't it be nice if each cache had one cool thing about it (not counting a smiley)?

[+tozainamboku]

What would be interesting is to hide two different LPCs. Both would be in virtually identical locations (Wal-Mart parking lots). So the "enjoyment" level would be basically identical for each. One LPC would be a standard LPC. The second LPC would be a "Note Only" LPC. The "note only" LPC would not permit people to log "Finds" but it would allow them to log a "Note." If someone logged a find it would be deleted from the "Note Only" LPC but it would not be deleted from the standard LPC. I believe deleting logs is permissable within the guidelines if you say so in the cache page (if it's not let me know).

 

Anyhow, what do you think would happen? Would less people "enjoy" one LPC over the other? Would a lot people not bother finding the "Note Only" LPC?

Oooh! The smiley is the reason for all lame caches. Frankly, if you think the only caches that should be hidden are the ones you would find even it you couldn't log them online then why even bother logging online. I know several people that don't log their finds online at all. And others who only log online if they have something special to share about that find. Hey, I used to sign summit registers when I went hiking. And I wasn't even trying to complete some list of peaks. Yes, many of the people who like to find LPCs are into the numbers and wouldn't look for any cache if it didn't give them a number. These people say how much they like virtual caches but refuse to even look at Waymarking. My guess is that some people would still find the note only cache.

 

It's one thing to say that these caches make it harder for you to enjoy yourself. When you look for an urban cache, there is a greater chance it won't be in a location that you enjoy. It's another thing, to question the reason someone else is enjoying this cache - even if it just about the numbers. People are trying to suggest ways to improve the chances of finding a cache that meets your criteria yet it seems you won't be satisfied until everyone says that you are right and they will stop hiding these caches.

[Mushtang]

If someone logged a find it would be deleted from the "Note Only" LPC but it would not be deleted from the standard LPC. I believe deleting logs is permissable within the guidelines if you say so in the cache page (if it's not let me know).

A Note Only cache was attempted back at the beginning of 2005. After a brief experimental period, the Note Only restriction was lifted at the request of the local reviewer. I doubt if a cache with a Note Only restriction would be allowed today.

Is there something in the current guidelines that would restrict it?

I believe that the restriction was lifted in regard to the Solicitation guideline (caches that promote a social agenda).

Yes the reviewer said "the premise of the cache is to promote an agenda (not a fan of cache statistics) which is not an accepted use of the web site." Hmmm, so then we have to use our imaginations with this scenario unless someone figures out a workaround. So what do you think would happen if the experiment were conducted?

Probably very similar results to two caches on a nice walking trail with a wonderful view, where one was a note only cache. I'm guessing the note only cache wouldn't get found as often, and the location, the view, or the walk to it wouldn't have anything to do with it.

[+Renegade Knight]

Lame cache, cool story. Some people like stories like that and want to know these things. They would stand in the underpass close their eyes and see if they could feel the spirits. It's a big world full of all kinds of possibilites. I've seen a lot of waterfalls and forests. Not so many angry spirits.

That wouldn't be a lame cache to me because it had a cool story. Wouldn't it be nice if each cache had one cool thing about it (not counting a smiley)?

 

Some people could care less about the story. "Micro, Gardrail, Urban....must...resist...impulse...TO...CALL...IT....LAME! IT'S LAME, LAME LAME!"

[+sbell111]

I'm reminded of a thread a while back where it was mentioned that a mundane cache would be made better if the cache page was flashy. I suppose this is true for many people and not true for others. Why does this matter, you ask?

 

I dunno.

[+TrailGators]

What would be interesting is to hide two different LPCs. Both would be in virtually identical locations (Wal-Mart parking lots). So the "enjoyment" level would be basically identical for each. One LPC would be a standard LPC. The second LPC would be a "Note Only" LPC. The "note only" LPC would not permit people to log "Finds" but it would allow them to log a "Note." If someone logged a find it would be deleted from the "Note Only" LPC but it would not be deleted from the standard LPC. I believe deleting logs is permissable within the guidelines if you say so in the cache page (if it's not let me know).

Anyhow, what do you think would happen? Would less people "enjoy" one LPC over the other? Would a lot people not bother finding the "Note Only" LPC?

Oooh! The smiley is the reason for all lame caches. Frankly, if you think the only caches that should be hidden are the ones you would find even it you couldn't log them online then why even bother logging online. I know several people that don't log their finds online at all. And others who only log online if they have something special to share about that find. Hey, I used to sign summit registers when I went hiking. And I wasn't even trying to complete some list of peaks. Yes, many of the people who like to find LPCs are into the numbers and wouldn't look for any cache if it didn't give them a number. These people say how much they like virtual caches but refuse to even look at Waymarking. My guess is that some people would still find the note only cache.

 

It's one thing to say that these caches make it harder for you to enjoy yourself. When you look for an urban cache, there is a greater chance it won't be in a location that you enjoy. It's another thing, to question the reason someone else is enjoying this cache - even if it just about the numbers. People are trying to suggest ways to improve the chances of finding a cache that meets your criteria yet it seems you won't be satisfied until everyone says that you are right and they will stop hiding these caches.

Mr. T instead of you guessing what I want, I will tell you. Brainsnat couldn't have said it any better:

I pointed out that the guidelines have nothing to do with fun or quality. I also pointed out that your philosophy would allow for some horrible caches (especially if all the checks and balances (us) were silenced). Therefore, I think people have a perfect right to voice their opinions in these forums as long as they comply with the forum guidelines

Until they come up with an attribute for "This cache has no redeeming value other than to increment my hide count and your find count", I will continue to rant about the direction this sport is taking.

 

The day that attribute is introduced I will ignore those caches in my PQs and not mention the subject again.

 

Until then, I will express my opinion about those caches and relate how they spoil the game for me and if my posts cause one person to rethink his hides and raise the bar a little, they would have had the desired effect.

[+TrailGators]

I'm reminded of a thread a while back where it was mentioned that a mundane cache would be made better if the cache page was flashy. I suppose this is true for many people and not true for others. Why does this matter, you ask? I dunno.

Hey RK, Sbell just implied that your cache was 'mundane"

 

But that cache has a story. The story goes that when the interstate was built that they found an indian graveyard and showed it disrespect. This angered the spirits and to this day they will push your car out of the underpass if you stop and wait. Lame cache, cool story. Some people like stories like that and want to know these things. They would stand in the underpass close their eyes and see if they could feel the spirits. It's a big world full of all kinds of possibilites. I've seen a lot of waterfalls and forests. Not so many angry spirits.

Anyhow, I thought RK brought up a good way to spruce up any cache. Why would that matter?

[+TrailGators]

Lame cache, cool story. Some people like stories like that and want to know these things. They would stand in the underpass close their eyes and see if they could feel the spirits. It's a big world full of all kinds of possibilites. I've seen a lot of waterfalls and forests. Not so many angry spirits.

That wouldn't be a lame cache to me because it had a cool story. Wouldn't it be nice if each cache had one cool thing about it (not counting a smiley)?

 

Some people could care less about the story. "Micro, Gardrail, Urban....must...resist...impulse...TO...CALL...IT....LAME! IT'S LAME, LAME LAME!"

This is true. But others look for that one redeeming quality that inspired a cache (not counting the smiley).

[+cache_test_dummies]

So what do you think would happen if the experiment were conducted?

I think what would happen is that people on both sides of the current discussion would find a way to claim the results proved their point, and the arguing would continue.

[+mamid]

I hate micros.

 

no. wait.. I loathe them. Especially the ones smaller than my pinkie finger.

 

Why do I hate them, you ask?

 

Well, it isn't the location. I could care less about location.

 

Its about the looks on my kids faces when we've been out looking for "treasure" and instead of a box big enough for them to do trades with, we find a micro and there is nothing in it other than a log.

 

I, personally, don't care if its a nano or a large cache. I like the hunt and finding micros are even more fun because, unlike larger caches, they are harder to find.

 

But when it comes to a choice, I'd rather see micros and nanos (the micro micros) filtered out.

[Mushtang]

But when it comes to a choice, I'd rather see micros and nanos (the micro micros) filtered out.

So why don't you filter them out? It's VERY easy to solve your "problem".

[+TrailGators]

So what do you think would happen if the experiment were conducted?

I think what would happen is that people on both sides of the current discussion would find a way to claim the results proved their point, and the arguing would continue.

That is funny. I think you are 100% right.

[+TrailGators]

This whole argument reminds me of some other ones I've been involved with on other forums.

 

The immigration argument-

 

Side 1: Illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

Side 2: Why do you hate immigrants?

 

Whether Christians should drink-

 

Side 1: There is nothing wrong with a glass of wine or beer now and then.

 

Side 2: The Bible condemns drunkeness.

 

Here it's:

 

Side 1: Lets try to raise the bar with our cache hides.

 

Side 2: How dare you tell us we can't place urban caches.

 

I missed this post. This was funny!

[+mamid]

But when it comes to a choice, I'd rather see micros and nanos (the micro micros) filtered out.

So why don't you filter them out? It's VERY easy to solve your "problem".

how? oh. wait. that's a premium member ability.

 

sorry, don't have that membership level yet. I have more important things first. And besides, its been promised for my birthday which is still months away.