Micro Mania

[+Renegade Knight]

I was joking with you.

That's cool, but my thanks was sincere. I generally find my own typos but when they get by I don't mind being corrected.

 

So you do take a few extra steps to avoid the caches you don't like, and apparently you're a more satisfied cacher. Do you recommend others try doing the same?

I am trying to come up with the easiest ultimate way to make caching spewless for myself....

 

Read a map. Learn to read the signs. Follow the force. I generally know the kind of hunt it's going to be before I go. If I don't feel like urban caches today, I don't go downtown.

 

BrianSnat is right about one thing. You can't just go without prep anymore and have the same expereince as the days of old. The only way to work around that now is to quit going on your own and when one of your buddies calls up and says "Hey I've got a great cache day in mind" then go. Otherwise

[+boda]

 

Please point me to the suggeestions to improve the game that have been given in this thread that would not negatively affect other cachers?

 

I have made the suggestion before, but not in this thread. It's quite simple. Raise the bar a little bit with the hides. Place them where the only reason to go there isn't just for the cache. These are all over the place. I've found caches in fascinating places in mall parking lots and guardrail caches with views that rival any you can find at the end of a 10 mile hike. But I'm not saying every cache has to be in a fascinating place or one with a splendid view. A retention basin turned duck pond, a quiet stream in the gully next to the Home Depot, a downtown pocket park are all the kinds of places that will likely appeal to more people than a feces strewn lot.

 

By putting a little thought into each hide the numbers hounds can still have their quickie finds and those with a more traditional view of the sport will be happy.

 

I realize that not every spot will appeal to every person. What I think is a fascinating historic marker might get a "Ho hum, so what?" from someone else. But at the least the chance that the spot will appeal to someone is greatly enhanced. I don't think anybody who is being honest with himself actually believes that the loading dock next to the dumpster behind the strip mall would be appealing to anybody, with the possible exception of a vagrant.

I'm basically independent and tend to fall in the middle of these "discussions." I don't agree with many of the feelings expressed by briansnat.

 

However, IMHO, this is one of the best, if not the best, posts in the whole discussion.

[+TrailGators]

I was joking with you.

That's cool, but my thanks was sincere. I generally find my own typos but when they get by I don't mind being corrected.

 

So you do take a few extra steps to avoid the caches you don't like, and apparently you're a more satisfied cacher. Do you recommend others try doing the same?

I am trying to come up with the easiest ultimate way to make caching spewless for myself....

 

Read a map. Learn to read the signs. Follow the force. I generally know the kind of hunt it's going to be before I go. If I don't feel like urban caches today, I don't go downtown.

 

BrianSnat is right about one thing. You can't just go without prep anymore and have the same expereince as the days of old. The only way to work around that now is to quit going on your own and when one of your buddies calls up and says "Hey I've got a great cache day in mind" then go. Otherwise

I already do that. I guess you missed this post a handful of posts before that one...

 

Anyhow, NOW I do what Mr. T does for urbans, but I do it using the hybrid aerial maps on the website. Whenever I spot a cache that I probably won't like, I hit the ignore button. Now it is gone forever!

[+sbell111]

I was joking with you.

That's cool, but my thanks was sincere. I generally find my own typos but when they get by I don't mind being corrected.

 

So you do take a few extra steps to avoid the caches you don't like, and apparently you're a more satisfied cacher. Do you recommend others try doing the same?

I am trying to come up with the easiest ultimate way to make caching spewless for myself....

 

Read a map. Learn to read the signs. Follow the force. I generally know the kind of hunt it's going to be before I go. If I don't feel like urban caches today, I don't go downtown.

 

BrianSnat is right about one thing. You can't just go without prep anymore and have the same expereince as the days of old. The only way to work around that now is to quit going on your own and when one of your buddies calls up and says "Hey I've got a great cache day in mind" then go. Otherwise

I already do that. I guess you missed this post a handful of posts before that one...

 

Anyhow, NOW I do what Mr. T does for urbans, but I do it using the hybrid aerial maps on the website. Whenever I spot a cache that I probably won't like, I hit the ignore button. Now it is gone forever!

If you are already avoiding those caches that you don't like, what's the problem?

[+briansnat]

YOU are imposing your will upon YOU. For some reason you're refusing to accept that you can still play the game the way you used to, with a few easy and quick modifications to your PQs.

 

I'm pretty familiar with PQs. I've yet to see the "worthless for anyone but numbers hounds" attribute.

[+TrailGators]

I was joking with you.

That's cool, but my thanks was sincere. I generally find my own typos but when they get by I don't mind being corrected.

 

So you do take a few extra steps to avoid the caches you don't like, and apparently you're a more satisfied cacher. Do you recommend others try doing the same?

I am trying to come up with the easiest ultimate way to make caching spewless for myself....

 

Read a map. Learn to read the signs. Follow the force. I generally know the kind of hunt it's going to be before I go. If I don't feel like urban caches today, I don't go downtown.

 

BrianSnat is right about one thing. You can't just go without prep anymore and have the same expereince as the days of old. The only way to work around that now is to quit going on your own and when one of your buddies calls up and says "Hey I've got a great cache day in mind" then go. Otherwise

I already do that. I guess you missed this post a handful of posts before that one...

 

Anyhow, NOW I do what Mr. T does for urbans, but I do it using the hybrid aerial maps on the website. Whenever I spot a cache that I probably won't like, I hit the ignore button. Now it is gone forever!

If you are already avoiding those caches that you don't like, what's the problem?

The problem is that there are a lot caches that are still hard to identify. The FTFers typically log happy logs because they got the FTF. Also I am noticing that most logs for all types of caches seem to be either cut and paste or nondescript logs, so I can't tell anything from those. The aerial maps don't really help either....

[+sbell111]

However, I think it's important to remember that cache owners hide the kinds of caches that they want to hide.

They hide what they are familiar with. In my area most caches are longer hikes with ammo boxes and Lock n Locks at the end. 50 miles away most caches are guardrail and shopping mall micros. You can't tell me that there is some sort of anomaly that caused people who like micros to live in one area and those who like ammo boxes to live in another.

Without being familiar with exactly where you live and where the '50 mile away' area is, I can't really call shenanigans on your post, but I suspect that the two locations are not as similar as your post suggests.

OK, I just ran two PQs of 500 caches. One from my zipcode in Kinnelon NJ (07405) and one from Allentown PA (18101). Allentown is approximately 50 miles as the crow flies from my house.

 

18101

Micros 42 percent of total

 

07405

Micros 9.2 percent of total

Again, I suspect that there are substantial differences between 18101 and 07405. Unfortunately, I have no time to research them, right now. Perhaps I'll get to it tomorrow if I have time and have any memory of the issue.

As expected, you would be hard pressed to identify two locations that are as different from one another as 18101 and 07405. Even if you don't bother to look at the huge demographic differences, you can see a difference with a simple glance at the map:

 

18101

 

07405

 

Just like Brian, I ran PQs for both areas and found pretty much exactly what I expected to after looking at the maps and demographics. Brian's immediate area, with an average household income of $76,750 and average house value of $261,600 with a fairly huge amount of open land had many more larger caches than micros (reg - 436, small - 170, micro - 84 within 15 miles) while Allentown's more urban environment with average household income of $18,851 and average house value of $48,000 had more micro caches that larger caches (reg - 72, small - 43, micro - 124).

 

Shockingly, the area that was more urban had more micros than the area that had more non-urban locations. Perhaps, 'they hide what they're familiar with' isn't what's really going on. Personally, I believe that it's more a combination of 'people hide what they like' and 'people hide what they believe is most appropriate for the location'. Either way, I guess, because the bottom line is that people are getting off their sofas and playing the game the way they enjoy it. Certainly, it doesn't affect me that Brian plays the game differently than I do, as long as he doesn't try to remake the game so that it does away with the part of the game that I enjoy.

Edited July 22, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

YOU are imposing your will upon YOU. For some reason you're refusing to accept that you can still play the game the way you used to, with a few easy and quick modifications to your PQs.

I'm pretty familiar with PQs. I've yet to see the "worthless for anyone but numbers hounds" attribute.

Again, I suspect that preconceptions are getting in the way. For instance, I enjoy many caches that you would claim to be 'lame', but a quick look at my stats will show that I'm no numbers hound. Edited July 22, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

... So you do take a few extra steps to avoid the caches you don't like, and apparently you're a more satisfied cacher. Do you recommend others try doing the same?

I am trying to come up with the easiest ultimate way to make caching spewless for myself....

Read a map. Learn to read the signs. Follow the force. I generally know the kind of hunt it's going to be before I go. If I don't feel like urban caches today, I don't go downtown.

 

BrianSnat is right about one thing. You can't just go without prep anymore and have the same expereince as the days of old. The only way to work around that now is to quit going on your own and when one of your buddies calls up and says "Hey I've got a great cache day in mind" then go. Otherwise

I already do that. I guess you missed this post a handful of posts before that one...

Anyhow, NOW I do what Mr. T does for urbans, but I do it using the hybrid aerial maps on the website. Whenever I spot a cache that I probably won't like, I hit the ignore button. Now it is gone forever!

If you are already avoiding those caches that you don't like, what's the problem?

The problem is that there are a lot caches that are still hard to identify. The FTFers typically log happy logs because they got the FTF. Also I am noticing that most logs for all types of caches seem to be either cut and paste or nondescript logs, so I can't tell anything from those. The aerial maps don't really help either....

As I explained earlier in the thread (and other threads), it might be worth your while to skip the ones that you are unsure about, at least for now. Once you have found all the ones that you know are winners, you can go back and take another look at the remainder. Perhaps, by then some more interesting logs will be left. If not, the cache is likely to be one that you don't like. Edited July 22, 2007 by sbell111

[+geomann1]

The problem is that there are a lot caches that are still hard to identify. The FTFers typically log happy logs because they got the FTF. Also I am noticing that most logs for all types of caches seem to be either cut and paste or nondescript logs, so I can't tell anything from those. The aerial maps don't really help either....

 

I'm going to have to agree with TrailGator on this one. It is hard to separate the quality caches from the lame and I seem to be coming upon more and more caches that just aren't any fun, and as I am not really concerned about my find count, looking for them is a pointless exercise (as some else noted on another thread they should be logged DNC - Do not care).

[+TrailGators]

I was joking with you.

That's cool, but my thanks was sincere. I generally find my own typos but when they get by I don't mind being corrected.

 

So you do take a few extra steps to avoid the caches you don't like, and apparently you're a more satisfied cacher. Do you recommend others try doing the same?

I am trying to come up with the easiest ultimate way to make caching spewless for myself....

Read a map. Learn to read the signs. Follow the force. I generally know the kind of hunt it's going to be before I go. If I don't feel like urban caches today, I don't go downtown.

 

BrianSnat is right about one thing. You can't just go without prep anymore and have the same expereince as the days of old. The only way to work around that now is to quit going on your own and when one of your buddies calls up and says "Hey I've got a great cache day in mind" then go. Otherwise

I already do that. I guess you missed this post a handful of posts before that one...

Anyhow, NOW I do what Mr. T does for urbans, but I do it using the hybrid aerial maps on the website. Whenever I spot a cache that I probably won't like, I hit the ignore button. Now it is gone forever!

If you are already avoiding those caches that you don't like, what's the problem?

The problem is that there are a lot caches that are still hard to identify. The FTFers typically log happy logs because they got the FTF. Also I am noticing that most logs for all types of caches seem to be either cut and paste or nondescript logs, so I can't tell anything from those. The aerial maps don't really help either....

As I explained earlier in the thread (and other threads), it might be worth your while to skip the ones that you are unsure about, at least for now. Once you have found all the ones that you know are winners, you can go back and take another look at the remainder. Perhaps, by then some more interesting logs will be left. If not, the cache is likely to be one that you don't like.

That doesn't really work either. What's funny is that I sort of rely on someone to finally find the cache and log their true opinion of it, but most people are too nice to even do this. Also as people get better at ignoring urban caches the logs are getting even less useful to sort them out. Maybe, if I could see how many people are ignoring these caches it would help. Anyhow, it could take months for a log to show up that is useful so the "easy peasy" method is really not that easy.

[+sbell111]

I was joking with you.

That's cool, but my thanks was sincere. I generally find my own typos but when they get by I don't mind being corrected.

 

So you do take a few extra steps to avoid the caches you don't like, and apparently you're a more satisfied cacher. Do you recommend others try doing the same?

I am trying to come up with the easiest ultimate way to make caching spewless for myself....

Read a map. Learn to read the signs. Follow the force. I generally know the kind of hunt it's going to be before I go. If I don't feel like urban caches today, I don't go downtown.

 

BrianSnat is right about one thing. You can't just go without prep anymore and have the same expereince as the days of old. The only way to work around that now is to quit going on your own and when one of your buddies calls up and says "Hey I've got a great cache day in mind" then go. Otherwise

I already do that. I guess you missed this post a handful of posts before that one...

Anyhow, NOW I do what Mr. T does for urbans, but I do it using the hybrid aerial maps on the website. Whenever I spot a cache that I probably won't like, I hit the ignore button. Now it is gone forever!

If you are already avoiding those caches that you don't like, what's the problem?

The problem is that there are a lot caches that are still hard to identify. The FTFers typically log happy logs because they got the FTF. Also I am noticing that most logs for all types of caches seem to be either cut and paste or nondescript logs, so I can't tell anything from those. The aerial maps don't really help either....

As I explained earlier in the thread (and other threads), it might be worth your while to skip the ones that you are unsure about, at least for now. Once you have found all the ones that you know are winners, you can go back and take another look at the remainder. Perhaps, by then some more interesting logs will be left. If not, the cache is likely to be one that you don't like.

That doesn't really work either. What's funny is that I sort of rely on someone to finally find the cache and log their true opinion of it, but most people are too nice to even do this. Also as people get better at ignoring urban caches the logs are getting even less useful to sort them out. Maybe, if I could see how many people are ignoring these caches it would help. Anyhow, it could take months for a log to show up that is useful so the "easy peasy" method is really not that easy.

It sounds like you might be waiting for someone to come along and log your opinion of it. Edited July 22, 2007 by sbell111

[+Glenn]

You are more correct than you realize. If by “improve” you mean “remake the game more to the liking of people like Fizzymagic, Briansnat, Trailgators, CR and CR,” then yes, “imposing your will on others” is a perfect way to put it.

 

Remake the game? No, it's more like getting it back from the people who hijacked it.

 

They are free to pursue the game the way they enjoy it. I no longer am. So who is imposing their will?

 

You are free to persue caching the way you enjoy it. That you don't is not the fault of "They". In this case things are the way they are becaue of all of us. So, You are one of They anyway. Thats the way "They" work.

 

The devil or some minor daemon must be at work here if these posts are compelling people do things against their own will. Therefore, I have reported this thread to the Vatican for follow up and possible exorcism.

[+KBI]

YOU are imposing your will upon YOU. For some reason you're refusing to accept that you can still play the game the way you used to, with a few easy and quick modifications to your PQs.

I'm pretty familiar with PQs. I've yet to see the "worthless for anyone but numbers hounds" attribute.

No response to the questions at the end of this post, then?

 

In an earlier post I carefully described my method for detecting the caches that I believe are "worthless for anyone but numbers hounds." I referred to it as the "ten second plan." As I said, it works for me with a very high degree of dependability, and it would seem to be an easy no-brainer for anyone with even a little bit of caching experience. I have asked you a couple of times why you believe it wouldn't work for you. You still haven't responded.

 

My desire to help you is genuine. My curiosity as to why my suggestion is being ignored is growing.

 

If you choose to ignore my question yet again I will conclude that you would rather complain than seek solutions to your frustration.

 

If so, you are not the only one.

[+TrailGators]

It sounds like you might be waiting for someone to come along and log your opinion of it.

How would I have an opinion of a cache I've never found? Edited July 22, 2007 by TrailGators

[+briansnat]

However, I think it's important to remember that cache owners hide the kinds of caches that they want to hide.

They hide what they are familiar with. In my area most caches are longer hikes with ammo boxes and Lock n Locks at the end. 50 miles away most caches are guardrail and shopping mall micros. You can't tell me that there is some sort of anomaly that caused people who like micros to live in one area and those who like ammo boxes to live in another.

Without being familiar with exactly where you live and where the '50 mile away' area is, I can't really call shenanigans on your post, but I suspect that the two locations are not as similar as your post suggests.

OK, I just ran two PQs of 500 caches. One from my zipcode in Kinnelon NJ (07405) and one from Allentown PA (18101). Allentown is approximately 50 miles as the crow flies from my house.

 

18101

Micros 42 percent of total

 

07405

Micros 9.2 percent of total

Again, I suspect that there are substantial differences between 18101 and 07405. Unfortunately, I have no time to research them, right now. Perhaps I'll get to it tomorrow if I have time and have any memory of the issue.

As expected, you would be hard pressed to identify two locations that are as different from one another as 18101 and 07405. Even if you don't bother to look at the huge demographic differences, you can see a difference with a simple glance at the map:

 

18101

 

07405

 

Just like Brian, I ran PQs for both areas and found pretty much exactly what I expected to after looking at the maps and demographics. Brian's immediate area, with an average household income of $76,750 and average house value of $261,600 with a fairly huge amount of open land had many more larger caches than micros (reg - 436, small - 170, micro - 84 within 15 miles) while Allentown's more urban environment with average household income of $18,851 and average house value of $48,000 had more micro caches that larger caches (reg - 72, small - 43, micro - 124).

 

Shockingly, the area that was more urban had more micros than the area that had more non-urban locations. Perhaps, 'they hide what they're familiar with' isn't what's really going on. Personally, I believe that it's more a combination of 'people hide what they like' and 'people hide what they believe is most appropriate for the location'. Either way, I guess, because the bottom line is that people are getting off their sofas and playing the game the way they enjoy it. Certainly, it doesn't affect me that Brian plays the game differently than I do, as long as he doesn't try to remake the game so that it does away with the part of the game that I enjoy.

 

You obviously have a lot of time on hands your but your flawed research did not however pick up the fact that 07405 is 9 miles from Paterson, which quite urban (pop 150,869).

 

Paterson falls well within the PQ that I ran from 07405, as do surrounding highly urbanized places such as Totowa (07511), Wayne (07470), Haledon (07508) and others.

 

Just for ha-has I ran a PQ from the center NJ's third largest city (Paterson) which brings additional highly urbanized areas into the mix such as Passaic (07055),, Clifton (07011) and Montclair and came up with a whopping 15 percent micros. Hmmm, that blows your urban environment argument out of the water doesn't it?

 

Edited July 22, 2007 by briansnat

[+TrailGators]

Just for ha-has I ran a PQ from the center NJ's third largest city (Paterson) and came up with a whopping 15 percent micros. Hmmm, that blows your urban environment argument out of the water doesn't it?

Yes, it does and it makes me very curious how two very similar urban areas could be so different....

[+sbell111]

However, I think it's important to remember that cache owners hide the kinds of caches that they want to hide.

They hide what they are familiar with. In my area most caches are longer hikes with ammo boxes and Lock n Locks at the end. 50 miles away most caches are guardrail and shopping mall micros. You can't tell me that there is some sort of anomaly that caused people who like micros to live in one area and those who like ammo boxes to live in another.

Without being familiar with exactly where you live and where the '50 mile away' area is, I can't really call shenanigans on your post, but I suspect that the two locations are not as similar as your post suggests.

OK, I just ran two PQs of 500 caches. One from my zipcode in Kinnelon NJ (07405) and one from Allentown PA (18101). Allentown is approximately 50 miles as the crow flies from my house.

 

18101

Micros 42 percent of total

 

07405

Micros 9.2 percent of total

Again, I suspect that there are substantial differences between 18101 and 07405. Unfortunately, I have no time to research them, right now. Perhaps I'll get to it tomorrow if I have time and have any memory of the issue.

As expected, you would be hard pressed to identify two locations that are as different from one another as 18101 and 07405. Even if you don't bother to look at the huge demographic differences, you can see a difference with a simple glance at the map:

 

18101

 

07405

 

Just like Brian, I ran PQs for both areas and found pretty much exactly what I expected to after looking at the maps and demographics. Brian's immediate area, with an average household income of $76,750 and average house value of $261,600 with a fairly huge amount of open land had many more larger caches than micros (reg - 436, small - 170, micro - 84 within 15 miles) while Allentown's more urban environment with average household income of $18,851 and average house value of $48,000 had more micro caches that larger caches (reg - 72, small - 43, micro - 124).

 

Shockingly, the area that was more urban had more micros than the area that had more non-urban locations. Perhaps, 'they hide what they're familiar with' isn't what's really going on. Personally, I believe that it's more a combination of 'people hide what they like' and 'people hide what they believe is most appropriate for the location'. Either way, I guess, because the bottom line is that people are getting off their sofas and playing the game the way they enjoy it. Certainly, it doesn't affect me that Brian plays the game differently than I do, as long as he doesn't try to remake the game so that it does away with the part of the game that I enjoy.

 

You obviously have a lot of time on hands your but your flawed research did not however pick up the fact that 07405 is 9 miles from Paterson, which quite urban (pop 150,869).

 

Paterson falls well within the PQ that I ran from 07405, as do surrounding highly urbanized places such as Totowa (07511), Wayne (07470), Haledon (07508) and others.

 

Just for ha-has I ran a PQ from the center NJ's third largest city (Paterson) which brings additional highly urbanized areas into the mix such as Passaic (07055),, Clifton (07011) and Montclair and came up with a whopping 15 percent micros. Hmmm, that blows your urban environment argument out of the water doesn't it?

 

You might want to take another read of my post. Perhaps all the way through the last paragraph.

 

My point was that there is very, very little in common between the two locations you compared. Either way, I can't for the life of me see how the comparison makes your argument that peaople blindly hide what they find. This is especially true if we accept the thesis that most people don't like those caches (which I do not). By your logic, people find lame caches, dislike them, and then hide ones just like them. I haven't found the good people of Pennsylvania to be quite that masochistic. It is much more likely that people are emulating the caches that they do enjoy and that they try to choose a container that most likely fits the location. (That was part of what you missed from my earlier post.)

 

As for 'time on my hands' quip, it took me three days to finally find time to look at the two areas that you selected. As it turned out, that research didn't take very long at all, since there is so little in common between the two locales.

[CoyoteRed]

Just for ha-has I ran a PQ from the center NJ's third largest city (Paterson) and came up with a whopping 15 percent micros. Hmmm, that blows your urban environment argument out of the water doesn't it?

Yes, it does and it makes me very curious how two very similar urban areas could be so different....

Attitude.

[+sbell111]

Just for ha-has I ran a PQ from the center NJ's third largest city (Paterson) and came up with a whopping 15 percent micros. Hmmm, that blows your urban environment argument out of the water doesn't it?

Yes, it does and it makes me very curious how two very similar urban areas could be so different....

Attitude.

Demographics, topography, economics...

[+briansnat]

Just for ha-has I ran a PQ from the center NJ's third largest city (Paterson) and came up with a whopping 15 percent micros. Hmmm, that blows your urban environment argument out of the water doesn't it?

Yes, it does and it makes me very curious how two very similar urban areas could be so different....

 

Well it goes back to my original argument that people hide what they know. If you look at a cache map of the urban centers here you won't see many caches outside the parks (Last time I looked, my home town of Passaic , pop 57,000, didn't have a single geocache despite a thriving geocaching community here).

 

The early hiders in the area put most of their caches in parks and larger open spaces. Newcomers followed suit.

Strip malls, shopping center parking lots and corporate business parks are as plentiful here as anywhere else (if not more so), yet they have remained essentially cacheless.

 

Is it because by some statistical anomaly most of people who live here don't like mall caches. Doubtful. The answer is that they hide the kinds of caches they find.

 

By your logic, people find lame caches, dislike them, and then hide ones just like them.

 

No, they find them, think that is what the sport is about and copy it.

 

It would be interesting to determine the percentage of people who leave the sport after a few finds in a strip mall cache heavy area vs. that in areas where most hides are in more aesthetically oriented places.

Edited July 23, 2007 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

Just for ha-has I ran a PQ from the center NJ's third largest city (Paterson) and came up with a whopping 15 percent micros. Hmmm, that blows your urban environment argument out of the water doesn't it?

Yes, it does and it makes me very curious how two very similar urban areas could be so different....

Attitude.

Demographics, topography, economics...

Percentages of micros? I don't think so. Total caches maybe, but not percentages of caches size.

 

It's attitude all the way. Anyone who goes to events or read regional forums can "read" the attitude. Some areas "love" micros much like they celebrate their numbers. Others don't.

[+sbell111]

Just for ha-has I ran a PQ from the center NJ's third largest city (Paterson) and came up with a whopping 15 percent micros. Hmmm, that blows your urban environment argument out of the water doesn't it?

Yes, it does and it makes me very curious how two very similar urban areas could be so different....

 

Well it goes back to my original argument that people hide what they know. If you look at a cache map of the urban centers here you won't see many caches outside the parksl (Last time I looked, my home town of Passaic , pop 57,000, didn't have a single geocache despite a thriving geocaching community here).

 

The early hiders in the area put most of their caches in parks and larger open spaces. Newcomers followed suit.

Strip malls, shopping center parking lots and corporate business parks are as plentiful here as anywhere else (if not more so), yet they have remained essentially cacheless.

 

Is it because by some statistical anomaly most of people who live here don't like mall caches. Doubtful. The answer is that they hide the kinds of caches they find.

I see that you ignored my previous couple of posts.

 

Now it is your argument that none of your local cachers ever find caches outside of your home town? That seems unlikely. It is as unlikely as the argument that people find caches that they don't like and hide ones just like them.

Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

I see that you ignored my previos couple of posts.

 

Usually I do. I don't know what got into me in this thread.

[CoyoteRed]

Now it is your argument that none of your local cachers ever find caches outside of your home town? That seems unlikely. It is as unlikely as the argument that people find caches that they don't like and hide ones just like them.

What's funny is when you take into account the fact that these very folks do cache outside their area and don't bring these types of hides back.

 

I think the "hide what they find" applies to folks who really haven't cached much. They think a micro at a shopping center is what it is all about.

 

Another element is the bright-eyed newbie who wants to hide caches so other folks can find them and see a PLC as "good enough." They cheap and easy to put out, permission is never an issue, neither is getting them approved, so out they go. It's almost like an "impulse placement."

 

Add to this the attitude where the smilie is more important than the hunt, then you have a recipe for high numbers of lame caches.

 

It's not just micros, either. It's lame thoughtless caches. They don't have to be micros. I've been told of areas where film cans are classified as smalls, not micros. You can't filter micros if they've been mis-sized.

 

Funny thing is, it's interesting to note that it's rare for folks to not cache outside their area. It's not as if a significant number of cachers aren't exposed to these lame caches. It's interesting that not everyone will bring those hides back to their area.

[+sbell111]

Percentages of micros? I don't think so. Total caches maybe, but not percentages of caches size.

Perhaps if you used a verb we would be able to understand your post.

It's attitude all the way. Anyone who goes to events or read regional forums can "read" the attitude. Some areas "love" micros much like they celebrate their numbers. Others don't.

Even if your theory was correct, so what? We're still left with nothing but the fact that there are less caches that Brian doesn't like in his area and that those caches that he doesn't like are enjoyed by other cachers.

[+sbell111]

I see that you ignored my previos couple of posts.

Usually I do. I don't know what got into me in this thread.

It's easy to be forthright when you ignore everyone who disagrees with you, I suppose. Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Now it is your argument that none of your local cachers ever find caches outside of your home town? That seems unlikely. It is as unlikely as the argument that people find caches that they don't like and hide ones just like them.

What's funny is when you take into account the fact that these very folks do cache outside their area and don't bring these types of hides back.

 

I think the "hide what they find" applies to folks who really haven't cached much. They think a micro at a shopping center is what it is all about.

 

Another element is the bright-eyed newbie who wants to hide caches so other folks can find them and see a PLC as "good enough." They cheap and easy to put out, permission is never an issue, neither is getting them approved, so out they go. It's almost like an "impulse placement."

 

Add to this the attitude where the smilie is more important than the hunt, then you have a recipe for high numbers of lame caches.

Perhaps you could clear one thing up. Is it your position that those caches that you don't like are or are not enjoyed by others?

It's not just micros, either. It's lame thoughtless caches. They don't have to be micros. I've been told of areas where film cans are classified as smalls, not micros. You can't filter micros if they've been mis-sized.

Shenanigans.

Funny thing is, it's interesting to note that it's rare for folks to not cache outside their area. It's not as if a significant number of cachers aren't exposed to these lame caches. It's interesting that not everyone will bring those hides back to their area.

Not everyone will hide a cache at all. Add to that the pressures that a few outspoken puritans put on their fellow cachers in hopes of 'saving' the game and I'm noit a bit surprised.

[+sbell111]

What we see over and over again in these threads is the unwillingness of those who dislike these caches to accept the simple fact that other people enjoy them. When it get's right down to it, that's the only reason we need for their existence.

[CoyoteRed]

What we see over and over again in these threads is the unwillingness of those who dislike these caches to accept the simple fact that other people enjoy them. When it get's right down to it, that's the only reason we need for their existence.

Some folks enjoyed caches that are now banned, so what's your point?

 

Enjoyment of any activity does not valid it. But, then again, by your criteria mailbox baseball is a valid activity.

[+sbell111]

What we see over and over again in these threads is the unwillingness of those who dislike these caches to accept the simple fact that other people enjoy them. When it get's right down to it, that's the only reason we need for their existence.

Some folks enjoyed caches that are now banned, so what's your point?

 

Enjoyment of any activity does not valid it. But, then again, by your criteria mailbox baseball is a valid activity.

Do I understand from your post that you would have these caches that others enjoy banned? Didn't you also post that you weren't trying to force your opinions on anyone else? Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

It's not just micros, either. It's lame thoughtless caches. They don't have to be micros. I've been told of areas where film cans are classified as smalls, not micros. You can't filter micros if they've been mis-sized.

Shenanigans.

I guess I deserve that. You know I wouldn't call out an area for this practice, nor would I be inclined to call out an individual cache. I haven't actually found a mis-sized cache, but this is what I was told who did find such caches. Calling shenanigans is calling that fellow cacher a liar.

[CoyoteRed]

What we see over and over again in these threads is the unwillingness of those who dislike these caches to accept the simple fact that other people enjoy them. When it get's right down to it, that's the only reason we need for their existence.

Some folks enjoyed caches that are now banned, so what's your point?

 

Enjoyment of any activity does not valid it. But, then again, by your criteria mailbox baseball is a valid activity.

Do I understand from your post that you would have these caches that others enjoy banned? Didn't you also post that you weren't trying to force your opinions on anyone else?

Do you understand you are putting words in my mouth?

 

Did I say lame caches should be banned? No, I haven't. Shame on you for suggesting it.

 

I pointed out nothing but your absurd notion of "enjoyment is validation" is baloney.

[+KBI]

I see that you ignored my previos couple of posts.

Usually I do. I don't know what got into me in this thread.

It's easy to be forthright when you ignore everyone who disagrees with you, I suppose.

Tell me about it:

No response to the questions at the end of this post, then?

 

In an earlier post I carefully described my method for detecting the caches that I believe are "worthless for anyone but numbers hounds." I referred to it as the "ten second plan." As I said, it works for me with a very high degree of dependability, and it would seem to be an easy no-brainer for anyone with even a little bit of caching experience. I have asked you a couple of times why you believe it wouldn't work for you. You still haven't responded.

 

My desire to help you is genuine. My curiosity as to why my suggestion is being ignored is growing.

 

If you choose to ignore my question yet again I will conclude that you would rather complain than seek solutions to your frustration.

 

[silence from Briansnat ]

 

[+Renegade Knight]

...Add to this the attitude where the smilie is more important than the hunt, then you have a recipe for high numbers of lame caches....

 

Smilies comes from finds. Not from placing the cache. People seem to like blaming lame hiders on lame finders. The two are different.

[+Mach2003]

We have cached for a short time, We have found less than a "lot" of caches. We have placed a few, and some are micros. The micros we have placed are either interesting in themselfs, or are in interesting areas. IMHO (and the loggers too).

 

Here is a few points from this thread, having read it all (poor me), and many like it.

Before 1) On post #108 Sbell agreed with TrailGators

1) Micro or not, hiding an ammo can at a parking lot is still the same.

2) Since there are many more caches available now, do the complainers say that there are LESS caches that they can find and enjoy than there was a few years ago?

3) In my GSAK list 16.8% are micros out of about 7000 caches. Most of these, that I have found, (not that I have found most of these), I have enjoyed.

4) I have spent a day traveling the woods, finding un-intersting, to me, full size caches. I have traveled through urban areas, and found nothing but un-interesting caches. I have traveled on decent hikes to find nothing but a cache, not even a view, after a great hike.

5) I have found many very interesting urban caches, most of them are mico size.

6) I have found many very interesting waterfalls, views, and hikes in the woods, because of caching.

7) Some of my best experiences caching, resluted in a DNF.

8) on POST#108 Sbell Agreed with TrailGators

9) Of the caches we placed, we get many more logs on the urban ones. The caches we have placed in farther off places, seldom get logged, and even then, the loggers seem to miss the point.

 

Folks, there are many things we find that we do not care for, when we depend on others to provide us with entertainment. Some of these things we will have to just accept. Disapointment comes with hiding and with finding, that is life.

 

Perhaps the reason cachers hide "lame" caches, is that cashers, by numbers, FIND "lame" caches. How can anyone call a cache "LAME" when more cachers LOG the lame caches?

 

Oh! point 10) ON POST 108 SBELL AGREED WITH TRAILGATORS!

[+Renegade Knight]

...2) Since there are many more caches available now, do the complainers say that there are LESS caches that they can find and enjoy than there was a few years ago?...

 

Most of them freely admit that there are more of every kind of cache including the ones they enjoy. Ok maybe only the ones with brains. However the gripe is that they have to work harder to sort out the wheat from the chaff. That resembles work and work is what they are trying not to do when caching because when you add work to caching, it's no longer so much fun as it is work.

 

Now I have to go read that post you reference...

[+Mach2003]

...2) Since there are many more caches available now, do the complainers say that there are LESS caches that they can find and enjoy than there was a few years ago?...

 

Most of them freely admit that there are more of every kind of cache including the ones they enjoy. Ok maybe only the ones with brains. However the gripe is that they have to work harder to sort out the wheat from the chaff. That resembles work and work is what they are trying not to do when caching because when you add work to caching, it's no longer so much fun as it is work.

 

Now I have to go read that post you reference...

 

So let me see if I understand this:

 

On day One there was One cache in Portland.

On Day X there was Y caches, mostly few and far between, mostly in the woods.

Today there are 45 million caches all over the world, and the complainers want to eliminate all the ones that they don't like, by some mystery, so that they are sure to have FUN without any chance of disapointment.

 

Good Luck, and HAPPY caching.

[+TrailGators]

I see that you ignored my previous couple of posts.

Usually I do. I don't know what got into me in this thread.

It's easy to be forthright when you ignore everyone who disagrees with you, I suppose.

Tell me about it

Both of you guys do the same thing. I've been suggested ideas that you never responded to as well:

 

I wouldn't have an issue with caches placed next to dumpsters, if that cache had a garbage dumpster attribute I could use to ignore every cache that was next to a garbage dumpster. Maybe there could be a "Loading dock" or a "Parking Lot" attributes too. We could have a "Vagrant's Sleep Here" attribute as well or maybe just "The Area smells like urine" attribute. I would really like a "Cache is in my yard" attribute. At any rate, if these types of attributes did exist (and were used) those that "enjoy" these types of locations could use them to look for these spots. Those that don't like these spots can use them to ignore these kinds of spots. It's called a win-win! In the meantime, would it be too much to ask to have these folks describe the area around their cache in the cache description to help us more quickly identify these spots? Maybe they could write something like "A quick cache and dash located in an empty lot behind Target. It might not smell very nice because some homeless people sometimes sleep here." Since a lot of people "enjoy" these types of areas, I'm sure they wouldn't mind including this info.

[+TrailGators]

...2) Since there are many more caches available now, do the complainers say that there are LESS caches that they can find and enjoy than there was a few years ago?...

 

Most of them freely admit that there are more of every kind of cache including the ones they enjoy. Ok maybe only the ones with brains. However the gripe is that they have to work harder to sort out the wheat from the chaff. That resembles work and work is what they are trying not to do when caching because when you add work to caching, it's no longer so much fun as it is work.

 

Now I have to go read that post you reference...

 

So let me see if I understand this:

 

On day One there was One cache in Portland.

On Day X there was Y caches, mostly few and far between, mostly in the woods.

Today there are 45 million caches all over the world, and the complainers want to eliminate all the ones that they don't like, by some mystery, so that they are sure to have FUN without any chance of disapointment.

 

Good Luck, and HAPPY caching.

We just want to eliminate them from our GPSs. Feel free to have them on yours. I think my last post summarizes one win-win idea that could accomplish this.

[+Mach2003]

...2) Since there are many more caches available now, do the complainers say that there are LESS caches that they can find and enjoy than there was a few years ago?...

 

Most of them freely admit that there are more of every kind of cache including the ones they enjoy. Ok maybe only the ones with brains. However the gripe is that they have to work harder to sort out the wheat from the chaff. That resembles work and work is what they are trying not to do when caching because when you add work to caching, it's no longer so much fun as it is work.

 

Now I have to go read that post you reference...

 

So let me see if I understand this:

 

On day One there was One cache in Portland.

On Day X there was Y caches, mostly few and far between, mostly in the woods.

Today there are 45 million caches all over the world, and the complainers want to eliminate all the ones that they don't like, by some mystery, so that they are sure to have FUN without any chance of disapointment.

 

Good Luck, and HAPPY caching.

We just want to eliminate them from our GPSs. Feel free to have them on yours. I think my last post summarizes one win-win idea that could accomplish this.

 

I see your point, and I like it too.

Lets see what this would do in the real world:

How many cache hiders would click off the "this cache sticks, use a nose plug" attribute?

For that matter, how many would ckick on "Placed just so numbers counters can find it easy" attribute?

 

Do you realy think this is a solution?

[+Renegade Knight]

...]We just want to eliminate them from our GPSs. Feel free to have them on yours. I think my last post summarizes one win-win idea that could accomplish this.

 

A geeze now I gotta muck with attributes. Back in the day I'd just list the cache and people would find it. That was fun. Now I have to warn about peanuts and dumpsters, plus certify that I have explicit permission for the contents of the cache, list the contents for explicit permission verification, bribe keystone with hamsters, supply purple paint for purple ponies, paint the cache with every site that it's listed on to prevent confusion, and it's now work. I placed caches to get away from that crap.

[+Mach2003]

Where I live, the "micro spew" is not evident (16.8%, remember), and I am glad for that. I use a palm, and GASK, and my BRAIN, occasionally, and although I quoted some examples above, overall I am having FUN playing this addiction.

 

Would it be better if all hiders, placed my fovorite kinds of caches, yes.

Would it be better if hiders told me I would NOT like their cache, yes.

 

Would this EVER happen?, NO!

[+Mach2003]

I just have to do this (sorry)

 

Micro spew: Placed within 50 feet of parking spot, near a major highway, in urban center. Park, with thousands of muggles often. rated 1/1.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c3-34fd02e8775e

 

But is it spew?

[+KBI]

I wouldn't have an issue with caches placed next to dumpsters, if that cache had a garbage dumpster attribute I could use to ignore every cache that was next to a garbage dumpster. Maybe there could be a "Loading dock" or a "Parking Lot" attributes too. We could have a "Vagrant's Sleep Here" attribute as well or maybe just "The Area smells like urine" attribute.

Seriously?

 

Exactly how many cache owners do you expect will use these "my cache is lame" attributes? I say zero. Convince me otherwise.

 

Exactly when do you expect Groundspeak to add attributes such as "Vagrants Sleep Here" and "The Area Smells Like Urine" to the official list? I say never. Convince me otherwise.

 

If I didn't know better I would say your "suggested idea" wasn't entirely serious.

 

 

I see that you ignored my previous couple of posts.

Usually I do. I don't know what got into me in this thread.

It's easy to be forthright when you ignore everyone who disagrees with you, I suppose.

Tell me about it

Both of you guys do the same thing. I've been suggested ideas that you never responded to as well :

Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. Now that you've accused me of ignoring questions, allow me to remind you of a question I posed to you in a recent series of PMs. You may recall that you ignored it repeatedly. You may also recall that I abandoned our PM debate as a result of your refusal to adddress the question.

 

In a PM you said: "I'm not sure what you want me to say."

 

I responded:

 

What do I want to hear you say?

 

How about:

(1) "to each his own" (and stop whining in the forums about the occasional cache that doesn't happen to entertain you).

 

How about:

(2) "Yes, KBI, I now understand that sometimes that simple urban hide can be just the thing when you want an easy smiley or an excuse to play with your GPS, no matter how 'lame' that cache might seem to someone else."

 

How about:

(3) "A brief scan of the cache pages will quickly and easily eliminate the vast majority of lame and boring caches from my to-do list"

 

How about:

(4) "I humbly admit that MY preferences ONLY matter to ME, and further, I understand that it would be boorish and self-centered of me to attempt to impose my preferences, my unique set of standards or my minimum acceptable entertainment requirement on anyone else. I will lead by example with my own awesome hides, but I will not go so far as to DEMAND that anyone follow my lead, because I understand that everyone has their OWN unique set of entertainment preferences that makes them happy."

 

That's what I would like to hear you say. Think you could ever manage any of those?

 

Can't you agree with ANY of those four very reasonable statements, TG?

There it is. Right at the bottom of the quote. The question you dodged, ducked, danced around, avoided and otherwise ignored through countless PM cycles. There were other questions you ignored repeatedly as well, but nevermind those for now.

 

There it is: My question, presented to you -- yet again, and in a public thread this time -- for your consideration.

 

Would you care to consider answering it now?

[CoyoteRed]

...Add to this the attitude where the smilie is more important than the hunt, then you have a recipe for high numbers of lame caches....

 

Smilies comes from finds. Not from placing the cache. People seem to like blaming lame hiders on lame finders. The two are different.

You miss the point. The cache is designed with simply the end of logging online to get a smilie and to increment the find count as the primary reason to exist. These are called "gifts," as in "here, have a smilie." I've heard it more than a few times, some right in the description.

 

You know the finders' smilie are foremost in the hider's mind when they would rather hide a series of caches in a small area than make it a multi cache. The reasoning is folks will get a smilie for each find when the reality is the finding of the caches in the real world amounts to the exact same thing. This desire is so strong in some people that Groundspeak had to make a policy. There's been plenty of threads about it.

[+sbell111]

What we see over and over again in these threads is the unwillingness of those who dislike these caches to accept the simple fact that other people enjoy them. When it get's right down to it, that's the only reason we need for their existence.

Some folks enjoyed caches that are now banned, so what's your point?

 

Enjoyment of any activity does not valid it. But, then again, by your criteria mailbox baseball is a valid activity.

Do I understand from your post that you would have these caches that others enjoy banned? Didn't you also post that you weren't trying to force your opinions on anyone else?

Do you understand you are putting words in my mouth?

 

Did I say lame caches should be banned? No, I haven't. Shame on you for suggesting it.

 

I pointed out nothing but your absurd notion of "enjoyment is validation" is baloney.

If you don't want them banned, then I don't understand your posts. We are back to cachers placing caches that meet the guidelines and are enjoyed by others. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with this. You apparently do, but I can't figure out why you have a problem with it.

[+sbell111]

I see that you ignored my previous couple of posts.

Usually I do. I don't know what got into me in this thread.

It's easy to be forthright when you ignore everyone who disagrees with you, I suppose.

Tell me about it

Both of you guys do the same thing. I've been suggested ideas that you never responded to as well:

I wouldn't have an issue with caches placed next to dumpsters, if that cache had a garbage dumpster attribute I could use to ignore every cache that was next to a garbage dumpster. Maybe there could be a "Loading dock" or a "Parking Lot" attributes too. We could have a "Vagrant's Sleep Here" attribute as well or maybe just "The Area smells like urine" attribute. I would really like a "Cache is in my yard" attribute. At any rate, if these types of attributes did exist (and were used) those that "enjoy" these types of locations could use them to look for these spots. Those that don't like these spots can use them to ignore these kinds of spots. It's called a win-win! In the meantime, would it be too much to ask to have these folks describe the area around their cache in the cache description to help us more quickly identify these spots? Maybe they could write something like "A quick cache and dash located in an empty lot behind Target. It might not smell very nice because some homeless people sometimes sleep here." Since a lot of people "enjoy" these types of areas, I'm sure they wouldn't mind including this info.

I didn't respond to that idea because I didn't think that you were serious. If you insist on one, here it is:

 

Do you also want attributes for 'hidden under sticks', chiggars-a-plenty', and 'roving bands of ticks'? Do you want an attribute for every possible location and hide method?

 

No thanks.

[CoyoteRed]

However the gripe is that they have to work harder to sort out the wheat from the chaff. That resembles work and work is what they are trying not to do when caching because when you add work to caching, it's no longer so much fun as it is work.

As I was sitting here composing this reply, I go to wondering; what effect did PQs have on the population of caches?

 

The reason this popped up is PQs are a heaven send to getting out and caching. No more printing out page after page of descriptions or hand entering coordinates. Getting into the field with GPS and PDA loaded with coordinates and descriptions is a cinch.

 

...only to be confronted by a cache that makes one shake their head wondering what the hider was thinking.

 

Ironically, PQs serve numbers chasers better than those looking for a quality hunt. It's fairly trivial to filter to only 2/2 or less traditionals. It's impossible to filter on "junk." Even in GSAK you can run a macro to develop cache-runs to make your smilie gathering more efficient.

 

Has the bulk load of caches changed the hobby to what we see today?

[CoyoteRed]

If you don't want them banned, then I don't understand your posts.

Sure you do. You just don't have a valid argument against my position while pretending to not have been a participant when this was discussed several times before. This is a subject you simply can't keep you nose out of so I call shenanigans back on you for feigning to not remember it.