Micro Mania

[+KBI]

Still no response to my question, Trailgators?

I already said I was being sarcastic. We know that people that hide those types of caches would never divulge the truth about the cons of location of their cache.

Sarcastic? Are we talking about the same thing? Did you even click the link?

 

Here is is again: the link to my question.

 

Will you try to answer it this time, or can I expect even more obfuscation?

I already said I was being sarcastic. Do you want me to phase in it French for you?

I already said sarcasm has nothing to do with it. Do you want me to re-post the whole dadgum thing for you, since you apparently STILL haven't clicked on the link?

 

Fine:

 

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?

 

Look I'm not going to let you drag another thread down the gutter with your BS. So this is the last time I will respond to you. Bon Jour!

Asking you to defend your irrational-sounding statements with some kind of logic is BS? Providing you with yet another opportunity to convince me that you are right and I am wrong is "dragging you down the gutter?"

 

You frequently make statements that just sound flat out wrong to me, TG. Our viewpoints are not compatible; logically speaking, at least one of us is wrong. If it is me, and you are correct, then I want you to convince me to think as you do. If your position is more sound than mine, then it should easily stand up to debate. Why are you unwilling to debate TG?

 

If you could present some kind of remotely rational answer to my question, as Briansnat did, then you might have a chance at convincing me to agree with the validity of your claims.

 

Until then I stand by my conclusion that you would rather whine than defend your arguments, TG. I think you just confirmed that conclusion. Again.

[+sbell111]

The situation is a joke. You are telling us to read cache pages to try to filter out caches that are located in disgusting places. But the cache pages are no help because nobody would ever admit that their cache is hidden in a disgusting place. The logs are no help unless one of "us" (location is important types) gets to experience one of these caches and then also writes a very honest log about it to help out our fellow cachers. So let the honesty begin!

Reading the cache page was not the first step of the 'easy peasey' method. The first step was running your PQs so you are pretty sure that you are going to like the caches in them. You then take a look at the cache pages on the fly to see if a stinker snuck in. After you have found (or ignored) all of those, you go back to the well.

I guess don't understand the first step. I enjoy any cache type/size/rating provided that it is hidden in either a clever way or a cool location. So can you clarify?

Sure.

 

You have X amount of time to look for caches. In that amount of time, you can find Y caches. There are Z total caches. This is made up of A caches that you enjoy and B caches that you don't enjoy. If you filter your PQs to exclude most B caches to obtain PQ C, it doesn't matter how many A caches that you filter out as long as C>Y.

How would I know if I enjoy "A" or not enjoy "B" if I haven't found them?

You know what broad categories of caches that you tend to enjoy.

I don't need any method to sort hiking caches. They are all decent and I rarely if ever have an issue with one of those. However, sometimes it's blazing hot outside and so hiking is not an option so that means urban caching. Anyhow, it's the urban ones that I need an "easy peasy" method for. So what broad category would I use for urbans?

If I were you, I would first sort out any low terrain micros from the target urban area. This will take out the bulk of LPCs. In fact, I would likely ditch any micros and smalls under a terrain of 1.5 and difficulty of two. This will remove some caches that you would enjoy, but leave you with plenty of caches with a higher probability of enjoyment. I would then read the cache pages on the fly and not bother with caches that don't seem fun to you, either because of location, clues in the description or hint, or tell-tale logs.

 

Has anyone seen CoyoteRed? I was hoping he would get around to answering my questions from posts 205, 211, and 212.

Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

The situation is a joke. You are telling us to read cache pages to try to filter out caches that are located in disgusting places. But the cache pages are no help because nobody would ever admit that their cache is hidden in a disgusting place. The logs are no help unless one of "us" (location is important types) gets to experience one of these caches and then also writes a very honest log about it to help out our fellow cachers. So let the honesty begin!

Reading the cache page was not the first step of the 'easy peasey' method. The first step was running your PQs so you are pretty sure that you are going to like the caches in them. You then take a look at the cache pages on the fly to see if a stinker snuck in. After you have found (or ignored) all of those, you go back to the well.

I guess don't understand the first step. I enjoy any cache type/size/rating provided that it is hidden in either a clever way or a cool location. So can you clarify?

Sure.

 

You have X amount of time to look for caches. In that amount of time, you can find Y caches. There are Z total caches. This is made up of A caches that you enjoy and B caches that you don't enjoy. If you filter your PQs to exclude most B caches to obtain PQ C, it doesn't matter how many A caches that you filter out as long as C>Y.

How would I know if I enjoy "A" or not enjoy "B" if I haven't found them?

You know what broad categories of caches that you tend to enjoy.

I don't need any method to sort hiking caches. They are all decent and I rarely if ever have an issue with one of those. However, sometimes it's blazing hot outside and so hiking is not an option so that means urban caching. Anyhow, it's the urban ones that I need an "easy peasy" method for. So what broad category would I use for urbans?

If I were you, I would first sort out any low terrain micros from the target urban area. This will take out the bulk of LPCs. In fact, I would likely ditch any micros and smalls under a terrain of 1.5 and difficulty of two. This will remove some caches that you would enjoy, but leave you with plenty of caches with a higher probability of enjoyment. I would then read the cache pages on the fly and not bother with caches that don't seem fun to you, either because of location, clues in the description or hint, or tell-tale logs.

I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

[+sbell111]

The situation is a joke. You are telling us to read cache pages to try to filter out caches that are located in disgusting places. But the cache pages are no help because nobody would ever admit that their cache is hidden in a disgusting place. The logs are no help unless one of "us" (location is important types) gets to experience one of these caches and then also writes a very honest log about it to help out our fellow cachers. So let the honesty begin!

Reading the cache page was not the first step of the 'easy peasey' method. The first step was running your PQs so you are pretty sure that you are going to like the caches in them. You then take a look at the cache pages on the fly to see if a stinker snuck in. After you have found (or ignored) all of those, you go back to the well.

I guess don't understand the first step. I enjoy any cache type/size/rating provided that it is hidden in either a clever way or a cool location. So can you clarify?

Sure.

 

You have X amount of time to look for caches. In that amount of time, you can find Y caches. There are Z total caches. This is made up of A caches that you enjoy and B caches that you don't enjoy. If you filter your PQs to exclude most B caches to obtain PQ C, it doesn't matter how many A caches that you filter out as long as C>Y.

How would I know if I enjoy "A" or not enjoy "B" if I haven't found them?

You know what broad categories of caches that you tend to enjoy.

I don't need any method to sort hiking caches. They are all decent and I rarely if ever have an issue with one of those. However, sometimes it's blazing hot outside and so hiking is not an option so that means urban caching. Anyhow, it's the urban ones that I need an "easy peasy" method for. So what broad category would I use for urbans?

If I were you, I would first sort out any low terrain micros from the target urban area. This will take out the bulk of LPCs. In fact, I would likely ditch any micros and smalls under a terrain of 1.5 and difficulty of two. This will remove some caches that you would enjoy, but leave you with plenty of caches with a higher probability of enjoyment. I would then read the cache pages on the fly and not bother with caches that don't seem fun to you, either because of location, clues in the description or hint, or tell-tale logs.

I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

I didn't realize that you were calling a terrain over 1.5 'high terrain'. Also, you might want to reread my post. I only suggested that you filtered micros and smalls based on their terrain rating.

[+Renegade Knight]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

 

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

[+TrailGators]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

 

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

[+KBI]

There it is: My question, presented to you -- yet again ....

 

Would you care to consider answering it now?

Trailgators:

< crickets, crickets, crickets >

 

 

 

 

I rest my case. This has now been settled conclusively.

 

Trailgators would rather whine than defend his arguments.

 

He isn't interested in convincing anyone that his claims make any sense, and he apparently isn't any more interested in listening to helpful suggestions than any of the other Complainers. He is only interested in repeating his provably meaningless gripes. Why? Just to hear himself make noise? We may never know.

 

I guess there doesn’t have to be a reason for everything, does there ...... Hey! Come to think of it, that’s actually another logical justification for the existence of large numbers of easy urban micros!!!

 

There doesn’t have to be a reason for everything.

 

Thanks, Trailgators!

[+sbell111]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

 

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

Pssst....

 

You missed the posts that explained that. Both in this thread and numerous prior ones.

Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+KBI]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

 

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

Pssst....

 

You missed the posts that explained that. Both in this thread and numerous prior ones.

Pssst....

 

Give it up. He doesn't want your help. I've proved it. You're only getting in the way of his complaining. You might as well be arguing with a wooden post.

[+TrailGators]

Est-ce que quelqu'un a un swatter de mouche ?

[+sbell111]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

Pssst....

 

You missed the posts that explained that. Both in this thread and numerous prior ones.

Pssst....

 

Give it up. He doesn't want your help. I've proved it. You're only getting in the way of his complaining. You might as well be arguing with a wooden post.

It's just irritating that he skipped over the post that explained his question to reply to another post and infer that I didn't answer.

[+TrailGators]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

 

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

Pssst....

 

You missed the posts that explained that. Both in this thread and numerous prior ones.

It was a very simple question and you won't explain it. I thought it was "easy peasy?" Edited July 23, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Est-ce que quelqu'un a un swatter de mouche ?

Can someone seriously discuss the issue without lame snarkiness?

[+TrailGators]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

Pssst....

 

You missed the posts that explained that. Both in this thread and numerous prior ones.

Pssst....

 

Give it up. He doesn't want your help. I've proved it. You're only getting in the way of his complaining. You might as well be arguing with a wooden post.

It's just irritating that he skipped over the post that explained his question to reply to another post and infer that I didn't answer.

Sorry, I missed it because of a fly. Do you always get mad at people for being human? Anyhow, terrain 2s around here are still one to two mile hikes. When it's 100+ degrees those wouldn't be too fun. So I guess drive-bys are ruled out by your Step 1. Also I don't have anything against micros. I have found some awesome ones.

[+sbell111]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

Pssst....

 

You missed the posts that explained that. Both in this thread and numerous prior ones.

It was a very simple question and you won't explain it. I thought it was "easy peasy?"

I've explained it many, many times. Most recently, I went over it conceptually in posts 235 & 237 and specifically for you in posts 252 & 254.

[+TrailGators]

Est-ce que quelqu'un a un swatter de mouche ?

Can someone seriously discuss the issue without lame snarkiness?

That wasn't directed at you.

[+TrailGators]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

Pssst....

 

You missed the posts that explained that. Both in this thread and numerous prior ones.

It was a very simple question and you won't explain it. I thought it was "easy peasy?"

I've explained it many, many times. Most recently, I went over it conceptually in posts 235 & 237 and specifically for you in posts 252 & 254.

See Post 264...

[+tozainamboku]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

 

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

But it's step one of the easy-peasy method that I gave. Along with step 2 of lowering your expectations if you want to do urban caching because it's too hot to hike, followed by step 3 of skiping or limiting your search times on caches in areas you do like and lengthing your searches on caches that are in nice areas or where the logs indicate an interesting or challenging hide. In the end you will have spent most of the time finding good caches and limited the time you spent searching for lame caches. If you find yourself in one of those rare areas where briansnat says the lame caches so far out number good caches that this method doesn't work then quit for the day. It was probably too hot to go caching anyway.

[+sbell111]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

Pssst....

 

You missed the posts that explained that. Both in this thread and numerous prior ones.

Pssst....

 

Give it up. He doesn't want your help. I've proved it. You're only getting in the way of his complaining. You might as well be arguing with a wooden post.

It's just irritating that he skipped over the post that explained his question to reply to another post and infer that I didn't answer.

Sorry, I missed it because of a fly. Do you always get mad at people for being human?

I never said that I was angry. Irritated, yes. Angry, no.

 

Anyhow, terrain 2s around here are still one to two mile hikes. When it's 100+ degrees those wouldn't be too fun. So I guess drive-bys are ruled out by your Step 1. Also I don't have anything against micros. I have found some awesome ones.

If caches are typically misrated in your area, you will need to adjust your filters. Either way, we are still only talking about micrs and smalls. Plus, you are still missing the concept:

 

It is OK to filter out some good caches if it leaves you with a higher probability of enjoying the remainder. If you run out of those higher-probability caches, you can take a closer look at those you filtered out to find the pearls.

[+sbell111]

It looks like there are at least three 'easy peasey' methods circulating. So many people are trying to help you be satisfied in your geocaching experience.

[+TrailGators]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

Pssst....

 

You missed the posts that explained that. Both in this thread and numerous prior ones.

Pssst....

 

Give it up. He doesn't want your help. I've proved it. You're only getting in the way of his complaining. You might as well be arguing with a wooden post.

It's just irritating that he skipped over the post that explained his question to reply to another post and infer that I didn't answer.

Sorry, I missed it because of a fly. Do you always get mad at people for being human?

I never said that I was angry. Irritated, yes. Angry, no.

 

Anyhow, terrain 2s around here are still one to two mile hikes. When it's 100+ degrees those wouldn't be too fun. So I guess drive-bys are ruled out by your Step 1. Also I don't have anything against micros. I have found some awesome ones.

If caches are typically misrated in your area, you will need to adjust your filters. Either way, we are still only talking about micros and smalls. Plus, you are still missing the concept:

 

It is OK to filter out some good caches if it leaves you with a higher probability of enjoying the remainder. If you run out of those higher-probability caches, you can take a closer look at those you filtered out to find the pearls.

Our terrain ratings are fine. A "2" can be up to a 2 mile hike if it's flat. Anyhow, your method would include only regulars that are 1s or 1.5s?

[+TrailGators]

Along with step 2 of lowering your expectations if you want to do urban caching because it's too hot to hike.

I never noticed this step mentioned. That is actually my step one for urban caching these days. It never even used to even be a step...

[+KBI]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

Pssst....

 

You missed the posts that explained that. Both in this thread and numerous prior ones.

Pssst....

 

Give it up. He doesn't want your help. I've proved it. You're only getting in the way of his complaining. You might as well be arguing with a wooden post.

It's just irritating that he skipped over the post that explained his question to reply to another post and infer that I didn't answer.

He's never going to understand it. He doesn't WANT to understand it. You've explained your procedure so many times in these threads that even my model airplanes on my computer desk know how to do it.

 

Trailgators doesn't want anybody's help, he doesn't want to debate his reasons, and he doesn't want to defend his complaints about how he is being mistreated by the game of Geocaching -- and I've finally proved it.

 

He only wants to be a victim.

[+sbell111]

... I just told you that when it gets blazing hot outside, I don't want to do higher terrain caches. So filtering out all the lower terrain caches in your suggested Step 1 would leave me with nada.

That's why you have another PQ ready to go that does a reverse filter so you only see the urban caches.

I have a hunch that's not Step 1 of the patented "easy peasy" method. Bear with us RK, until someone can explain how Step 1 of this patented "easy peasy" method works on a blazing hot summer day...

Pssst....

 

You missed the posts that explained that. Both in this thread and numerous prior ones.

Pssst....

 

Give it up. He doesn't want your help. I've proved it. You're only getting in the way of his complaining. You might as well be arguing with a wooden post.

It's just irritating that he skipped over the post that explained his question to reply to another post and infer that I didn't answer.

Sorry, I missed it because of a fly. Do you always get mad at people for being human?

I never said that I was angry. Irritated, yes. Angry, no.

 

Anyhow, terrain 2s around here are still one to two mile hikes. When it's 100+ degrees those wouldn't be too fun. So I guess drive-bys are ruled out by your Step 1. Also I don't have anything against micros. I have found some awesome ones.

If caches are typically misrated in your area, you will need to adjust your filters. Either way, we are still only talking about micros and smalls. Plus, you are still missing the concept:

 

It is OK to filter out some good caches if it leaves you with a higher probability of enjoying the remainder. If you run out of those higher-probability caches, you can take a closer look at those you filtered out to find the pearls.

Our terrain ratings are fine. A "2" can be up to a 2 mile hike if it's flat. Anyhow, your method would include only regulars that are 1s or 1.5s?

No.

[+tozainamboku]

It looks like there are at least three 'easy peasey' methods circulating. So many people are trying to help you be satisfied in your geocaching experience.

I'll have to agree with TrailGators that the sbell easy-peasy method is not very satisfying. It seems that because the original topic of the thread is micro mania, the assumption is made that most lame caches are micros (or urban micros). TrailGators, briansnat, and Coyote Red have all stated that enjoy finding urban micros. What they don't like is finding caches in uninspired places and especially in disgusting places like dumpters or areas that have been used as "public" restrooms. Of course, if lameness is defined this way, instead of LPCs or guardrails, there aren't so many lame caches. In my experience, you're more likely to find a small or regular sized cache in some of these locations than a micro. And you may even find caches that meet this definition of lame in a non-urban area. Right now there isn't any way to filter these caches out with a pocket query. But these caches are more likely to get some kind of mention in the logs besid just TFTC. If you assume the person who hid the cache didn't realize the problems in the area when they hid the cache, you can write a log descibing the situation without blaming the hider.

 

My easy-peasy method is to decide that I don't need to find every cache. When I get some place and look around and decide I don't want to search here I'll skip it. Sometimes I'll come back just to see if the problem is temporary. Sometimes, I won't see the problems until I start looking. If I find the cache and make a quick grab, then it isn't so bad and I get a smilie. But if the cache isn't obvious, I'll stop looking and go to the next cache. And there are somethings I can do to lessen the chance of a bad experience. I can avoid the hides of certain cachers and concentrate on hiders who seem to give more thought to their hides. Even in an unfamiliar area I can get a feel for a hider after visiting only one or two of their caches. I know I'll probably prefer a cache in an urban park (although in a unfamiliar area there is a chance of a homeless encampment or perhaps of it being a cruising park) so I'll look for caches in parks on my GPS map.

[+tozainamboku]

Along with step 2 of lowering your expectations if you want to do urban caching because it's too hot to hike.

I never noticed this step mentioned. That is actually my step one for urban caching these days. It never even used to even be a step...

It's been a step for me for nearly as long as I've been caching. Of course when I started it was exciting to see all the ways a micro could be hidden in an urban enviroment. Who first discovered you could life up a skirt on a lampost? Who thought of painting an altoids tin dumpster green and use magnets to attach it to a dumpster? Who thought of gluing bark on an M&Ms tube and hiding it in the crotch of a tree? But as I found more caches I saw more of the same methods repeated and finding something that was new to me became rarer. And early on, I found caches hidden in newsracks down the street or on lampposts in parking lots and wondered why not hide this at the park or on a street in the hills with a scenic view? It took me a while to accept that other people were getting something out of these lame caches. For some reason, I decided to find all the caches on the page of caches nearest to my home coordinates. When I complained about a cache in an uninspired locations, I was told that it was my decision to find all the caches nearest to my home. If some were "lame" then it was part of what I would have to accept. So I lowered my expectations and found all the caches. And since then, I've gone back to not having to find every cache.

Edited July 23, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

It looks like there are at least three 'easy peasey' methods circulating. So many people are trying to help you be satisfied in your geocaching experience.

I'll have to agree with TrailGators that the sbell easy-peasy method is not very satisfying. It seems that because the original topic of the thread is micro mania, the assumption is made that most lame caches are micros (or urban micros). TrailGators, briansnat, and Coyote Red have all stated that enjoy finding urban micros. What they don't like is finding caches in uninspired places and especially in disgusting places like dumpters or areas that have been used as "public" restrooms. Of course, if lameness is defined this way, instead of LPCs or guardrails, there aren't so many lame caches. In my experience, you're more likely to find a small or regular sized cache in some of these locations than a micro. And you may even find caches that meet this definition of lame in a non-urban area. Right now there isn't any way to filter these caches out with a pocket query. But these caches are more likely to get some kind of mention in the logs besid just TFTC. If you assume the person who hid the cache didn't realize the problems in the area when they hid the cache, you can write a log descibing the situation without blaming the hider.

 

My easy-peasy method is to decide that I don't need to find every cache. When I get some place and look around and decide I don't want to search here I'll skip it. Sometimes I'll come back just to see if the problem is temporary. Sometimes, I won't see the problems until I start looking. If I find the cache and make a quick grab, then it isn't so bad and I get a smilie. But if the cache isn't obvious, I'll stop looking and go to the next cache. And there are somethings I can do to lessen the chance of a bad experience. I can avoid the hides of certain cachers and concentrate on hiders who seem to give more thought to their hides. Even in an unfamiliar area I can get a feel for a hider after visiting only one or two of their caches. I know I'll probably prefer a cache in an urban park (although in a unfamiliar area there is a chance of a homeless encampment or perhaps of it being a cruising park) so I'll look for caches in parks on my GPS map.

I like your method. In fact, I did it yesterday. I was in Oceanside and walked along the beach with my wife for a nice 3 mile stroll. I noticed that there were a cache at the end of the pier, so I told my wife that I was going to see if it was doable. When we got to GZ, there were two guys fishing right where in the area where the cache was, so I told my wife that I wasn't going to bother. We still had a nice walk. The end of the pier would make a much better waymark because there are so many muggles, but I haven't checked to see if it is!

[+tozainamboku]

I was in Oceanside and walked along the beach with my wife for a nice 3 mile stroll. I noticed that there were a cache at the end of the pier, so I told my wife that I was going to see if it was doable. When we got to GZ, there were two guys fishing right where in the area where the cache was, so I told my wife that I wasn't going to bother. We still had a nice walk. The end of the pier would make a much better waymark because there are so many muggles, but I haven't checked to see if it is!

I love doing caches on fishing piers. Because of the muggles it's often a challenge to figure out how to be stealthy and get the cache. But because it's generally a nice area I can spend a little time looking to see if I can spot the cache and sometimes wait out the muggles to retrieve it if it can't be done with stealth. Of course if some guy is fishing and using something really smelly for bait it may not be be so pleasant so I'll leave and perhaps try another time.

[+TrailGators]

Along with step 2 of lowering your expectations if you want to do urban caching because it's too hot to hike.

I never noticed this step mentioned. That is actually my step one for urban caching these days. It never even used to even be a step...

It's been a step for me for nearly as long as I've been caching. Of course when I started it was exciting to see all the ways a micro could be hidden in an urban enviroment. Who first discovered you could life up a skirt on a lampost? Who thought of painting an altoids tin dumpster green and use magnets to attach it to a dumpster? Who thought of gluing bark on an M&Ms tube and hiding it in the crotch of a tree? But as I found more caches I saw more of the same methods repeated and finding something that was new to me became rarer. And early on, I found caches hidden in newsracks down the street or on lampposts in parking lots and wondered why not hide this at the park or on a street in the hills with a scenic view? It took me a while to accept that other people were getting something out of these lame caches. For some reason, I decided to find all the caches on the page of caches nearest to my home coordinates. When I complained about a cache in an uninspired locations, I was told that it was my decision to find all the caches nearest to my home. If some were "lame" then it was part of what I would have to accept. So I lowered my expectations and found all the caches. And since then, I've gone back to not having to find every cache.

LA is ahead of Escondido in the caching timeline. When I started there were not that many caches around. I honestly never found a YKW. However, we also had a couple of very talented cache hiders that kep us very entertained. They both quit about a year ago. Anyhow, I never left the house with lower expectations for my first couple of years. I think the problem really started when the numbers thing that Kevin and Susan warned us about finally hit our area. They told us what had happened up in LA and they told us how they stopped logging caches at 999 to rebel against numbers mania. It did seem like the point of a lot of caches being placed with that wave was to get the number, so a lot of "anything goes" caches got hidden. It did impact those that weren't playing the numbers game. They were right. Edited July 23, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

Along with step 2 of lowering your expectations if you want to do urban caching because it's too hot to hike.

I never noticed this step mentioned. That is actually my step one for urban caching these days. It never even used to even be a step...

It's been a step for me for nearly as long as I've been caching. Of course when I started it was exciting to see all the ways a micro could be hidden in an urban enviroment. Who first discovered you could life up a skirt on a lampost? Who thought of painting an altoids tin dumpster green and use magnets to attach it to a dumpster? Who thought of gluing bark on an M&Ms tube and hiding it in the crotch of a tree? But as I found more caches I saw more of the same methods repeated and finding something that was new to me became rarer. And early on, I found caches hidden in newsracks down the street or on lampposts in parking lots and wondered why not hide this at the park or on a street in the hills with a scenic view? It took me a while to accept that other people were getting something out of these lame caches. For some reason, I decided to find all the caches on the page of caches nearest to my home coordinates. When I complained about a cache in an uninspired locations, I was told that it was my decision to find all the caches nearest to my home. If some were "lame" then it was part of what I would have to accept. So I lowered my expectations and found all the caches. And since then, I've gone back to not having to find every cache.

LA is ahead of Escondido in the caching timeline. When I started there were not that many caches around. I honestly never found a YNW. However, we also had a couple of very talented cache hiders that kep us very entertained. They both quit about a year ago. Anyhow, I never left the house with lower expectations for my first couple of years. I think the problem really started when the numbers thing that Kevin and Susan warned us about finally hit our area. They told us what had happened up in LA and they told us how they stopped logging caches at 999 to rebel against numbers mania. It did seem like the point of a lot of caches being placed with that wave was to get the number, so a lot of "anything goes" caches got hidden. It did impact those that weren't playing the numbers game. They were right.

What does YNW stand for, again??

[+TrailGators]

Along with step 2 of lowering your expectations if you want to do urban caching because it's too hot to hike.

I never noticed this step mentioned. That is actually my step one for urban caching these days. It never even used to even be a step...

It's been a step for me for nearly as long as I've been caching. Of course when I started it was exciting to see all the ways a micro could be hidden in an urban enviroment. Who first discovered you could life up a skirt on a lampost? Who thought of painting an altoids tin dumpster green and use magnets to attach it to a dumpster? Who thought of gluing bark on an M&Ms tube and hiding it in the crotch of a tree? But as I found more caches I saw more of the same methods repeated and finding something that was new to me became rarer. And early on, I found caches hidden in newsracks down the street or on lampposts in parking lots and wondered why not hide this at the park or on a street in the hills with a scenic view? It took me a while to accept that other people were getting something out of these lame caches. For some reason, I decided to find all the caches on the page of caches nearest to my home coordinates. When I complained about a cache in an uninspired locations, I was told that it was my decision to find all the caches nearest to my home. If some were "lame" then it was part of what I would have to accept. So I lowered my expectations and found all the caches. And since then, I've gone back to not having to find every cache.

LA is ahead of Escondido in the caching timeline. When I started there were not that many caches around. I honestly never found a YNW. However, we also had a couple of very talented cache hiders that kep us very entertained. They both quit about a year ago. Anyhow, I never left the house with lower expectations for my first couple of years. I think the problem really started when the numbers thing that Kevin and Susan warned us about finally hit our area. They told us what had happened up in LA and they told us how they stopped logging caches at 999 to rebel against numbers mania. It did seem like the point of a lot of caches being placed with that wave was to get the number, so a lot of "anything goes" caches got hidden. It did impact those that weren't playing the numbers game. They were right.

What does YNW stand for, again??

Oops that was a typo. It should be YKW and I bet you know what that is...

[Mushtang]

It looks like there are at least three 'easy peasey' methods circulating. So many people are trying to help you be satisfied in your geocaching experience.

Well, I for one stopped trying to help several pages ago. It was obvious to me that several people would rather complain about caching than use easy methods to enjoy caching however they want to.

 

I'd even go so far as to suspect that these people actually DO use these methods and increase the percentage of caches they'd like, but would prefer to argue against them in the forums.

 

So I'm done with trying to help them in this thread. Maybe I'll join the cause again some other time.

[+TrailGators]

It looks like there are at least three 'easy peasey' methods circulating. So many people are trying to help you be satisfied in your geocaching experience.

Well, I for one stopped trying to help several pages ago. It was obvious to me that several people would rather complain about caching than use easy methods to enjoy caching however they want to.

 

I'd even go so far as to suspect that these people actually DO use these methods and increase the percentage of caches they'd like, but would prefer to argue against them in the forums.

 

So I'm done with trying to help them in this thread. Maybe I'll join the cause again some other time.

 

I guess you finally figured out that we are doing just fine without your "help." I never knew that constant nagging was "help" anyhow. The latest discussion proved that "easy peasy" method is not an effective method for "true" urban caching. Most of the cache pages and logs are useless. Mr. T. nailed it when he stated that you need to lower your expectations. This is pretty much exactly what we've been saying all along. The best way to have the most fun urban caching is to check the local must-do list and to learn who are the better hiders in an area. Conversely, you need to learn which hiders you need to ignore.

[Mushtang]

It looks like there are at least three 'easy peasey' methods circulating. So many people are trying to help you be satisfied in your geocaching experience.

Well, I for one stopped trying to help several pages ago. It was obvious to me that several people would rather complain about caching than use easy methods to enjoy caching however they want to.

 

I'd even go so far as to suspect that these people actually DO use these methods and increase the percentage of caches they'd like, but would prefer to argue against them in the forums.

 

So I'm done with trying to help them in this thread. Maybe I'll join the cause again some other time.

 

I guess you finally figured out that we are doing just fine without your "help." I never knew that constant nagging was "help" anyhow. The latest discussion proved that "easy peasy" method is not an effective method for "true" urban caching. Most of the cache pages and logs are useless. Mr. T. nailed it when he stated that you need to lower your expectations. This is pretty much exactly what we've been saying all along. The best way to have the most fun urban caching is to check the local must-do list and to learn who are the better hiders in an area. Conversely, you need to learn which hiders you need to ignore.

Nope. What part of "Doing just fine" leads folks to complain in the forums over and over about lame micros that they can't figure out how to avoid? And then when they refuse to see that eliminating micros might help them have more fun they act like the victim and refuse to discuss it.

 

You're right though. You've figured out how to cache happily.

[+TrailGators]

It looks like there are at least three 'easy peasey' methods circulating. So many people are trying to help you be satisfied in your geocaching experience.

Well, I for one stopped trying to help several pages ago. It was obvious to me that several people would rather complain about caching than use easy methods to enjoy caching however they want to.

 

I'd even go so far as to suspect that these people actually DO use these methods and increase the percentage of caches they'd like, but would prefer to argue against them in the forums.

 

So I'm done with trying to help them in this thread. Maybe I'll join the cause again some other time.

 

I guess you finally figured out that we are doing just fine without your "help." I never knew that constant nagging was "help" anyhow. The latest discussion proved that "easy peasy" method is not an effective method for "true" urban caching. Most of the cache pages and logs are useless. Mr. T. nailed it when he stated that you need to lower your expectations. This is pretty much exactly what we've been saying all along. The best way to have the most fun urban caching is to check the local must-do list and to learn who are the better hiders in an area. Conversely, you need to learn which hiders you need to ignore.

Nope. What part of "Doing just fine" leads folks to complain in the forums over and over about lame micros.

We do it to annoy you. Do you like being annoyed? Anyhow, please find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

 

I defy you to do it.

Edited July 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

I guess you finally figured out that we are doing just fine without your "help."

Nope. What part of "Doing just fine" leads folks to complain in the forums over and over about lame micros?

We do it to annoy you. Do you like being annoyed?

Yet another unpleasant suspicion has now been confirmed.

[+TrailGators]

Just so everyone else knows THE TRUTH....This little guy was next to that joking statement: .

[Mushtang]

Anyhow, please find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

 

I defy you to do it.

I don't need to, since I know you're joking about defying me to do it.

[+TrailGators]

Anyhow, please find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

 

I defy you to do it.

I don't need to, since I know you're joking about defying me to do it.

OK, how about now:

 

I defy you to do it. <---(Note that no little winky guy is present)

Edited July 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

Anyhow, please find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

 

I defy you to do it.

I don't need to, since I know you're joking about defying me to do it.

OK, how about now:

 

I defy you to do it. <---(Note that no little winky guy is present)

Defy me to do what?

[+TrailGators]

Anyhow, please find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

 

I defy you to do it.

I don't need to, since I know you're joking about defying me to do it.

OK, how about now:

 

I defy you to do it. <---(Note that no little winky guy is present)

Defy me to do what?

Find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

P.S. That's what you said that I said but I never said it. So you said something that I said that I never said...

[+tozainamboku]

I wish someone would defy the moderators to lock this thread

It seems to have run its course and I'm sure the OP found out just what views others have on this subject 2970624[/snapback]

[+TrailGators]

I wish someone would defy the moderators to lock this thread

It seems to have run its course and I'm sure the OP found out just what views others have on this subject 2970624[/snapback]

But I was hoping for some more ice cream analogies....

[Mushtang]

Defy me to do what?

Find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

Why would I need to find where you said that?

[+TrailGators]

Defy me to do what?

Find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

Why would I need to find where you said that?

Because I NEVER SAID IT.

[Mushtang]

Defy me to do what?

Find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

Why would I need to find where you said that?

Because I NEVER SAID IT.

Duh. Neither did I.

[+TrailGators]

Defy me to do what?

Find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

Why would I need to find where you said that?

Because I NEVER SAID IT.

Duh. Neither did I.

Are you sure about that?

 

Micros haven't cornered the market on lameness at all. There are a lot of lame caches that are not micros.

[Mushtang]

Defy me to do what?

Find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

Why would I need to find where you said that?

Because I NEVER SAID IT.

Duh. Neither did I.

Are you sure about that?

 

Micros haven't cornered the market on lameness at all. There are a lot of lame caches that are not micros.

That's right. Not all lame caches are micros. I'm glad you've finally seen the light and realized that if you remove micros from your PQs you'll be left with a higher percentage of caches you do like.

[+TrailGators]

Defy me to do what?

Find one quote in this thread where I said:

lame micros

Why would I need to find where you said that?

Because I NEVER SAID IT.

Duh. Neither did I.

Are you sure about that?

 

Micros haven't cornered the market on lameness at all. There are a lot of lame caches that are not micros.

That's right. Not all lame caches are micros.

I sure wish you'd quit calling those caches the "L" word! Think of all the people you are offending! This is great! The tables are turned!!! Edited July 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

That's right. Not all lame caches are micros.

I sure wish you'd quit calling those caches the "L" word! Think of all the people you are offending! This is great! The tables are turned!!!

There are a lot of caches that I think are lame. I just don't mind that they exist, because I seem to be able to easily avoid them when not in the mood for them.

 

And when they're all I have to find, I'm happy to have them.

 

Goodnight.

Edited July 24, 2007 by Mushtang