Caches that are not fun.

[+Trucker Lee]

The cache described by OP sounds like a great location with the wrong container. Why place a nano or micro if the location will support a larger cache to allow trading, more fun for seekers. That part doesn't make sense.

 

A cache in the tree, nothing wrong with it if retreiving can be done without special equipment, and without damaging the tree. For instance, one in our area is about 12 ft up, but it was no problem for my grandson to scamper right up the leaning trunk with branches convenient as handholds. If special equipment needs to be lugged in, that is different. The idea of hiking with a ladder doesn't sound like fun!

[+KBI]

The cache described by OP sounds like a great location with the wrong container. Why place a nano or micro if the location will support a larger cache to allow trading, more fun for seekers. That part doesn't make sense.

More fun for seekers? More fun for which seekers?

 

Maybe it was the hider's intent to create an extreme challenge. Maybe the hider's target audience is the cacher who enjoys a VERY difficult cache and doesn't care about trading swag.

 

If so, then the cache described by OP is a great location with precisely the right container.

[+Trucker Lee]

KBI, good point

[+Renegade Knight]

The cache described by OP sounds like a great location with the wrong container. Why place a nano or micro if the location will support a larger cache to allow trading, more fun for seekers. That part doesn't make sense.

More fun for seekers? More fun for which seekers?

 

Maybe it was the hider's intent to create an extreme challenge. Maybe the hider's target audience is the cacher who enjoys a VERY difficult cache and doesn't care about trading swag.....

 

Entirely possible and even though I think the largest reasonable container the location can support is always the precisely right container I would defend the owners right to place what they need for the cache experience they are trying to build.

[+KBI]

The cache described by OP sounds like a great location with the wrong container. Why place a nano or micro if the location will support a larger cache to allow trading, more fun for seekers. That part doesn't make sense.

More fun for seekers? More fun for which seekers?

 

Maybe it was the hider's intent to create an extreme challenge. Maybe the hider's target audience is the cacher who enjoys a VERY difficult cache and doesn't care about trading swag.....

Entirely possible and even though I think the largest reasonable container the location can support is always the precisely right container for me, Renegade Knight, I would defend the owners right to place what they need for the cache experience they are trying to build for their intended audience.

I think I understand what you're trying to say there. If you are happy with the way I modified the text of your post for clarification (the bold stuff I added), then I agree with you. If not, then your post sounds like a contradiction.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think I understand what you're trying to say there....

 

I pretty much believe that the largest container the area can support is the best way to go and I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself. Even though I believe that, I believe more strongly in a cache owners right to place the caches they are inspired to place. Its my hope that they would use the largest container the area would support and failing that the largest their inspiration would support.

 

The philosophy would go together like this:

Allowing cache owners the maximum freedom possible is closer to a universal rule while the cache size is closer to a rule of thumb.

[CoyoteRed]

If not, then your post sounds like a contradiction.

Doesn't sound like a contradiction to me. What I got from it was RK was saying he felt it's best to put the largest container possible out, but if the owner wants to place a smaller one then he should be able to.

 

I agree.

 

I, also, agree with immediately placing it on our ignore list. I firmly believe there is different types of "challenge." There is fun challenge and then there's "Is there a point?" challenge. It's easy to create a challenge, while it's much harder to create a fun and rewarding challenge.

[+KBI]

...I think I understand what you're trying to say there....

I pretty much believe that the largest container the area can support is the best way to go and I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself.

What? I'm sorry, but you don't speak for me. I don't understand why you think you speak for anyone other than yourself. I didn't give you authorization to decide what's best for me when it comes to geocaching. You don't have power of attorney over my opinions and preferences.

 

As far as I’m concerned there is no 'proper' or 'correct' default when it comes to container size. Container size is an artistic/aesthetic choice, just like concealment vs. camouflage, hint vs. no hint, traditional vs. multi vs. puzzle, hard vs. easy ...

 

If a cache owner wants his cache to be a near-impossible micro in the forest, that’s his call. It’s up to you and me whether to take it or leave it. If you prefer boxes large enough to hold McToys, golf balls and other junk-drawer rejects, there are plenty of those type hides out there for you to choose from. Please let me decide for myself which ones among the available choices I want to hunt.

 

Please don’t discourage the super-demanding and extremely challenging hides. Some of us like them.

[Mushtang]

If not, then your post sounds like a contradiction.

Doesn't sound like a contradiction to me. What I got from it was RK was saying he felt it's best to put the largest container possible out, but if the owner wants to place a smaller one then he should be able to.

WHAT?

 

You quote part of KBI where he says that if he's got RK wrong, then it sounds like a contradiction.

 

And then you point out that there's no contradiction in what RK says if taken another way... which is what KBI said too.

 

I think you may have not even read half of KBI's post.

[CoyoteRed]

If not, then your post sounds like a contradiction.

Doesn't sound like a contradiction to me. What I got from it was RK was saying he felt it's best to put the largest container possible out, but if the owner wants to place a smaller one then he should be able to.

WHAT?

 

You quote part of KBI where he says that if he's got RK wrong, then it sounds like a contradiction.

 

And then you point out that there's no contradiction in what RK says if taken another way... which is what KBI said too.

 

I think you may have not even read half of KBI's post.

You mean if RK's post is modified it doesn't sound like a contradiction and if not modified then it sounds like a contradiction. I said it wasn't, to me, a contradiction even if not modified.

Edited August 19, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[Mushtang]

If not, then your post sounds like a contradiction.

Doesn't sound like a contradiction to me. What I got from it was RK was saying he felt it's best to put the largest container possible out, but if the owner wants to place a smaller one then he should be able to.

WHAT?

 

You quote part of KBI where he says that if he's got RK wrong, then it sounds like a contradiction.

 

And then you point out that there's no contradiction in what RK says if taken another way... which is what KBI said too.

 

I think you may have not even read half of KBI's post.

You mean if RK's post is modified it doesn't sound like a contradiction and if not modified then it sounds like a contradiction. I said it wasn't, to me, a contradiction even if not modified.

 

You really must stop posting before thinking when you respond to one of my posts.

Noooooo, I mean if RKs post was read, and taken the way that the modified post sounded, then there's no contradiction. If RKs post was read, and taken in a different way, then it could have been a contradiction.

 

Then you stepped in, quoted half of KBI, and completely missed KBIs point.

 

You really must stop posting before reading the post you're responding to.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Mushtang

[CoyoteRed]

Noooooo, I mean if RKs post was read...

You mean reading something else other than what he actually posted.

 

NOW I understand how you guys seem to like to twist other folks' words to mean something else entirely! You're reading, seeing and "comprehending" something that wasn't said. Now, I get it.

 

If you would start just reading what is said and not try to put anything else into it then you'd be a lot better off.

[Mushtang]

Noooooo, I mean if RKs post was read...

You mean reading something else other than what he actually posted.

 

NOW I understand how you guys seem to like to twist other folks' words to mean something else entirely! You're reading, seeing and "comprehending" something that wasn't said. Now, I get it.

 

If you would start just reading what is said and not try to put anything else into it then you'd be a lot better off.

Apparently you're completely missing the concept that KBI was trying to clarify what RK meant instead of replying too quickly and looking foolish. Do you "get" it now?

 

And please stop telling me what I should do.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think I understand what you're trying to say there....

I pretty much believe that the largest container the area can support is the best way to go and I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself.

What? I'm sorry, but you don't speak for me. I don't understand why you think you speak for anyone other than yourself. I didn't give you authorization to decide what's best for me when it comes to geocaching. You don't have power of attorney over my opinions and preferences....

 

Nice rant, but it has nothing to do with anything.

 

You are confusing my opinion on a great rule of thumb, for speaking on your behalf about your own wishes on the matter.

 

Yes I think that even you should use the largest container the area can support.

Since I don't actually know your opinion on that topic I can't speak as to what you would say about that.

 

There is a world of difference between the two.

[+The Jester]

...I think I understand what you're trying to say there....

I pretty much believe that the largest container the area can support is the best way to go and I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself.

What? I'm sorry, but you don't speak for me.

... blah blah blah ...

Please don’t discourage the super-demanding and extremely challenging hides. Some of us like them.

Aren't you the one who observed that some people here just like to complain about things, without supporting their side? Here you are jumping on half a statement and ranting about the wrong thing. RK said he thinks everyone should use the largest container the area will support. BUT then followed by saying the hider has full choice of container size for whatever reason. AND said the second statement has priority over the first. But you stopped reading/listening after the first statement and launched your tirade against it. You might want to check the mirror sometime - you are exhibiting the same actions you observed others are doing.

[+The Jester]

And please stop telling me what I should do.

Good advice for yourself also.

[+KBI]

...I think I understand what you're trying to say there....

I pretty much believe that the largest container the area can support is the best way to go and I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself.

What? I'm sorry, but you don't speak for me.

... blah blah blah ...

Please don’t discourage the super-demanding and extremely challenging hides. Some of us like them.

Aren't you the one who observed that some people here just like to complain about things, without supporting their side? Here you are jumping on half a statement and ranting about the wrong thing. RK said he thinks everyone should use the largest container the area will support. BUT then followed by saying the hider has full choice of container size for whatever reason. AND said the second statement has priority over the first. But you stopped reading/listening after the first statement and launched your tirade against it.

No, he said "I pretty much believe that the largest container the area can support is the best way to go," and then he followed up by saying "I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself."

 

What part of that did I misunderstand?

 

If there is another way to take that, I don't see it.

 

The "largest container the area will support" thing is just his opinion. I don't share that opinion. If that's all he's saying, that's fine. I asked for clarification, but he was vague.

[+KBI]

...I think I understand what you're trying to say there....

I pretty much believe that the largest container the area can support is the best way to go and I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself.

What? I'm sorry, but you don't speak for me. I don't understand why you think you speak for anyone other than yourself. I didn't give you authorization to decide what's best for me when it comes to geocaching. You don't have power of attorney over my opinions and preferences....

 

Nice rant, but it has nothing to do with anything.

 

You are confusing my opinion on a great rule of thumb, for speaking on your behalf about your own wishes on the matter.

 

Yes I think that even you should use the largest container the area can support.

Since I don't actually know your opinion on that topic I can't speak as to what you would say about that.

 

There is a world of difference between the two.

It almost sounds, kinda sorta, around the edges, like you're admitting that this "largest container the area will support" thing is only your opinion -- but then just when I'm almost convinced that that's all you're saying, you go and start telling me how I should cache: "Yes I think that even you should use the largest container the area can support." Why? Why is any container size a better default than any other? Why presume to tell me what I should prefer?

 

What if I told you that I think you, and everyone else for that matter, should make heavy use of the word "omnibus" in cache page descriptions? What if I told you that I thought that was "a great rule of thumb," and that "I pretty much believe that liberal and repetitive use of the word "omnibus" in cache page descriptions is the best way to go and I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself." Would that make any sense to you? No. It would make about as much sense as what you seem to be saying to me about container size.

 

If I'm completely misunderstanding you, then either try again, or feel free to ignore me. I promise I'm doing my best, but your wording keeps sounding contradictory.

[CoyoteRed]

 

Anyway, back on track with the actual forum topic. I think the ignore feature is a good option for any cache that isn't fun; not just tedious, not fun challenges.

 

I'm more than a bit disappointed that it's not available to non-paying members. When you consider non-paying members pretty much are reduced to using the Nearest Cache List and the only way to get those un-fun caches off the list is to post a Found It log. In order to post a Found It log they actually have to find it. Then they have to write a good enough log to keep it from getting deleted. The cache owner then interprets the log as that person enjoying the cache and is encouraged to place more.

 

I wonder what the state of geocaching would be today if folks were more free to express their opinions without fear of retaliation.

[Mushtang]

 

Anyway, back on track with the actual forum topic. I think the ignore feature is a good option for any cache that isn't fun; not just tedious, not fun challenges.

 

I'm more than a bit disappointed that it's not available to non-paying members. When you consider non-paying members pretty much are reduced to using the Nearest Cache List and the only way to get those un-fun caches off the list is to post a Found It log. In order to post a Found It log they actually have to find it. Then they have to write a good enough log to keep it from getting deleted. The cache owner then interprets the log as that person enjoying the cache and is encouraged to place more.

 

I wonder what the state of geocaching would be today if folks were more free to express their opinions without fear of retaliation.

Nah. Complaining to a business that they should give more of their product away for free because so many people want the product just doesn't make sense.

 

If the people that "fear retaliation" are enjoying the game so much that they want to keep playing, and they want to be able to use a feature of the site that you can only use if you pay... then they can either pay for the feature (to support more features) or they can learn to play without it.

 

I wonder how many things the Sissy n Cr store gives away for free?

[CoyoteRed]

I wonder how many things the Sissy n Cr store gives away for free?

Free logs templates. Free stencil templates. Free software. (You have to ask for it as I don't have a link up, yet.) In fact, we charge nothing for stuff we don't have to send through the mail or is a physical item. Even then, if you're lucky enough to follow behind us caching you might find some of it in caches we visit.

 

Thanks for asking, though.

 

EDIT: Fixed something because I'm sure you'd try to twist it into something else.

Edited August 19, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+Team Cotati]

I wonder how many things the Sissy n Cr store gives away for free?

Free logs. Free stencil templates. Free software. (You have to ask for it as I don't have a link up, yet.) In fact, we charge nothing for stuff we don't have to send through the mail. Even then, if you're lucky enough to follow behind us caching you might find some of it in caches we visit.

 

Thanks for asking, though.

 

Hey that's cool. If I'm ever in the area I'd like to stop by and pick up some of those freebies. What is the street address of the store? I'd like to get the coords so that I can street route to it someday.

[Mushtang]

I wonder how many things the Sissy n Cr store gives away for free?

Free logs templates. Free stencil templates. Free software. (You have to ask for it as I don't have a link up, yet.) In fact, we charge nothing for stuff we don't have to send through the mail or is a physical item. Even then, if you're lucky enough to follow behind us caching you might find some of it in caches we visit.

 

Thanks for asking, though.

 

EDIT: Fixed something because I'm sure you'd try to twist it into something else.

No, I'm not going to twist anything. I'm just going to suggest that you also give away free shipping too, because I don't think that people should have to pay you to ship them some free items.

[CoyoteRed]

No, I'm not going to twist anything. I'm just going to suggest that you also give away free shipping too, because I don't think that people should have to pay you to ship them some free items.

Not going to twist anything then turn right around and do exactly that! Uh-huh!

 

Generally when we ship someone something they did not purchase we do send it out at our expense.

 

Now, what was your point again?

 

Oh, yeah. Much like the freebie we were just talking about, there's no shipping or even delivery, it's right there for you to download. Afterall, isn't that what we're talking about? You know, downloading log or stencil templates and the ignore function?

[CoyoteRed]

Hey that's cool. If I'm ever in the area I'd like to stop by and pick up some of those freebies. What is the street address of the store? I'd like to get the coords so that I can street route to it someday.

Yeah, I knew someone was going to say that, thus the edit.

[+Team Cotati]

Altruism bites the dust again.

[Mushtang]

No, I'm not going to twist anything. I'm just going to suggest that you also give away free shipping too, because I don't think that people should have to pay you to ship them some free items.

Not going to twist anything then turn right around and do exactly that! Uh-huh!

 

Generally when we ship someone something they did not purchase we do send it out at our expense.

 

Now, what was your point again?

 

Oh, yeah. Much like the freebie we were just talking about, there's no shipping or even delivery, it's right there for you to download. Afterall, isn't that what we're talking about? You know, downloading log or stencil templates and the ignore function?

What did I twist? I only suggested you not charge for shipping on anything. Try to pay attention.

 

Apparently you only ship items at your expense that someone didn't pay for. But you do charge for shipping on physical items that people buy. At some point you made the decision as to what you'd give away for free, and what you'd charge for.

 

And no, we're not talking about downloading log templates, we're talking about giving away something for free that you'd rather people pay for. I don't really think you should pay for shipping, I was being sarcastic to try and make a point.

 

It's good business to give some stuff away for free, as I'm sure you know. It's not good business to give too much away for free. And it's silly for a customer to come along and suggest to a business that they should give away more stuff for free.

 

This website gives away SO much for free! You can play this game without ever giving them a dime, and have loads of fun for years and years. They've decided to offer extra stuff that makes the game playing easier to their paying customers. Why do you think they should give away some MORE stuff to non paying customers?

 

I'm sure you can see my point now.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm sure you can see my point now.

While you completely missed mine which was the idea that non-paying members should be able to remove caches from the Nearest Cache List without have to log a find on them. This in turn would eliminate the idea that folks can put out anything and it get found.

 

Look at the idea of commercial caches and why it is desired to not have them on this site. If someone could place a cache that solicits then one has but a few options; see the cache on your nearest page (desirable for the commercial cache owner), visit the cache (again desirable for the owner), or pay Groundspeak to not see it.

 

It's pretty much the same with the trache, tedious, or plain just not fun caches.

 

I highly doubt the ignore function is really the killer application that gets most folks to pay up. A lot of folks pay up just because. For some, it's the offtopic forums. Others it's the PQ's and I'd say if any feature gets folks to pay up, it's the convenience of the PQs.

 

The point that you missed completely, or choose to ignore, before you started criticizing my opinion is if Groundspeak did allow non-paying members then the level of quality may change for the better as fewer (read: no one) would be held hostage to an un-fun cache on their Nearest Cache Page to either find it, stare at it forever, or pay up.

[+jtbrady01]

My GC14V01 cache is designed to be a very difficult and frustrating search, but so far everyone who has found it has enjoyed it quite a bit.

 

In my defense, this is not a micro, it is a decon container, and I could even use a larger container if I wanted to (and also wanted to make it more frustrating when people can't find an ammo container at the coordinates, lol.

 

 

And this one is very fun just takes time and patience. Watch out for muggles. Stealth is a must on this one.

[Mushtang]

The point that you missed completely, or choose to ignore, before you started criticizing my opinion is if Groundspeak did allow non-paying members then the level of quality may change for the better as fewer (read: no one) would be held hostage to an un-fun cache on their Nearest Cache Page to either find it, stare at it forever, or pay up.

No, I got your point right away. We have differing opinions on how we view Groundspeak's decision on what to charge for.

 

You think that by withholding a useful tool that is used to increase fun from non-paying members, they're holding these members "hostage". Your complaint is that the freebies are nice, but having just a little more free would be better, and therefore more of the tools should be free.

 

I think that giving away the basic game, and asking people to pay for the perks, is pure marketing genius. The tool that you're disappointed is not free, is a perk.

 

There are a LOT of things that might improve the game if only they were free, but would they be good for business? Groundspeak thinks not. They've got to draw the line somewhere.

[CoyoteRed]

No, I got your point right away.

No, obviously you didn't as you can't even parrot back what I've said. Otherwise you have at least tried to dispute my assertion that allowing everyone to ignore caches they don't care for would affect quality of the hunts. I was certain it would have been something you would have attacked, but you missed it all together. Zoom! Right over your head.

Edited August 19, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+Renegade Knight]

...What if I told you that I think you, and everyone else for that matter, should make heavy use of the word "omnibus" in cache page descriptions? What if I told you that I thought that was "a great rule of thumb," and that "I pretty much believe that liberal and repetitive use of the word "omnibus" in cache page descriptions is the best way to go and I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself." Would that make any sense to you? No. It would make about as much sense as what you seem to be saying to me about container size.

 

If I'm completely misunderstanding you, then either try again, or feel free to ignore me. I promise I'm doing my best, but your wording keeps sounding contradictory.

 

I don't think you are misunderstanding the idea so much as what an opinion is.

 

My opinion is that everyone should use the largest reasonable container for the cache and location.

Your opinion is that other people who have opinions that would impact how others go about things should only apply those preferences to themselves. (I'm paraphrasing what you have said for several posts).

 

Both you and I have opinions on how others should go about things. Everyone does. We are not the exceptions. Unless you are judge jury and executioner though, your opinion is just a single voice among many and doesn't count for much. Same as my opinion. In the aggregate though if everyone pretty much holds the the same opinion then those can translate into group or societal rules.

 

In caching one fairly universally held opinion is that caches should have a log book. Personally I could care less, but...I'm a very small minority on that one. Just like you would be with that Omnibus thing (but I'll give you credit for a good word).

Edited August 19, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[Mushtang]

No, I got your point right away.

No, obviously you didn't as you can't even parrot back what I've said. Otherwise you have at least tried to dispute my assertion that allowing everyone to ignore caches they don't care for would affect quality of the hunts. I was certain it would have been something you would have attacked, but you missed it all together. Zoom! Right over your head.

I guess there's no getting around such concrete logic. I'll change my mind and agree with you.

 

Groundspeak should make some of the premium member only features available to all members. Expecting people to pay Groundspeak for their hard work and investments of time and money is secondary to the cold hard FACT that by giving away more of their product the quality of the hunts will increase.

 

Why should we be expected to pay for the things we enjoy??? They have the ability to provide us with what we need, so they should.

 

BTW Cr, I'm going to need about 2 dozen of your 3 post magnets for a cache I'm making. I don't think I should have to pay for them, or the shipping. If I PM you an address when can I expect to receive them?

[+andGuest]

I will try to get back on the topic instead of banter with someone else's post. If it was in my area I would solve the puzzle and make at least one attempt at the find even though I hate micro and smaller caches in the woods. There currently is a common micro type in woods around here that are getting more and more common and I wonder if this may be that type of hide.

Second, do you know any hunters? If so you may ask if they have a tree climber. It is a device to climb trees and use as a tree stand while hunting. Mine does not have any sharp edges so it does not cut into trees (they are actually not allowed to damage trees if used on game lands in PA).

Third, if you have a problem with it then put it on your ignore list. Problem solved.

Fourth, it's bad enough you looked and didn't post a DNF but then came in to advertise in the forums. I think it shows a little about your character.

[+KBI]

...What if I told you that I think you, and everyone else for that matter, should make heavy use of the word "omnibus" in cache page descriptions? What if I told you that I thought that was "a great rule of thumb," and that "I pretty much believe that liberal and repetitive use of the word "omnibus" in cache page descriptions is the best way to go and I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself." Would that make any sense to you? No. It would make about as much sense as what you seem to be saying to me about container size.

 

If I'm completely misunderstanding you, then either try again, or feel free to ignore me. I promise I'm doing my best, but your wording keeps sounding contradictory.

 

I don't think you are misunderstanding the idea so much as what an opinion is.

 

My opinion is that everyone should use the largest reasonable container for the cache and location.

Your opinion is that other people who have opinions that would impact how others go about things should only apply those preferences to themselves. (I'm paraphrasing what you have said for several posts).

 

Both you and I have opinions on how others should go about things. Everyone does. We are not the exceptions. Unless you are judge jury and executioner though, your opinion is just a single voice among many and doesn't count for much. Same as my opinion. In the aggregate though if everyone pretty much holds the the same opinion then those can translate into group or societal rules.

 

In caching one fairly universally held opinion is that caches should have a log book. Personally I could care less, but...I'm a very small minority on that one. Just like you would be with that Omnibus thing (but I'll give you credit for a good word).

It's just a fun word to say, don't you think?

 

If you're saying that you have no interest in imposing your opinion on others, then it sounds like I WAS correct in the way I interpreted your words when I made this post.

 

I fully understand why you, personally, prefer to hunt larger containers over smaller ones. That is a perfectly valid opinion. My opinion is that I have no such preference; that the container size should be determined by the hide concept; that in those cases where the hide concept does not require a specific size it just doesn't matter to me; that there is no 'proper' or 'default' cache size; and that each hider should be encouraged to use whatever container size they feel like using.

 

Your opinion is perfectly valid. I respect your opinion. My objection came when I heard you go beyond that, saying that you think your opinion is "... true for everyone. Not just myself." That’s the part I didn’t like, but that's also the part that I evidently misinterpreted. My mistake.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[+KBI]

Fourth, it's bad enough you looked and didn't post a DNF but then came in to advertise in the forums. I think it shows a little about your character.

Oh, I dunno.

 

I think that when someone is weighing how to handle a frustrating situation, it's perfectly reasonable for that person to ask around and try to find out how other people handle similar frustrations. I don’t know about you, but I have enjoyed reading the responses in this thread, and I think it has helped me (and maybe others) to better understand the issue.

 

The OP did not name the specific cache he described, so I really doubt that his intent was to make anyone feel bad. He seems to have intentionally protected the identity of the hider.

 

I do happen to agree with you about the DNF thing, but that's mostly a matter of personal preference, and I won't hold that against the OP either.

[CoyoteRed]

BTW Cr, I'm going to need about 2 dozen of your 3 post magnets for a cache I'm making. I don't think I should have to pay for them, or the shipping. If I PM you an address when can I expect to receive them?

Your facetiousness aside, I fail to understand how us giving you free magnets will better the hobby.

[Mushtang]

BTW Cr, I'm going to need about 2 dozen of your 3 post magnets for a cache I'm making. I don't think I should have to pay for them, or the shipping. If I PM you an address when can I expect to receive them?

Your facetiousness aside, I fail to understand how us giving you free magnets will better the hobby.

 

I misunderstood. My bad.

 

So it's not all the things we enjoy that we can expect to get for free, it's only the things that are better for geocaching that should be free.

 

Hmmm... well, with the magnets I think that I'd be able to make a good cache, with a regular sized container hidden in a fun way, at a great location. That would be better for the hobby (according to some).

 

How long will it take for the free magnets with free shipping to show up? Oh, throw in a half dozen bison tubes too. I know you sell those and I want to hide a few LPCs for those that enjoy them.

[+Too Tall John]

No, he said "I pretty much believe that the largest container the area can support is the best way to go," and then he followed up by saying "I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself."

 

What part of that did I misunderstand?

 

If there is another way to take that, I don't see it.

 

The "largest container the area will support" thing is just his opinion. I don't share that opinion. If that's all he's saying, that's fine. I asked for clarification, but he was vague.

Another way to take it? Read the rest of his post. For those playing the home version of the game, I've highlighted the important part of the post that wasn't quoted by KBI.

I pretty much believe that the largest container the area can support is the best way to go and I think that's true for everyone. Not just myself. Even though I believe that, I believe more strongly in a cache owners right to place the caches they are inspired to place. Its my hope that they would use the largest container the area would support and failing that the largest their inspiration would support.

Having to hunt for a micro in the woods is fun for some, but not for all. In addition, I've seen a number of "micros in the woods" that had been apparently hunted by... let's call them overly zealous... cachers who basically tore the area apart looking for the cache. The smaller the container, the harder to find, the more environmental damage to the area it is hidden in, the more upset the landowner will be at said damage. This, I believe, is why RK feels the way he does about cache size. It is at least why I feel that way.

 

Caches I don't find fun include those I have to hunt in a bazillion different places, trying not to damage vegetation as I hunt. Believe me, with a size 15 shoe, it's hard not to step on things I might not want to step on. A micro with a difficulty rating of 4, no hints, 2.5 miles in .25 mi elevation gain, on NFS property just popped up very close by. I will not be going after that bugger any time soon. No shrub tromping there for me.

[+KBI]

Another way to take it? Read the rest of his post.

I think that's already been cleared up. RK can please correct me if I am still confused.

 

Having to hunt for a micro in the woods is fun for some, but not for all. In addition, I've seen a number of "micros in the woods" that had been apparently hunted by... let's call them overly zealous... cachers who basically tore the area apart looking for the cache. The smaller the container, the harder to find, the more environmental damage to the area it is hidden in, the more upset the landowner will be at said damage. This, I believe, is why RK feels the way he does about cache size. It is at least why I feel that way.

 

Caches I don't find fun include those I have to hunt in a bazillion different places, trying not to damage vegetation as I hunt. Believe me, with a size 15 shoe, it's hard not to step on things I might not want to step on. A micro with a difficulty rating of 4, no hints, 2.5 miles in .25 mi elevation gain, on NFS property just popped up very close by. I will not be going after that bugger any time soon. No shrub tromping there for me.

Good points, but I don't think environmental damage from overly zealous cache hunters is limited to caches with micro-sized containers. One of my favorite nearby multi-caches ends at a VERY cleverly concealed full-sized ammo can -- in an old growth patch of woods. Most seekers (including me) end up establishing a 30 or 40 foot diameter of possibility, then proceed to walk a mile or two within that circle before finding the cache ... or giving up. I made four visits before I found it. Certain times of the year it looks like an army of Vikings has been camping there.

 

I agree that the fragility of the surroundings should be considered wherever an intentionally challenging cache is placed, but I don’t agree that the cache size itself is the primary concern. It is the overall effectiveness of the concealment method that leads folks to make extended and sometimes destructive searches, and not necessarily the size of the container.

 

To suggest that the largest possible container should "always" be used is an over-simplification of an issue with many complex considerations.

Edited August 20, 2007 by KBI

[+Too Tall John]

I agree that the fragility of the surroundings should be considered wherever an intentionally challenging cache is placed, but I don’t agree that the cache size itself is the primary concern. It is the overall effectiveness of the concealment method that leads folks to make extended and sometimes destructive searches, and not necessarily the size of the container.

As the size of the cache container diminishes, so does the difficulty in effectively hiding it. I agree that a well camouflaged 5 gallon bucket can be harder to see than a button-sized nano, but if you know the size of the container, you can eliminate some search areas. For example, if you know you are looking for a 5 gal. bucket, you aren't going to need to examine the bark on every tree within the search area. Maybe the stumps. If in the same area you were looking for a nano, you'd need to check every inch of every tree, them the stumps, then the rocks, then recheck...

[+KBI]

... if you know you are looking for a 5 gal. bucket, you aren't going to need to examine the bark on every tree within the search area.

You've never watched me search for a cache, have you?

[+Too Tall John]

... if you know you are looking for a 5 gal. bucket, you aren't going to need to examine the bark on every tree within the search area.

You've never watched me search for a cache, have you?

If you're asking if I'm spying on you, I shouldn't really answer that now, should I?

[+Renegade Knight]

...I fully understand why you, personally, prefer to hunt larger containers over smaller ones....

 

Overall I do, because I do enjoy looking at the swag even though most of the time I'm not going to trade. However that's not what I was saying at all. If the question is what kind of caches do you like to hunt, the short answer is "The Fun Ones" and what goes into that is different than just container size. Some people just manage to place good caches and end up on the must do list regardless of the container size they used.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I agree that the fragility of the surroundings should be considered wherever an intentionally challenging cache is placed, but I don’t agree that the cache size itself is the primary concern. It is the overall effectiveness of the concealment method that leads folks to make extended and sometimes destructive searches, and not necessarily the size of the container.

 

To suggest that the largest possible container should "always" be used is an over-simplification of an issue with many complex considerations.

 

Now we have some common ground. I agree in part with everything you have just saidCache size is one issue amongh many.

 

All other things being the same, a larger cache is easier to find than a smaller one. Easier to find means less impact due to less search time. Add in that a lot of people like swag and that's why I've said that the largest reasonable container isa a good rule of thumb.

 

You are right in that if you hide a micro in the exact spot that every cacher is going to look the first time, you have effectivly lowered the impact of the cache by taking into account the hide. I agree it's also possible to hide an ammo can so well that the impact is greater than it needs to be. There are other factors.

 

It's just hard to put all of those varouse factors into a simple post.

[+Harry Dolphin]

 

Anyway, back on track with the actual forum topic. I think the ignore feature is a good option for any cache that isn't fun; not just tedious, not fun challenges.

 

I'm more than a bit disappointed that it's not available to non-paying members. When you consider non-paying members pretty much are reduced to using the Nearest Cache List and the only way to get those un-fun caches off the list is to post a Found It log. In order to post a Found It log they actually have to find it. Then they have to write a good enough log to keep it from getting deleted. The cache owner then interprets the log as that person enjoying the cache and is encouraged to place more.

 

I wonder what the state of geocaching would be today if folks were more free to express their opinions without fear of retaliation.

 

Forum topic? We discuss such things here?

Your point is well taken: If you're not having fun, move on to another cache. Though, I'm not sure why OP chose 'caches that are not fun' for the topic here. To me that's an undoable cache. Like this one:

I had fun searching for it. Lots of people found it. But it was beyond my capabilities. I could have dragged over a nearby pallet, and gotten partway up the tree, but the park security kept driving by.

Doesn't mean that I wasn't having fun.

Hmm... I've never had a log deleted for saying uncomplimentary things about the cache. And I'd never delete a log for that reason. (Only log I've had deleted was for mentioning that the coords were 170' off.)

I've long given up trying to clear my Ten-Mile List. I've got five kayaking caches (most of which would be on one eight-mile kayaking trip.) One that's 45' up a tree and requires tree climbing gear. Another that has a 15' gap to a ladder. Plus some that are on my ignore list for a different reason.

None of the first group is on my Ignore List, though.

Have I ever given up hunting because I was not having fun? (That is the topic at hand.) Yup. The rats were too large, and coming out of the concrete slabs, and the area looked like a homeless person's bedroom. I didn't put that one on ignore either! But I never went back.

[+Genoist]

My GC14V01 cache is designed to be a very difficult and frustrating search, but so far everyone who has found it has enjoyed it quite a bit.

 

Just because people SAY they've enjoyed it on a log, does not mean that they actually did.

 

Everyone i know hates bush hides like that, but only 1 in 10 will say that on their log. Most just say thanks or something similar.

 

It is actually not a bush hide at all.

[+Zop]

I have been seeing a trend lately where a couple of hiders are trying to create caches that are very hard to impossible to find. These range from puzzle that can't be broken without inside information to hides that just are not worth going after. What is the fun in hiding caches that are not meant to be found?

 

And yes I know there is an ignore function. And I know that this latest trend will blow over and these cachers will eventually stop trying to out do each other but in the mean time you end up with caches that just are just not meant to be found.

 

As an example we have a cache in the area that starts with a moderately hard puzzle. But the real problem comes in when you go after the caches.

 

1) It is 3/4 miles back in a park

2) It is hidden in an area with lots of trees and heavy leaf coverage so satellite coverage is poor.

3) It is a sub-nano type hide.

4) It is way up in a tree.

 

So in summary it requires carrying a large ladder 3/4 mile back in a wooded area with bad coverage to look for a sub-nano that may be up somewhere very high in one of the many tree that are within the search area.

 

Team Sand Dollar

 

For me, I actually like the challange! True, some are extremely difficult or require a lot of brain power and or physical agility but those should be rated as such. I recently worked my butt off to score a 5x5 rated cache! GCRZBD. Absolutely LOVED the adventure! 4 trips into the hills hiking over 40 miles for a 7 stage multi. That's right! 4 trips and over 40 miles to land one simple smiley

AND! I'll do it again! see GCWME9

 

Now for the ones I find not fun? It's not the hide. It's the owner. We have one dolt in our area that seems to only have fun if he's bashing other cachers. Arrogance and disrespect go nowhere. After merely a few months of caching, he blames other cachers for anything that he doesn't like. If he can't find a cache, he even gets disrespectful and bashes the hider! He even posts 'rules' on his profile page and then contradicts his own rules. Would YOU hide a nano in the woods after demanding that you must hide the biggest cache that can fit?

 

So... some of us just ignore his hides. Others just wonder wtf? In any case, read the descriptions, ratings and past logs. You will soon know if a cache is one you want to attempt.

 

Jim..

[+Zop]

Not my idea of fun at all. I place caches for people to find, I get no thrill from DNFs. Placing caches up in tree could be a problem leading to the demise of the tree, I think such placements are bad.

 

I think this would depend on the size and type of tree. I've climbed a few and rather enjoy it!

 

It's just important to know your limits.

[Decoski]

I'm planning on setting up a cache soon based upon the criteria I consider consitute the ideal cache setup. Here are my criteria:

1. Distance to cache must be at least a mile and can be found within one morning or afternoon.
   
2. The hike must be over varied terrain and in a scenic, wooded area
   
3. It would be a multi-cache setup where each microcache holds a partial coordinate for the location of the main, final cache
   
4. The hike would be over some heavily wooded areas and steep terrain so that a magnetic compass and topographic map are necessary
   
5. Direct routes to each cache may not be possible due to difficult terrain, making topographic map reading skills helpful.
   
6. However, all caches will be placed in more open areas for easy GPS coordinate capture.
   
7. All caches will be placed in scenic areas, making each cache location more memorable.
   

Of course, the FTF will be generously rewarded for the hike. A good prize will be in the final cache as well as plenty of other goodies for those who come later. I can't wait to set this cache up. I hope that many will want to take on the challenge of finding it.