Spew Be Gone!

[+Renegade Knight]

...While Coyote has a great idea, it won't do what I'm saying. It would make a "agreeable" list of caches no different than your tv satellite system has a function that will "suggest" movies or shows you might like according to the shows you have watched in the past. That's great, but doesn't serve the same purpose. Now, notice, I'm not saying his idea is a bad one, just not the one that will address the issue I pointed out.

Using his method, I would be very unlikely to EVER find an urban or a micro. I just don't personally prefer those as much. But, what if I want to go to one some day? With his method, I would back to searching through all of the pages again because my "list" wouldn't pull it up. His is a fine method, but for a separate purpose. ...

 

If you simplify what I have said and what you have said. You end up with this.

 

1) Focus on the caches you may like.

2) Remove the caches you probably won't like.

 

In both cases, what you have left is about the same. One is just a lot more work for everyone involved. Your urban argument doesn't work. If others who enjoy similar caches to you, found an urban cache and enjoyed it, it would show up on your list of suggested caches. In both cases there is always the risk of a bad apple or not having on your list a cache you may enjoy. But in the end you would always have the option to read the cache descriptions and make up your own mind.

 

Actually, statically speaking, they could pull up VERY different results, ...

 

Statistically speaking they could pull up identical results as well. Most likely though they will be about as handy as the data going into them. That does get us to the better system. The one that would get used more, and thus be more useful would be better. I'll argue that it's far simpler to rate a cache 1-5 stars and have the system return projected ratings on caches you may like, based on others with similar tastes, than it is to use any kind of pull down menu/attribute system to set your cache up so that it can be filtered to the nth degree which is what it would take to make the system you propose useful.

 

There is one more huge difference between the two systems. Your system compartmentalizes caches and would have a tough time dealing with caches that just don't fit inside the box. Ironicly dealing poorly with the most creative caches. The other system doesn't care. You just rate, it compares, and suggests. There is no box to think inside of.

 

What you may not be aware of is that for years nobody agreed on a workable rating system. Forum discussions or arguments as you say, hit a wall until somebody came up with a new angle. Your new angle moves the work from the finder to the owner where there will be even less motivation to jump through the hoops.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I don't know of any local spot where something so big could be hidden though. I would love to hide something of that size, or see someone do that, but I just don't see that being a possibility unless people put it on private property...

 

Do you agree that as long as some thought goes into the camo or an interesting local that they aren't spew? iif you get there and you really have to think about it, doesn't that count as a decent cache? ...

 

You cover a lot of ground with your post. I'll cover what I can.

 

It's been my experience that about anywhere where you could hide a film canister you can hide something at least the size of a band aid box (Decon Container).

 

The first lamp post hides were not spew. They were creative new caches that proved to be quite a challenge. One you lift your first lamp skirt though, they are no longer a challenge. Merely the first place you look when your GPS takes you to a light pole.

 

Ff you carefully plan a cache, give it a lot of though, and Tender Loving Care as you bring that cache to life, it can still be SPEW in somebody's eyes. That's because most of us get out of caching what we bring to it. Not vice versa. You can only win if you place caches that you want people to find and enjoy that they do.

 

A lot of what people complain about spew is nothing more than a symptom of them becoming jaded. That said, there are quite a few things that cache owners can do to make caches better.

[+sbell111]

There's another way to look at this. It's not that he's burnt out and caching is getting old and tedious, he's has enough experience to know how good caching -could be-. For some, enough WOW experiences can leave you wanting for more. If there ever was a rating system like Netflix, I would do my best to find cachers like briansnat and see what he liked. I would also do my best to find someone that felt that -any- cache is great and avoid what they liked.

While I truly hope that Jeremy can develop an affinity ratings system that will keep people like Brian happy, I doubt that it will happen. I say this not just because I don't think it's possible for some people to be happy but because of my TiVo. You see, TiVo records the shows that you tell it to, but it also records other things that it figures that you'll like based on your viewing habits. For some reason, my TiVo is convinced that we like to watch all the 'judge' shows; Judy, Joe Brown, etc. This evening, I caught it recording a show on Nickelodian (sp?). We have no children.

 

It's not as easy as saying that affinity systems are great and plugging one in. If the system doesn't work properly, there will be tons of whiny threads about it and lots of programming dollars dumped right down the sewer.

Edited September 10, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Is there a reason you don't pre-screen the caches in an area before heading out? Wouldn't that help cut down on the walk-aways?

Because 1. It's not the way I like to cache and 2. If it gets to where I have to research every cache before I hunt it I'll take up golf.

So basically you are saying you are too lazy to invest your own time in making sure that you only hunt what you like.

ETA: I like golf. Edited September 10, 2007 by sbell111

[+traildad]

Statistically speaking they could pull up identical results as well. Most likely though they will be about as handy as the data going into them. That does get us to the better system. The one that would get used more, and thus be more useful would be better. I'll argue that it's far simpler to rate a cache 1-5 stars and have the system return projected ratings on caches you may like, based on others with similar tastes, than it is to use any kind of pull down menu/attribute system to set your cache up so that it can be filtered to the nth degree which is what it would take to make the system you propose useful.

This might work if you know the tastes of a group of cachers. Then just wait until they have rated the caches you are considering. Knowing that a certain cacher thinks it is a 5 star cache is worthy, but it won't tell me if it is what I want to hunt today.

 

There is one more huge difference between the two systems. Your system compartmentalizes caches and would have a tough time dealing with caches that just don't fit inside the box. Ironicly dealing poorly with the most creative caches. The other system doesn't care. You just rate, it compares, and suggests. There is no box to think inside of.

Where one system compartmentalizes caches, the other system compartmentalizes cachers. Your system would have a tough time dealing with cachers that just don't think like the group. If a cacher has been doing a lot of "just for the numbers" and rating them high, he would get a negative rating if he was considering a long hike. All the cachers that had similar tastes might hate long hikes. I am less interested in knowing what all the veteran cachers think is good and more interested in filtering out a list of caches that I think are good.

 

What you may not be aware of is that for years nobody agreed on a workable rating system. Forum discussions or arguments as you say, hit a wall until somebody came up with a new angle. Your new angle moves the work from the finder to the owner where there will be even less motivation to jump through the hoops.

You use the words "work" and "jump through the hoops". Do you really see thinking about why they picked a spot and clicking the mouse is some kind of a huge difficult task? Anyway what I have suggested would have both hider and finder participating equally.

[+sbell111]

There is no other way besides completely ignoring urbans until the site adds some type of enhancement. A few good enhancement ideas have been discussed in this thread and many other threads. I don't want to sit behind a PC zooming in on hundreds of caches to see if they are LUMS. That is a waste of my time. So I will stick to doing caches with terrain > 1.5 and load up and go. Anyhow keep the ideas coming guys!

There is a simple way to avoid urban caches. Do not point your car towards urban areas.

[+sbell111]

What you may not be aware of is that for years nobody agreed on a workable rating system. Forum discussions or arguments as you say, hit a wall until somebody came up with a new angle. Your new angle moves the work from the finder to the owner where there will be even less motivation to jump through the hoops.

You use the words "work" and "jump through the hoops". Do you really see thinking about why they picked a spot and clicking the mouse is some kind of a huge difficult task? Anyway what I have suggested would have both hider and finder participating equally.

I think that many cachers won't find it necessary to prove their cache's worth to you. The fact that they would like to find a cache like the one that they are hiding is good enough. In fact, it's the only reason to hide one.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Where one system compartmentalizes caches, the other system compartmentalizes cachers. Your system would have a tough time dealing with cachers that just don't think like the group....

 

Since it doesn't Care one way or the other about any one cacher, it would just use the best fit and you get what you get. Eclectic tastes would not change things or leave a hole in the system.

 

The flaw is if you are a FTF junkie who only wants to hunt FTF caches that you like. With no finds there are no ratings to compare, it couldn't offer up a guess of how much you may like the cache (That can be fixed in part but it's more programming) Your system has the potential to work in this case but only if the hider rated it accurately according to your own tastes.

 

As for choosing why they picked the spot being a huge and difficult task. Not at all. I know exactly why I have placed each of my caches. Those reasons just don't aways dovetail well into any drop down menu or attribute system. Plus I have an attitude. If you can't be bothered to read my cache page and figure out if you would like to seek the cache, I can't be bothered to rate my cache just to help you ignore my cache page.

[+KBI]

Could be you dont like geocaching.

If geocaching is finding a magnet stuck inside <something> in the middle of some <insert unpleasant area>, then I guess I don't. If geocaching is about the amazing locations that others can share with us, then I love geocaching... Some of you seem to have forgotten what geocaching is all about... Read the rather tiny verbiage below the Groundspeak logo on your screen right now -- "The Language of LOCATION"..

 

If your idea of a beautiful location is a dumpster behind walmart, then you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I am entitled to think you need counseling.

Wow. That hurts. You know, I'm pretty sick of all this word play and putting others down. Know what? I don't need to convince you. I like all sorts of caches. I love caching. I enjoy every aspect of it. If that means I need counseling, then so be it. I rather think that people who have learned to appreciate and enjoy the little moments in life are the very ones who don't need counseling.

You go, girl.

 

I’ve been out of pocket for a week or so. I’m sorry I missed out on all the fun, even though this thread is pretty much Rerun Number 7378. Reading through this thread is much like caching itself – lots and lots of quality stuff mixed with lots and lots of lame drek. It’s ALL entertainment to me – even the LAME posts are fun ... if you know how to take them! As I scan the thread I am free to scroll right past a page or two of posts when I get bored, pausing only when I see an avatar I respect – sort of like that filter method that people argue about. Sure, I might have missed out on a few eloquent, charming or droll posts here and there, but I also filtered out tons of absolute [bad word], therefore I’m happy. I avoided most of the boredom and I still had plenty of good posts to read.

 

Some people choose to get upset over the very existence of caches that fail to entertain them. I find that I happen to like ALL caches, or at least that I easily tolerate their existence without letting them bother me. I can’t prove which group is mentally defective, me or the complainers, so I choose to do the polite thing and assume it’s me.

 

Like Ambrosia, I prefer to maintain the state of mind that allows me to enjoy this game. If that makes me mentally defective, you can keep your counseling. You complainers go ahead and complain – I’ll continue to cache happily.

 

You can laugh at my behavior

That'll never bother me

Say the devil is my savior

But I don't pay no heed

 

And I will go on shining

Shining like brand new

I'll never look behind me

My troubles will be few

 

Goodbye strange it's been nice

Hope you find your paradise

Tried to see your point of view

Hope your dreams will all come true ...

[+The Jester]

I posted over in traildad's other thread in the Web Site Forum.

 

I don't know why the simple addition of a dropdown box on the cache submission form, like in this crude graphic I made, wouldn't help.

 

 

The dropdown list could be short, or long. The list would include things like:

• Historic Location
  
• Scenic View
  
• Great Hike
  
• Favorite Restaurant/Coffee Shop/etc.
  
• Just for the numbers
  

Seems like a simple addition to me . . . and if cache owners weren't truthful, a "Needs Maintenance" note could let them, and other cachers, know the "Cache Location Type" needs to be changed.

 

Could work . . .

How does "Just for the numbers" say anything about location? It still could be at a favorite restaurant, a scenic location or such.

 

And what about multi's? Do we have to rate each stop? I have one that covers eight different parks, each placed for a different reason. Some are short hikes, some are drive-by, some are personally historic (parks from my childhood) and such. I've had to move the end four times due to various problems and it now ends by my house (so I can keep a better eye on it).

 

---

 

Now a question for the affinity (sp?) filter group: What about multi-path caches (those with more than one way to find them)? I have one that you can get with "low tech" (compass), "normal tech" (standard multi with number gathering) or "high tech" (project a waypoint). Depending how you solve it, it gives you a different experience.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

As for choosing why they picked the spot being a huge and difficult task. Not at all. I know exactly why I have placed each of my caches. Those reasons just don't aways dovetail well into any drop down menu or attribute system. Plus I have an attitude. If you can't be bothered to read my cache page and figure out if you would like to seek the cache, I can't be bothered to rate my cache just to help you ignore my cache page.

 

I suspect I would be the same way if we had to choose attributes for our caches, especially if it includes a demeaning "for the numbers" attribute. Those who know my caches know I try and place interesting ones. And if I can ever get motivated and place the 10 I have envisioned, there will be 10 new interesting "lame urban caches".

[+TrailGators]

There is no other way besides completely ignoring urbans until the site adds some type of enhancement. A few good enhancement ideas have been discussed in this thread and many other threads. I don't want to sit behind a PC zooming in on hundreds of caches to see if they are LUMS. That is a waste of my time. So I will stick to doing caches with terrain > 1.5 and load up and go. Anyhow keep the ideas coming guys!

There is a simple way to avoid urban caches. Do not point your car towards urban areas.

Why would I do that? There are typically some nice parks in urban areas.

[+TrailGators]

And if I can ever get motivated and place the 10 I have envisioned, there will be 10 new interesting "lame urban caches".

If it's "interesting" then it's not lame.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I posted over in traildad's other thread in the Web Site Forum.

 

I don't know why the simple addition of a dropdown box on the cache submission form, like in this crude graphic I made, wouldn't help.

 

 

The dropdown list could be short, or long. The list would include things like:

• Historic Location
  
• Scenic View
  
• Great Hike
  
• Favorite Restaurant/Coffee Shop/etc.
  
• Just for the numbers
  

Seems like a simple addition to me . . . and if cache owners weren't truthful, a "Needs Maintenance" note could let them, and other cachers, know the "Cache Location Type" needs to be changed.

 

Could work . . .

For the caches which are improperly listed -- why post a "Needs Maintenance" note? Why not post an SBA, or, even better, a local geocaching organization could add that cache to their CITO list.

So you get to decide whether or not a cacher has a right to place a cache based on your aesthetic view? All because you dont want to do some work to research caches before you look for them?

 

Yea, thats fair. (Note sarcasm.)

My post clearly addressed ONLY the issue of caches which, under the proposed scenario, were obviously lame caches (whether urban or rural, and whether micro or small or large in size) but where the owner failed to assign the "lame/just for the numbers attribute and categorization. As you can tell from reading my earlier posts in this thread and others, I do lots of research on a cache prior to seeking it, but, as many others have pointed out, it is often almost impossible to discern which caches are lame caches prior to arriving at the hide site.

 

In light of the wide dissonance between what you have written and the reality of the contents of my previous messages on this thread, it sounds like you failed to read the thread before you hit the "send" button on your post.

[+sseegars]

I posted over in traildad's other thread in the Web Site Forum.

 

I don't know why the simple addition of a dropdown box on the cache submission form, like in this crude graphic I made, wouldn't help.

 

 

The dropdown list could be short, or long. The list would include things like:

• Historic Location
  
• Scenic View
  
• Great Hike
  
• Favorite Restaurant/Coffee Shop/etc.
  
• Just for the numbers
  

Seems like a simple addition to me . . . and if cache owners weren't truthful, a "Needs Maintenance" note could let them, and other cachers, know the "Cache Location Type" needs to be changed.

 

Could work . . .

For the caches which are improperly listed -- why post a "Needs Maintenance" note? Why not post an SBA, or, even better, a local geocaching organization could add that cache to their CITO list.

So you get to decide whether or not a cacher has a right to place a cache based on your aesthetic view? All because you dont want to do some work to research caches before you look for them?

 

Yea, thats fair. (Note sarcasm.)

My post clearly addressed ONLY the issue of caches which, under the proposed scenario, were obviously lame caches (whether urban or rural, and whether micro or small or large in size) but where the owner failed to assign the "lame/just for the numbers attribute and categorization. As you can tell from reading my earlier posts in this thread and others, I do lots of research on a cache prior to seeking it, but, as many others have pointed out, it is often almost impossible to discern which caches are lame caches prior to arriving at the hide site.

 

In light of the wide dissonance between what you have written and the reality of the contents of my previous messages on this thread, it sounds like you failed to read the thread before you hit the "send" button on your post.

 

I am really liking the idea of a drop down for exact locations like a historic cache. I have a good many of the hated micros out there that are historic and just would'nt bear the placing of an ammo box.

 

On the OP's original post, we (me and Jamrasc) try to watch out for new cachers in our area and invite them to cache, welcome them to the sport, and try to get up with them to sort of help on them on their way.

 

Just a thought.

[+elmuyloco5]

'Renegade Knight'

 

Statistically speaking they could pull up identical results as well. Most likely though they will be about as handy as the data going into them. That does get us to the better system. The one that would get used more, and thus be more useful would be better. I'll argue that it's far simpler to rate a cache 1-5 stars and have the system return projected ratings on caches you may like, based on others with similar tastes, than it is to use any kind of pull down menu/attribute system to set your cache up so that it can be filtered to the nth degree which is what it would take to make the system you propose useful.

 

Again, I hope this doesn't come across as argumentative, and honestly I wasn't even going to reply, but I feel that you are misrepresenting my suggestion, so I'd like so clarify.

 

It is true that it is possible that they could both pull up the exact same set of results, but highly unlikely. Will they pull up some of the same caches, sure. What you fail to understand is the point of my suggestion is in no way to filter items that a person deems to be good or bad. I don't care to get intot the "spew" argument as I feel that everyone's ideas of what is a good or bad cache are different, and that difference is ok with me. My suggestion was to help filter out the "type" of cache a person would want for any specific time. Here's a for instance:

 

I have to take my car in to be repaired. It will take about 2 hours to fix and I'd like to do some caches in the city during that time (doesn't have to be within walkable distance as in this situation there is a second vehicle). Normally, I would not go out of my way for an urban cache. I find that most urban caches are small and therefore rarely contain the sig items I like to collect (again, my personal feelings and not to suggest anything wrong with urban caches for other people). But, just because I don't always want to run out and do all the urbans there are, that doesn't mean I won't ever do them. It is the hunt, after all, that's fun for me. When I pull up my zip code, I get 20+ pages of caches. In my particular situation, the caches might appear to urban, but could be down one of the many canyons around town. I now have to search through all those pages to figure out what I do want and don't want for that day.

 

With my suggestion I could pull up all the "urban" caches and only go through those. That is a hugeg time saver for me. However, with your friend's idea, most of those caches wouldn't come up at all, and I would be stuck now looking through all the pages again. Granted, if your method works (and doesn't give you goof ups like a satellite system does.....mine does this too by the way!) then I would have a list of 'urban" ones I enjoy, but not enough maybe to fill my day.

 

I hope that shows you why both ideas have merit, but as I said before, for COMPLETELY different reasons. There's no sense in comparing them as they really are apples and oranges, so to speak.

 

Renegade Knight: What you may not be aware of is that for years nobody agreed on a workable rating system. Forum discussions or arguments as you say, hit a wall until somebody came up with a new angle. Your new angle moves the work from the finder to the owner where there will be even less motivation to jump through the hoops.

 

I'm not aware as I'm new here and have stated that. But, I don't agree that the owner would have to jump through any hoops. Clicking on a couple of checkboxes takes seconds of someone's time. I'm not asking anyone on here to do anything that I, myself, would not be willing to do.

 

Your idea, however, takes time. The program would have to watch what things you like prior to suggesting some and would end up in a constantly changing list of "favorites" as you do other caches. My idea, when completely turned over would work immediately for everyone on the site. I think that's less of a hoop to jump through than yours, personally.

 

'KBI'

 

You go, girl.

 

I’ve been out of pocket for a week or so. I’m sorry I missed out on all the fun, even though this thread is pretty much Rerun Number 7378. Reading through this thread is much like caching itself – lots and lots of quality stuff mixed with lots and lots of lame drek. It’s ALL entertainment to me – even the LAME posts are fun ... if you know how to take them! As I scan the thread I am free to scroll right past a page or two of posts when I get bored, pausing only when I see an avatar I respect – sort of like that filter method that people argue about. Sure, I might have missed out on a few eloquent, charming or droll posts here and there, but I also filtered out tons of absolute [bad word], therefore I’m happy. I avoided most of the boredom and I still had plenty of good posts to read.

 

Some people choose to get upset over the very existence of caches that fail to entertain them. I find that I happen to like ALL caches, or at least that I easily tolerate their existence without letting them bother me. I can’t prove which group is mentally defective, me or the complainers, so I choose to do the polite thing and assume it’s me.

 

Like Ambrosia, I prefer to maintain the state of mind that allows me to enjoy this game. If that makes me mentally defective, you can keep your counseling. You complainers go ahead and complain – I’ll continue to cache happily.

 

 

I agree completely. To each their own. Who am I to say what caches are fun for you to do? And vice versa? I don't think it matters what a "good" cache is. And I think, no matter how much we try to filter for "good" caches, there will always be ones that we didn't enjoy. I would like to see a system set up to help us narrow down what we want to do that day, but I don't want to see a change that would ever take away anyone else's fun.

 

Edited as quote function didn't work properly.

Edited September 10, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+TrailGators]

Who am I to say what caches are fun for you to do? And vice versa?

Who is saying this? Why are so many people commenting without reading the thread?

[+Renegade Knight]

...With my suggestion I could pull up all the "urban" caches and only go through those. That is a hugeg time saver for me. However, with your friend's idea, most of those caches wouldn't come up at all, and I would be stuck now looking through all the pages again. Granted, if your method works (and doesn't give you goof ups like a satellite system does.....mine does this too by the way!) then I would have a list of 'urban" ones I enjoy, but not enough maybe to fill my day. ....

 

Perhaps we have a different idea on how the Netflix system works. I'd see all the caches and an estimate of how much I'd enjoy it. If this info was sent on PQ I could look at the nearest caches ,see the 5 star one, go find it. Then look for the 3 4 star ones, go find them and if I had time, tackle the 2 star ones. Of course I could have also set up my PQ so that I only got the 5 star caches to begin with. Depending on what I wanted for that day.

 

Like you I prefer swag to no swag, so I can use the PQ to filter based on size and just hit up the small and larger.

 

Every system has a flaw. The flaw in yours is the sheer information and variations of it needed to be input make it work. If all that was plugged in, accurately it would work like you envision though it would be a bit more hit and miss on the enjoyment factor of any one cache.

 

To see a partial version of this type of rating system in action check out handicaching.com. A simple rating system was developed with the focus of making it so that people who had mobility limitations could gage their ability to do a cache. I would like to invite you to rate a few of your caches. Handicaching is about as good as you can do for a cache for it's purpose. Rating a few of your caches though should show you the limitations. What you have in mind is more complex than Handicaching.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

In light of the wide dissonance between what you have written and the reality of the contents of my previous messages on this thread, it sounds like you failed to read the thread before you hit the "send" button on your post.

 

Ive read every post on this thread. However since the thread has been posted on over a period of days, it is possible that I might have forgotten what was posted earlier.

[+TrailGators]

...With my suggestion I could pull up all the "urban" caches and only go through those. That is a hugeg time saver for me. However, with your friend's idea, most of those caches wouldn't come up at all, and I would be stuck now looking through all the pages again. Granted, if your method works (and doesn't give you goof ups like a satellite system does.....mine does this too by the way!) then I would have a list of 'urban" ones I enjoy, but not enough maybe to fill my day. ....

 

Perhaps we have a different idea on how the Netflix system works. I'd see all the caches and an estimate of how much I'd enjoy it. If this info was sent on PQ I could look at the nearest caches ,see the 5 star one, go find it. Then look for the 3 4 star ones, go find them and if I had time, tackle the 2 star ones. Of course I could have also set up my PQ so that I only got the 5 star caches to begin with. Depending on what I wanted for that day.

That's the same way I envision it too. The only downside of this system would be that it don't think it would be much help when you traveled.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

And if I can ever get motivated and place the 10 I have envisioned, there will be 10 new interesting "lame urban caches".

If it's "interesting" then it's not lame.

 

By whose definition tho? Some I might call interesting or fun might be called lame by someone else. I enjoy just searching for a cache, even tho it may not be a scenic viewpoint or historical area. I enjoy it for other reasons. Others it seems only enjoy the scenic location but not the thrill of the hunt (based upon those who insist a cache needs to be in a great location).

[+Snoogans]

Who am I to say what caches are fun for you to do? And vice versa?

Who is saying this? Why are so many people commenting without reading the thread?

 

What thread are you reading? The title of this thread is "Spew Be Gone! The Obliteration of Lame Micros"

 

Not the most constructive of titles dontcha think? It gives a mental picture of mass graves full of film canisters, pill bottles, altoids tins, M&M mini tubes, and bison containers, with guys in U.N. vests shaking their heads as they lean against their Bradley fighting vehicles, while a CNN reporter bemoans how that had all been originally hidden within the guidelines. (Certainly over dramatic, but I couldn't resist.)

 

What is subjectively lame for the OP is quite clearly not the case for everyone.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Snoogans

[+TrailGators]

Who am I to say what caches are fun for you to do? And vice versa?

Who is saying this? Why are so many people commenting without reading the thread?

 

What thread are you reading? The title of this thread is "Spew Be Gone! The Obliteration of Lame Micros"

 

Not the most constructive of titles dontcha think? It gives a mental picture of mass graves full of film canisters, pill bottles, altoids tins, M&M mini tubes, and bison containers, with guys in U.N. vests shaking their heads as they lean against their Bradley fighting vehicles, while a CNN reporter bemoans how that had all been originally hidden within the guidelines. (Certainly over dramatic, but I couldn't resist.)

 

What is subjectively lame for the OP is quite clearly not the case for everyone.

Do you also read books by just reading the title of the book? The last several pages of this thread have not been talking about the title says at all. In fact, it has been an fairly angst free thread since the warnings were given by the mods.

[Mushtang]

Who am I to say what caches are fun for you to do? And vice versa?

Who is saying this? Why are so many people commenting without reading the thread?

 

What thread are you reading? The title of this thread is "Spew Be Gone! The Obliteration of Lame Micros"

 

Not the most constructive of titles dontcha think? It gives a mental picture of mass graves full of film canisters, pill bottles, altoids tins, M&M mini tubes, and bison containers, with guys in U.N. vests shaking their heads as they lean against their Bradley fighting vehicles, while a CNN reporter bemoans how that had all been originally hidden within the guidelines. (Certainly over dramatic, but I couldn't resist.)

 

What is subjectively lame for the OP is quite clearly not the case for everyone.

And THAT is the concept that The Complainers just can't seem to grasp. There are certainly caches that The Complainers consider lame, or uninteresting, or worthless, but somebody definitely enjoys finding them and is grateful they've been hidden.

 

Snoogans wins for hitting the nail on the head!

 

You may now select one prize from the middle row here. Uh, anything in this general area right in here. Anything below the stereo and on this side of the bicentennial glasses. Anything between the ashtrays and the thimble. Anything in this three inches right in here in this area. That includes the Chiclets, but not the erasers.

[+TrailGators]

And if I can ever get motivated and place the 10 I have envisioned, there will be 10 new interesting "lame urban caches".

If it's "interesting" then it's not lame.

By whose definition tho? Some I might call interesting or fun might be called lame by someone else. I enjoy just searching for a cache, even tho it may not be a scenic viewpoint or historical area. I enjoy it for other reasons. Others it seems only enjoy the scenic location but not the thrill of the hunt (based upon those who insist a cache needs to be in a great location).

I think some things are fairly obvious. I also think that most people agree on which caches are more interesting. We talk about them at events all the time. We never talk about less interesting caches...

[+TrailGators]

Who am I to say what caches are fun for you to do? And vice versa?

Who is saying this? Why are so many people commenting without reading the thread?

 

What thread are you reading? The title of this thread is "Spew Be Gone! The Obliteration of Lame Micros"

 

Not the most constructive of titles dontcha think? It gives a mental picture of mass graves full of film canisters, pill bottles, altoids tins, M&M mini tubes, and bison containers, with guys in U.N. vests shaking their heads as they lean against their Bradley fighting vehicles, while a CNN reporter bemoans how that had all been originally hidden within the guidelines. (Certainly over dramatic, but I couldn't resist.)

 

What is subjectively lame for the OP is quite clearly not the case for everyone.

And THAT is the concept that The Complainers just can't seem to grasp. There are certainly caches that The Complainers consider lame, or uninteresting, or worthless, but somebody definitely enjoys finding them and is grateful they've been hidden.

 

Snoogans wins for hitting the nail on the head!

 

You may now select one prize from the middle row here. Uh, anything in this general area right in here. Anything below the stereo and on this side of the bicentennial glasses. Anything between the ashtrays and the thimble. Anything in this three inches right in here in this area. That includes the Chiclets, but not the erasers.

This thread has now officially taken a nosedive. I'm out of here because I can't stand it when people don't respond to what is "actually" and "presently" is being discussed.... Edited September 10, 2007 by TrailGators

[+traildad]

What you may not be aware of is that for years nobody agreed on a workable rating system. Forum discussions or arguments as you say, hit a wall until somebody came up with a new angle. Your new angle moves the work from the finder to the owner where there will be even less motivation to jump through the hoops.

You use the words "work" and "jump through the hoops". Do you really see thinking about why they picked a spot and clicking the mouse is some kind of a huge difficult task? Anyway what I have suggested would have both hider and finder participating equally.

I think that many cachers won't find it necessary to prove their cache's worth to you. The fact that they would like to find a cache like the one that they are hiding is good enough. In fact, it's the only reason to hide one.

No one is suggesting anyone needs to prove their cache's worth. I am only asking for enough info to decide if it is what I want to do at the time.

[+traildad]

Plus I have an attitude. If you can't be bothered to read my cache page and figure out if you would like to seek the cache, I can't be bothered to rate my cache just to help you ignore my cache page.

I think this is your whole reasoning. You don't like it, so it can't work.

[+Renegade Knight]

... The only downside of this system would be that it don't think it would be much help when you traveled.

That's a degree's of separation thing. If enough people have traveled through, the system may be able to work well enough. If they haven't, then that could be a weak point.

[+TrailGators]

... The only downside of this system would be that it don't think it would be much help when you traveled.

That's a degree's of separation thing. If enough people have traveled through, the system may be able to work well enough. If they haven't, then that could be a weak point.

Thinking about it more, I think that travelers would eventually interlink areas. We often have people visit San Diego and ask us what the better caches are. I tell them to go to the local Wal-Mart parking lot for a nice micro... Just kidding! But I think in the long run it would work even if you traveled.

[+Renegade Knight]

Plus I have an attitude. If you can't be bothered to read my cache page and figure out if you would like to seek the cache, I can't be bothered to rate my cache just to help you ignore my cache page.

I think this is your whole reasoning. You don't like it, so it can't work.

 

Since you are mistaken I'll fill you in. My reasoning has two parts. The first is simple freedom to list my cache like I want and not have to do more work for my fun than I need to. That's easy enough. The second part my interest you.

 

The other part is that I spent a long time working to figure out how to make a rating system work. One that would let people filter out the caches they like. There were others more talented than I trying to figure out the programing as well. Sound familiar? The problem was that the more time and work you put into trying to capture all the things that make a rating system useful the more work it is to use it to begin with. At that time the focus was a bit different. The ratings were based on enjoyment, but tried to differentiation for people who like hikes, vs. those who like urban, vs those who liked history etc. In the end everyone who WANTED This system two work had to throw in the towel. It was too cumbersome.

 

Splitting out just all the variations of caches that you may enjoy and dumping the ratings portion may only be half as cumbersome...but I've seen nothing new to tell me that half as cumbersome becomes workable, or even useful.

Edited September 10, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+briansnat]

Who am I to say what caches are fun for you to do? And vice versa?

Who is saying this? Why are so many people commenting without reading the thread?

 

What thread are you reading? The title of this thread is "Spew Be Gone! The Obliteration of Lame Micros"

 

Not the most constructive of titles dontcha think? It gives a mental picture of mass graves full of film canisters, pill bottles, altoids tins, M&M mini tubes, and bison containers, with guys in U.N. vests shaking their heads as they lean against their Bradley fighting vehicles, while a CNN reporter bemoans how that had all been originally hidden within the guidelines. (Certainly over dramatic, but I couldn't resist.)

 

What is subjectively lame for the OP is quite clearly not the case for everyone.

And THAT is the concept that The Complainers just can't seem to grasp. There are certainly caches that The Complainers consider lame, or uninteresting, or worthless, but somebody definitely enjoys finding them and is grateful they've been hidden.

 

Snoogans wins for hitting the nail on the head!

 

You may now select one prize from the middle row here. Uh, anything in this general area right in here. Anything below the stereo and on this side of the bicentennial glasses. Anything between the ashtrays and the thimble. Anything in this three inches right in here in this area. That includes the Chiclets, but not the erasers.

 

The concept that the DOETL can't seem to grasp is that these caches are becoming the rule rather than the exception in many areas, which makes pursuing this sport much more difficult for those of us who want more out of it than a tour of mall parking lots, loading docks and dumpsters.

Edited September 10, 2007 by briansnat

[Mushtang]

Who am I to say what caches are fun for you to do? And vice versa?

Who is saying this? Why are so many people commenting without reading the thread?

 

What thread are you reading? The title of this thread is "Spew Be Gone! The Obliteration of Lame Micros"

 

Not the most constructive of titles dontcha think? It gives a mental picture of mass graves full of film canisters, pill bottles, altoids tins, M&M mini tubes, and bison containers, with guys in U.N. vests shaking their heads as they lean against their Bradley fighting vehicles, while a CNN reporter bemoans how that had all been originally hidden within the guidelines. (Certainly over dramatic, but I couldn't resist.)

 

What is subjectively lame for the OP is quite clearly not the case for everyone.

And THAT is the concept that The Complainers just can't seem to grasp. There are certainly caches that The Complainers consider lame, or uninteresting, or worthless, but somebody definitely enjoys finding them and is grateful they've been hidden.

 

Snoogans wins for hitting the nail on the head!

 

You may now select one prize from the middle row here. Uh, anything in this general area right in here. Anything below the stereo and on this side of the bicentennial glasses. Anything between the ashtrays and the thimble. Anything in this three inches right in here in this area. That includes the Chiclets, but not the erasers.

 

The concept that the DOETL can't seem to grasp is that these caches are becoming the rule rather than the exception in many areas, which makes pursuing this sport much more difficult for those of us who want more out of it than a tour of mall parking lots, loading docks and dumpsters.

One concept I have trouble grasping is why having more choices is a bad thing?

 

If cache hides were better in the first couple of years of geocaching, filter out all the caches placed after 2002.

If most of the caches you don't like are micros, filter out all micros.

If most of the caches you don't like are under water, filter out all terrain 5.

If most of the caches you don't like are the super easy ones, filter out all the 1/1s.

 

Another concept I have trouble grasping is why you can't be happy if some of the above suggestions eliminates some caches you would like when it would also eliminate a LOT of caches you don't like and leave you with a whole bunch to chose from. It makes it almost as if a large percentage of the caches you don't like have gone away.

 

However, I've heard you say before that any method of avoiding the caches you don't like that results in you avoiding ANY cache that you would like is unacceptable, so I'm not trying to convince you with this post. I'm only stating that I can't grasp the concept of why this is.

 

I also can't grasp the concept of why women tell you what they want you to do, and then get angry when you do it. They're very mysterious.

[+Renegade Knight]

......these caches are becoming the rule rather than the exception in many areas...

 

Reality is there are more of every kind of cache including the ones you like, or the ones I like. The real problem isn't more caches. It's filtering in one form or another for maximum enjoyment in the limited time we have. The more finicky of a cacher you are, the worse the problem.

 

For those who don't like them all. We get two choices.

 

Adapt in a way we can live with, or give up caching.

 

The ratings/filters or what have you are tools to make adapting more palatable, and keep more of the finicky cachers in the activity.

[+traildad]

Perhaps we have a different idea on how the Netflix system works. I'd see all the caches and an estimate of how much I'd enjoy it. If this info was sent on PQ I could look at the nearest caches ,see the 5 star one, go find it. Then look for the 3 4 star ones, go find them and if I had time, tackle the 2 star ones. Of course I could have also set up my PQ so that I only got the 5 star caches to begin with. Depending on what I wanted for that day.

Does this system know what kind of fast caches you like and what kind of hard caches you like and what kind of historical caches you like and what kind of containers you like? The other day I was waiting in a parking lot while my wife went into the store. I was able to find the nearest cache which was a micro stuck to a electrical box. This is not what I like, but it worked much better than if it had been a needle in a haystack micro. I had the find and was back to my truck before my wife had to wait. Could your system handle the different needs considering time alloted for caching at the moment? Could you ask for a list of your 5 star quickie caches? I don't think it could unless you had already done lots of them.

 

If I take a trip to the East coast, could your system have any kind of a clue which caches were similar to the ones I like on the West coast. I don't think so.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say your system doesn't work at all. It just that it seems to be only able to pick what you have a history of already picking. When you leave the extended caching area or choose to hunt something different, your system will draw a blank.

[+TrailGators]

Perhaps we have a different idea on how the Netflix system works. I'd see all the caches and an estimate of how much I'd enjoy it. If this info was sent on PQ I could look at the nearest caches ,see the 5 star one, go find it. Then look for the 3 4 star ones, go find them and if I had time, tackle the 2 star ones. Of course I could have also set up my PQ so that I only got the 5 star caches to begin with. Depending on what I wanted for that day.

Does this system know what kind of fast caches you like and what kind of hard caches you like and what kind of historical caches you like and what kind of containers you like? The other day I was waiting in a parking lot while my wife went into the store. I was able to find the nearest cache which was a micro stuck to a electrical box. This is not what I like, but it worked much better than if it had been a needle in a haystack micro. I had the find and was back to my truck before my wife had to wait. Could your system handle the different needs considering time alloted for caching at the moment? Could you ask for a list of your 5 star quickie caches? I don't think it could unless you had already done lots of them.

 

If I take a trip to the East coast, could your system have any kind of a clue which caches were similar to the ones I like on the West coast. I don't think so.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to say your system doesn't work at all. It just that it seems to be only able to pick what you have a history of already picking. When you leave the extended caching area or choose to hunt something different, your system will draw a blank.

The way it works is simple. You would privately rate caches that you have found from 1-5. The system would find other cachers that also rated the same caches you liked with a similar rating. Then it looks for caches that these people also commonly liked that you have not found and recommends those to you.

[+KBI]

The concept that the DOETL can't seem to grasp is that these caches are becoming the rule rather than the exception in many areas, which makes pursuing this sport much more difficult for those of us who want more out of it than a tour of mall parking lots, loading docks and dumpsters.

I’ll never understand why the newsstands are always filled with People magazines and other similar Hollywood-gossip drivel. Why are those mindless magazines so popular? I have absolutely no interest in reading about the private lives of famous people. I’d much rather read something meaningful, something with historic or educational significance or a news story that might actually affect ME. Just because some yay-hoo is good at faking emotions in front of a camera or playing a guitar, what do I care who they’re sleeping with or what their Hollywood-modern kitchen looks like?

 

Other people enjoy reading those rags, however, and I am always free to ignore those magazines in favor of the many other available choices. I am fully aware that my complaints about the existence of gossip magazines will never make them go away ... no matter how loud I gripe. Besides, who am I to tell others what they should or should not find entertaining?

 

Tell me, Briansnat: What do you expect to accomplish with your griping? Cachers are out there every day enjoying your least favorite hides, and they are doing it by the thousands. Do you really ever actually expect to convince a meaningful percentage of those cachers to change their behavior, to stop doing what makes them happy just because you don’t happen to share their taste in entertainment?

 

You are making two simultaneous demands: to be able to (1) conveniently catalog ALL caches which are guaranteed to be pleasing to Briansnat, without missing out on a single one, while simultaneously (2) removing ALL caches from your survey which are otherwise guaranteed to be upsetting to Briansnat. You are asking too much; those two demands are simply not compatible. Folks have shown you several methods, any of which will accomplish one goal or the other with a substantial degree of effectiveness; but for you, me, or anyone else to make both demands simultaneously is simply unreasonable.

 

I know how to avoid the bulk of the junk. It’s easy. I also know that I might miss out on something outstandingly clever in the process, but that’s an unavoidable compromise.

 

I know how to avoid missing out on even a single one of the truly great caches in my search area. It’s easy. I also know that I will have to put up with a lot of junk if I go that way, but that’s an unavoidable compromise.

 

I also know that griping and complaining will never change that equation.

[+briansnat]

Adapt in a way we can live with, or give up caching.

 

That's basically what I've been hearing all along from the DOETL, adapt or get lost.

 

One concept I have trouble grasping is why having more choices is a bad thing?

 

If we could make an informed choice you might have a point. But this isn't a supermarket where you have a choice between Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite, Fanta, Mountain Dew, etc... and everything is neatly labeled carefully grouped together and set out before you so you can mak your choice.

 

It's more like the game of Beer Hunter, where someone shakes a can of beer and places it with other cans of beer so one unlucky person gets sprayed in the face when he opens it. OK, maybe some people actually enjoy getting sprayed in the face with beer. I grant that. But do they have to shake nearly every gosh darn can?

[+TrailGators]

It's more like the game of Beer Hunter, where someone shakes a can of beer and places it with other cans of beer so one unlucky person gets sprayed in the face when he opens it. OK, maybe some people actually enjoy getting sprayed in the face with beer. I grant that. But do they have to shake nearly every gosh darn can?

[+TeamBarstool]

I think if I'm going to SOCAL or NJ. I'm going to ask TrailGators or Briansnat for local must do caches. For some reason I don't think I could go wrong

[+TrailGators]

I think if I'm going to SOCAL or NJ. I'm going to ask TrailGators or Briansnat for local must do caches. For some reason I don't think I could go wrong

I have a link to the San Diego Must-Dos at the bottom of every one of my forum posts!

[+Too Tall John]

I know how to avoid the bulk of the junk. It’s easy. I also know that I might miss out on something outstandingly clever in the process, but that’s an unavoidable compromise.

 

I know how to avoid missing out on even a single one of the truly great caches in my search area. It’s easy. I also know that I will have to put up with a lot of junk if I go that way, but that’s an unavoidable compromise.

Maybe it is unavoidable, maybe not. The current discussion regarding using a rating system to weed out caches you might not like might help bring us closer to it being avoidable.

I also know that griping and complaining will never change that equation.

If you truly believe this, why do you continue to jump into these discussions, labeling peopel "complainers" and "gripers" among other things? If you think their complaining will do no good, why bother responding to it? Seems these threads that appear to offend your sensibilities so much would die a much quicker death if people would stop complaining about the "complainers." If complaining will do no good:

• the goals of eliminating certain kinds of caches won't come to pass, so why worry about it?
  
• complaining about the complainers will do no good by your own logic
  

[+Markwell]

It's more like the game of Beer Hunter...

Nah - it's like Bertie Bots Every Flavored Beans. Most people seemed to have glossed over my post since it got buried at the bottom of page two quickly as page 3 swept up.

[+Too Tall John]

It's more like the game of Beer Hunter...

Nah - it's like Bertie Bots Every Flavored Beans. Most people seemed to have glossed over my post since it got buried at the bottom of page two quickly as page 3 swept up.

I liked your analogy, Markwell.

 

Brian's point, I think, is that in the Beerhunter game, you're supposed to shake one beer can out of a larger group, which is analogous with hiding one "numbers cache" (aka spew, lame, etc). Some people will shake all the cans, or following the analogy, hide nothing but "numbers caches."

 

Your analogy fits more in showing how it is hard to know exactly what it is you are going to get, you might think you're getting "chocolate and peppermint and marmalade, but then you... get spinach and liver and tripe."

 

Combining the analogies, it's kinda like if Jelly Belly started producing the BB Beans in nothing but the nasty flavors. The fun of eating them goes down when you are pretty sure you are getting dirt, earwax or vomit.

[+KBI]

I also know that griping and complaining will never change that equation.

If you truly believe this, why do you continue to jump into these discussions, labeling peopel "complainers" and "gripers" among other things? If you think their complaining will do no good, why bother responding to it?

If two viewpoints are incompatible, then I figure at least one of them is wrong. I would either like to convince the complainers that there is nothing to complain about ... or for the complainers to convince me to agree with them. None of them has ever convinced me to agree with them, but I have seen some very convincing evidence that some of the former complainers' minds have been changed by people like myself.

 

Seems these threads that appear to offend your sensibilities so much would die a much quicker death if people would stop complaining about the "complainers."

That’s been tried; it doesn’t work.

 

If complaining will do no good:

• the goals of eliminating certain kinds of caches won't come to pass, so why worry about it?
  

I disagree with that premise. For better or for worse, the elimination of certain types of caches HAS come to pass in the past, and always as a result of complaints.

 

A ban is not necessarily bad; it depends on the issue. A criticism about practical issues is one thing. A complaint about someone’s poor creativity – failure to satisfactorily entertain – is another.

 

Silence can be misconstrued as agreement. I think ALL guideline-compliant caches have a right to exist no matter how lame some whiners think they are or how badly certain malcontents dislike them, and I would never want anyone’s standard of creativity – not even mine – to become a condition for listing a cache. If people like me don't speak up, how long before we end up with a Creativity Czar?

 

Would you want someone like this guy deciding what gets listed?

 

If everyone did the following, the problem would go away.

 

CITO -- Cache in, Trash Out......

Let me get this straight. You are suggesting stealing any cache that you don't like?

 

Man, am I ever glad you don't live near me.

I am suggesting throwing trash into a garbage can where it belongs.

Edited September 10, 2007 by KBI

[+Fuzzy B]

I'll go first.. If everyone did the following, the problem would go away.

 

CITO -- Cache in, Trash Out......

 

Glad you don't live here. When your local micros disappear, folks will know who to go after.

[CoyoteRed]

I am not trying to argue, I'm just trying to get advice.

Hi Diane, what I would suggest that you go to your local forum and ask people what the "Must-Do" urbans are in your area. Then go find a bunch of those.

Excellent advise. The only thing I'd add is related to larger-than-a-micro aspect. Ask which must-do urbans are not micros. Those will show you how it's done.

 

The reason I'd probably go for hiding regulars instead of micros and smalls is highlighted in this thread, some folks will filter out those. Micros have the bad reputation and some folks are mis-categorizing micros as small.

 

Jacksonville, FL has, or had I don't know if it's still going on, a campaign where folks would hide a regular where most would expect a micro. These were still in stripmalls and such, but was a pleasant surprise because each one we found had great swag.

 

Anyway, it can be done. You just need some inspiration and like TG said the locals should be able to point you in the right direction.

 

EDIT: Fixed quotes.

Edited September 10, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[4wheelin_fool]

 

...You may now select one prize from the middle row here. Uh, anything in this general area right in here. Anything below the stereo and on this side of the bicentennial glasses. Anything between the ashtrays and the thimble. Anything in this three inches right in here in this area. That includes the Chiclets, but not the erasers.

 

 

Well, I just hope everyone realizes, every maintained cache has a Special Purpose...

[+sbell111]

There is no other way besides completely ignoring urbans until the site adds some type of enhancement. A few good enhancement ideas have been discussed in this thread and many other threads. I don't want to sit behind a PC zooming in on hundreds of caches to see if they are LUMS. That is a waste of my time. So I will stick to doing caches with terrain > 1.5 and load up and go. Anyhow keep the ideas coming guys!

There is a simple way to avoid urban caches. Do not point your car towards urban areas.

Why would I do that? There are typically some nice parks in urban areas.

Ummm, because you appeared to want to 'completely ignore urbans'.

[+sbell111]

That's basically what I've been hearing all along from the DOETL, adapt or get lost. ...

I realize that you're likely using the acronym 'DOETL' as a way for you to insult anyone who disagrees with you and feel superior at the same time, but what does it stand for?

 

Should I just drop it into the file with YNW (spelling error intact), LUM, and all the rest?