Spew Be Gone!

[+ReadyOrNot]

Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?

I'd like to know how you determined Geocaching is reaching critical mass? What methodology did you use?

The methodology of common sense. It's a simple question of this: Are caches being created faster than they are being archived? Of course. The question is not IF we will reach critical mass, the question is when will we reach it. No different than a discussion of overpopulation. If the birth rate is increasing, overpopulation is going to happen, the argument is about when it's going to happen.

 

do you want to discuss when it's going to happen? or are you claiming it won't happen? Please clarify.

Again, I fear that we are using alternate (and non-standard) definitions of 'critical mass'. Can you please let us know exactly how you define 'critical mass'?

 

Perhaps "Chaos" or "Cache Overpopulation" would be better terms?

[+sbell111]

Again, I fear that we are using alternate (and non-standard) definitions of 'critical mass'. Can you please let us know exactly how you define 'critical mass'?

Perhaps "Chaos" or "Cache Overpopulation" would be better terms?

Well, I'm not sure.

 

How are caches becoming too chaotic?

 

As for overpopulation, how is this an issue?

[+Renegade Knight]

...Is this not how you're defining 'critical mass'?

 

I think they clarified it as. When new caches come out at the same rate that old caches are archived. A lot of urban areas are probably pretty close to this point if they haven't hit it already.

[+tozainamboku]

I'd like to know how you determined Geocaching is reaching critical mass? What methodology did you use?

 

The methodology of common sense. It's a simple question of this: Are caches being created faster than they are being archived? Of course. The question is not IF we will reach critical mass, the question is when will we reach it. No different than a discussion of overpopulation. If the birth rate is increasing, overpopulation is going to happen, the argument is about when it's going to happen.

 

do you want to discuss when it's going to happen? or are you claiming it won't happen? Please clarify.

I don't know what you mean by critical mass. There are cache saturation guidelines, so I suppose you make an argument that eventually we will run out of places to hide a cache. But more likely, one may think that since most of the the "good" places to hide caches are taken, the result is caches hidden in "poor" places (aka spew). The reality is that 1) there are are still plenty of places where I am finding cache and thinking I wonder why no one hid one here before (i.e. people are finding places that at least I think are good places to hide a cache) and 2) geocaching is about hiding caches - a "wow" requirement on the location would be as hard to enforce for physical caches as it was for virtuals so I prefer to say that a cache in a "good" place gets extra praise rather than calling one in a poor place lame.

 

I have a series of 7 PQs that cover most of central Los Angeles and adjacent areas to the south and east. When I started I was able to cover this are in just 4 PQs while it took 5 PQs each to cover an area to the north and west which at the time was far more active geocaching that the more urban areas. The 5 PQ area has grown to 6 PQ over the past couple of year while the 4 PQ has gone to 7. The other day, I hit the 500 cache limit in the last of the 7 PQs meaning that I now need to go to 8. However, I also saw that 74 caches had been archived in the past week. Most by a couple of reviewers who have lately been looking for caches that have been disabled for a long time an the owners not taking action to replace them, but quite a few by owners themselves who just wanted to free up the area. There were certainly more caches archived last week in this area than new ones placed. This is rare, but I have notices that in this very cache dense area the rate of growth in active caches is slowing down. The rate of growth in new caches doesn't seem to be waning, but many caches get disabled and stay that way for longer periods, and many more caches are being archived. I suspect that eventually we will reach some equalibrium with caches being archived at about the same rate new caches are created.

 

I think one solution would be to host cache awards in your area.

 

Wonderful idea! I think it would be even better if it was implemented as a site-wide feature.. But that's a whole different discussion

I can't imagine how you would have a site-wide awards. However, Jeremy has indicated that he may be working on a way to award outstanding caches or cache hiders. For now premium members can create bookmark lists of there favorite caches. In addition, I suppose one could create a bookmark list of "lame caches", though there has been much discussion on to whether negative bookmark lists are all that good of an idea.

[+ReadyOrNot]

...Is this not how you're defining 'critical mass'?

 

I think they clarified it as. When new caches come out at the same rate that old caches are archived. A lot of urban areas are probably pretty close to this point if they haven't hit it already.

 

I would guess that in some areas that the growth rate exceeds the archive rate. It would be nice to see a breakdown on cache types, terrain and difficulty ratings along-side the growth rates.

[magellan315]

'ReadyOrNot' 'Sep 6 2007, 10:59 AM'

Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?

 

I'd like to know how you determined Geocaching is reaching critical mass? What methodology did you use?

 

The methodology of common sense. It's a simple question of this: Are caches being created faster than they are being archived? Of course. The question is not IF we will reach critical mass, the question is when will we reach it. No different than a discussion of overpopulation. If the birth rate is increasing, overpopulation is going to happen, the argument is about when it's going to happen.

 

do you want to discuss when it's going to happen? or are you claiming it won't happen? Please clarify.

 

So you determined that critical mass is going to occur by guessing. No statistical data, just your opinion. I live in a major metropolitan area and my common sense tells me that Geocaching is not even close to critical mass. So based on your common sense when is critical mass going to occur in the United States?

 

GC.com has the easiest solution about overpopulation, no caches closer than .10 of a mile. Your solution means that remove any caches you deem lame. So what is the criteria going to be for a lame cache?

[+srlbotanical]

If I took a piece of paper, tossed it in a ziplock bag and shoved it under a lamp post skirt, you are seriously going to try to make the case that it's not garbage?

 

I would stand against that logic any day of the week.

 

Post that cache near me and I will gladly load the kiddies up, find it, log it and thank you for it.

 

We won't have near the fun we have visiting other caches, but hey, it still got us out of the house together. I just won't be as excited the next time I see one of your caches published.

 

I seek out caches hidden by some and avoid those that others have hidden unless I am realy board. Other then the well established hide ground rules already in place, I am not interested in any changes in the system.

[+sbell111]

...Is this not how you're defining 'critical mass'?

 

I think they clarified it as. When new caches come out at the same rate that old caches are archived. A lot of urban areas are probably pretty close to this point if they haven't hit it already.

You and I have been around long enough to know that the game would have died out long ago if we were limited to 'zero growth'. I'm sure that I would have gotten sick of waiting a couple weeks for a new cache or driving many miles.

 

(I realize that you were clarifying the OP's position, not necessarily agreeing with it.)

 

<edited to add that increased growth rates make it more likely that there is a cache out there for everybody. More caches means that choosey cachers choose Jif can go after the caches that they are more likely to like.

Edited September 6, 2007 by sbell111

[+Kit Fox]

Lead by example. Coach and train. Report guideline violations. Best we can do. These usually otherwise fit the current guidelines and so will continue to be published.

 

I posted this on my cache pages. And hide caches that I like to find.

 

 

The main reason Micro Spew is getting worse is because there are still cachers that find them and tell the owners, "Thanks for the cache." Do like I do, and put all spew caches on your ignore list. Imagine if nobody bothered to find caches under lampposts, in parking lots.

I have just realized that I generally tend to agree with much of what you write on the forums, but in this case, I must point out that the BIG problem with Spew caches, aka Lame Urban caches, whether they micro-sized or small-sized, is that it is often near-impossible to tell such a cache from quality caches by perusing the cache listing page and reviewing the text, the D/T ratings and the attribute icons, and instead, the "stupidity factor" of such caches often becomes apparent only when you reach the hide site. I have had this happen to me on trips to Los Angeles, to western Michigan (particularly Kalamazoo... phew!), to Houston, TX and to Phoenix, AZ.

 

In fact, this is also why the "Ice Cream" analogy fails miserably when one tries to apply it to the mater of LUMs, aka Spew. Ice cream is labeled as to flavor and also as to other ingredients, and also bears a label disclosing whether it was made with skim milk or with real cream. The problem with a vast majority of Spew/LUM caches is that you can never know, till you reach the hide site, that the cache is one of "those" caches.

 

We agree!

 

I've asked for a "Parking lot" attribute to help weed out parking lot caches. I've also advocated a "just for the numbers" attribute to help me weed out LUMs. My only choice is to run several PQs with different criteria, and then merge them in GSAK. I have to take the time to review the caches with terrain of 1.5 up to 2. I weed out the majority of "1/1s" and it's made me happier.

[+ReadyOrNot]

'ReadyOrNot' 'Sep 6 2007, 10:59 AM'

Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?

 

I'd like to know how you determined Geocaching is reaching critical mass? What methodology did you use?

 

The methodology of common sense. It's a simple question of this: Are caches being created faster than they are being archived? Of course. The question is not IF we will reach critical mass, the question is when will we reach it. No different than a discussion of overpopulation. If the birth rate is increasing, overpopulation is going to happen, the argument is about when it's going to happen.

 

do you want to discuss when it's going to happen? or are you claiming it won't happen? Please clarify.

 

So you determined that critical mass is going to occur by guessing. No statistical data, just your opinion. I live in a major metropolitan area and my common sense tells me that Geocaching is not even close to critical mass. So based on your common sense when is critical mass going to occur in the United States?

 

GC.com has the easiest solution about overpopulation, no caches closer than .10 of a mile. Your solution means that remove any caches you deem lame. So what is the criteria going to be for a lame cache?

 

More people are joining geocaching.com... More people are placing caches... Are we still arguing about whether it will happen or not? I don't determine the criteria for a lame cache.... Let the geocaching community through democracy determine what a lame cache is.

[+sbell111]

'ReadyOrNot' 'Sep 6 2007, 10:59 AM'

Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?

I'd like to know how you determined Geocaching is reaching critical mass? What methodology did you use?

The methodology of common sense. It's a simple question of this: Are caches being created faster than they are being archived? Of course. The question is not IF we will reach critical mass, the question is when will we reach it. No different than a discussion of overpopulation. If the birth rate is increasing, overpopulation is going to happen, the argument is about when it's going to happen.

 

do you want to discuss when it's going to happen? or are you claiming it won't happen? Please clarify.

So you determined that critical mass is going to occur by guessing. No statistical data, just your opinion. I live in a major metropolitan area and my common sense tells me that Geocaching is not even close to critical mass. So based on your common sense when is critical mass going to occur in the United States?

 

GC.com has the easiest solution about overpopulation, no caches closer than .10 of a mile. Your solution means that remove any caches you deem lame. So what is the criteria going to be for a lame cache?

More people are joining geocaching.com... More people are placing caches... Are we still arguing about whether it will happen or not? I don't determine the criteria for a lame cache.... Let the geocaching community through democracy determine what a lame cache is.

What's 'it'? Overpopulation? If so, how do you define 'overpopulation'?

 

Is it 'all the possible locations are taken'? We are not even close to being there and I doubt that it will ever happen.

 

Is it 'all the good locations are taken'? This isn't happening, either. People continue to find great locations to hide a cache and finding new and interesting ways to place a cache

 

Is it 'there are too many caches too ever find'? Well, no one has to find them all.

 

Is it 'there are too many caches being placed that you don't like'? Based on your early posts to this thread, I suspect that this is it, but I'm not sure. If so, the answer is to cache smarter, not harder. Find a method that works for you that allows you to go after mostly caches that you know that you'll like. Don't go after caches that you might not like until you're done with all the caches that you'll likely like.

Edited September 6, 2007 by sbell111

[Mr.Yuck]

After reading the entire thread it becomes painfully obvious that plenty of folks simply don't get it. The OP is talking MicroSpew™, not micros or urban caches in general.

It's also painfully obvious that the OP was suggesting that people steal caches that they don't like and throw them in the garbage.

 

I hope you didn't miss those posts.

 

To the OP: If I can't voice my opinion, why don't you just shut this down now. (and I'm sorry for my vulgar use of the word "tird" -- Have you ever given a warning to someone for saying that before this?)

OP's can't close their own threads anymore, only the mods/admins can do that for us.

and yes, I have been warned about language use. There used to be a thread around here somewhere... WHich is where I apparantly went too far.

 

Ooops, I meant to say to the "MOD"... I wasn't talking to myself, really

 

Why does my post say Ringbone

 

Well, after all, his avatar is a sock puppet.

[+briansnat]

I would think that one relatively easy way to avoid a cache some might consider lame would be to look at the attributes. If one is listed as handicapped accessible, that might be a clue for those that hate LUMs to look elsewhere. Until reading this thread, I hadn't given any thought to those geocachers who might have difficulties reaching caches on trails and I am glad that they are able to participate in caches that others might consider lame.

 

Where is it written that handicapped people have to be sentenced to a geo-lifetime of skirt lifting and lurking around dumpsters and loading docks? I know if I were to become handicapped and lame caches were all that was available to me that would be the end of my geocaching days.

 

Handicapped people deserve interesting caches too. I've found quite a few good to excellent caches that were handicap accessible. Easy terrain does not have to = lame.

 

So no, filtering on handicap accessible caches won't (or at least shouldn't) work as a method to filter out lousy

caches.

 

I must point out that the BIG problem with Spew caches, aka Lame Urban caches, whether they micro-sized or small-sized, is that it is often near-impossible to tell such a cache from quality caches by perusing the cache listing page and reviewing the text, the D/T ratings and the attribute icons, and instead, the "stupidity factor" of such caches often becomes apparent only when you reach the hide site. I have had this happen to me on trips to Los Angeles, to western Michigan (particularly Kalamazoo... phew!), to Houston, TX and to Phoenix, AZ.

 

In fact, this is also why the "Ice Cream" analogy fails miserably when one tries to apply it to the mater of LUMs, aka Spew. Ice cream is labeled as to flavor and also as to other ingredients, and also bears a label disclosing whether it was made with skim milk or with real cream. The problem with a vast majority of Spew/LUM caches is that you can never know, till you reach the hide site, that the cache is one of "those" caches.

 

Bravo! Someone who actually gets it and the reason why the "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em" argument is worthless.

Edited September 6, 2007 by briansnat

[+ReadyOrNot]

People continue to find great locations to hide a cache and finding new and interesting ways to place a cache

 

That's not been my experience. A lot of the good hiders have stopped placing caches and micro spew seems to be more common these days.

[Mr.Yuck]

I would think that one relatively easy way to avoid a cache some might consider lame would be to look at the attributes. If one is listed as handicapped accessible, that might be a clue for those that hate LUMs to look elsewhere. Until reading this thread, I hadn't given any thought to those geocachers who might have difficulties reaching caches on trails and I am glad that they are able to participate in caches that others might consider lame.

 

Where is it written that handicapped people have to be sentenced to a geo-lifetime of skirt lifting and lurking around dumpsters and loading docks? I know if I were to become handicapped and lame caches were all that was available to me that would be the end of my geocaching days.

 

Handicapped people deserve interesting caches too. I've found quite a few good to excellent caches that were handicap accessible. Easy terrain does not have to = lame.

 

Correct. Nor do these handicap cachers need 50% of the caches in and around many major cities in the U.S. to be placed in parking lots, around dumpsters and near loading docks, allegedly on their behalf.

[magellan315]

More people are joining geocaching.com... More people are placing caches... Are we still arguing about whether it will happen or not?

 

I'm still waiting for proof of your claims, something more than common sense. You claim that we are reaching critical mass, which makes it sound like its imminent. This is based on your common sense and that more people are participating in Geocaching. Heres what my common sense tells me. You live near Portland, OR, population 562,690 I live near Philadelphia, PA population 1,463,281 a difference of 900,000 people. If critical mass was going to occur I'd be seeing signs of it and I see none.

 

I've been Geocaching since 2001 and you since 2005. Yes more people are participating but with the hindsight of time I still see no signs of critical mass.

[Trinity's Crew]

<snip>

There must be a problem because this subject comes up in the forums like every 5 days or so. In my

6 years here I've yet to see a thread complaining about too many caches in interesting locations.

But I have seen MANY different types of caches described as lame.

 

Speaking of people (since it was brought up as a negative against the OP) who do a lot of talking about caching, but haven't done all too much of it.

I didn't realize that you needed a certain amount of finds to have an opinion. It's pretty obvious you don't need manners to have one.

 

Your post is rude and out of line. I'm not complaining about people who don't place caches that don't satisfy me. The OP is.

[Mr.Yuck]

<snip>

There must be a problem because this subject comes up in the forums like every 5 days or so. In my

6 years here I've yet to see a thread complaining about too many caches in interesting locations.

But I have seen MANY different types of caches described as lame.

 

Speaking of people (since it was brought up as a negative against the OP) who do a lot of talking about caching, but haven't done all too much of it.

I didn't realize that you needed a certain amount of finds to have an opinion. It's pretty obvious you don't need manners to have one.

 

Your post is rude and out of line. I'm not complaining about people who don't place caches that don't satisfy me. The OP is.

 

Not really. No more then several people who were rude to the OP, basically saying the same thing. And you certainly only do seem to show up in the lame cache threads to defend lame caches. Sorry if I offended you though.

[+Ambrosia]

I must point out that the BIG problem with Spew caches, aka Lame Urban caches, whether they micro-sized or small-sized, is that it is often near-impossible to tell such a cache from quality caches by perusing the cache listing page and reviewing the text, the D/T ratings and the attribute icons, and instead, the "stupidity factor" of such caches often becomes apparent only when you reach the hide site. I have had this happen to me on trips to Los Angeles, to western Michigan (particularly Kalamazoo... phew!), to Houston, TX and to Phoenix, AZ.

 

In fact, this is also why the "Ice Cream" analogy fails miserably when one tries to apply it to the mater of LUMs, aka Spew. Ice cream is labeled as to flavor and also as to other ingredients, and also bears a label disclosing whether it was made with skim milk or with real cream. The problem with a vast majority of Spew/LUM caches is that you can never know, till you reach the hide site, that the cache is one of "those" caches.

 

Bravo! Someone who actually gets it and the reason why the "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em" argument is worthless.

Musta missed my response to theirs (and others like it)...I guess I just don't "get it".

Edited September 6, 2007 by Ambrosia

[Trinity's Crew]

<snip>

There must be a problem because this subject comes up in the forums like every 5 days or so. In my

6 years here I've yet to see a thread complaining about too many caches in interesting locations.

But I have seen MANY different types of caches described as lame.

Speaking of people (since it was brought up as a negative against the OP) who do a lot of talking about caching, but haven't done all too much of it.

I didn't realize that you needed a certain amount of finds to have an opinion. It's pretty obvious you don't need manners to have one.

Your post is rude and out of line. I'm not complaining about people who don't place caches that don't satisfy me. The OP is.

Not really. No more then several people who were rude to the OP, basically saying the same thing. And you certainly only do seem to show up in the lame cache threads to defend lame caches. Sorry if I offended you though.

I haven't been rude to the OP. My "judge, jury, and executioner" statement was a direct response to The OPs suggestion to "throw away" caches that didn't suit him.

 

I NEVER called his recent caching activities into question, nor did I respond to those who did.

And for the record, I don't defend lame caches. I defend the right to place any cache that meets the guidelines regardless of whether they suit your or anyone else's personal, arbitrary standards.

 

Edit: Added arbitrary arbitrarily.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+sbell111]

People continue to find great locations to hide a cache and finding new and interesting ways to place a cache

That's not been my experience. A lot of the good hiders have stopped placing caches and micro spew seems to be more common these days.

Every hider is likely to stop hiding caches eventually. There are only so many that a single person should be expected to maintain. Cachers hide the amount and kind of caches that they wish to hide. It's as simple as that.

Where is it written that handicapped people have to be sentenced to a geo-lifetime of skirt lifting and lurking around dumpsters and loading docks? I know if I were to become handicapped and lame caches were all that was available to me that would be the end of my geocaching days.

 

Handicapped people deserve interesting caches too. I've found quite a few good to excellent caches that were handicap accessible. Easy terrain does not have to = lame.

Correct. Nor do these handicap cachers need 50% of the caches in and around many major cities in the U.S. to be placed in parking lots, around dumpsters and near loading docks, allegedly on their behalf.

In my opinion, the 'handicapped' argument is a red herring used by those who dislike these types of caches. The fact is, many people like the caches that some complain are somehow unworthy and lame. I know I often like them. They really hit the spot.

 

These caches exist because people like them. If people didn't like them, they wouldn't hide them.

[magellan315]

I don't defend lame caches. I defend the right to place any cache that meets the guidelines regardless of whether they suit your or anyone else's personal standards.

 

I agree.

[+sbell111]

I must point out that the BIG problem with Spew caches, aka Lame Urban caches, whether they micro-sized or small-sized, is that it is often near-impossible to tell such a cache from quality caches by perusing the cache listing page and reviewing the text, the D/T ratings and the attribute icons, and instead, the "stupidity factor" of such caches often becomes apparent only when you reach the hide site. I have had this happen to me on trips to Los Angeles, to western Michigan (particularly Kalamazoo... phew!), to Houston, TX and to Phoenix, AZ.

 

In fact, this is also why the "Ice Cream" analogy fails miserably when one tries to apply it to the mater of LUMs, aka Spew. Ice cream is labeled as to flavor and also as to other ingredients, and also bears a label disclosing whether it was made with skim milk or with real cream. The problem with a vast majority of Spew/LUM caches is that you can never know, till you reach the hide site, that the cache is one of "those" caches.

Bravo! Someone who actually gets it and the reason why the "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em" argument is worthless.

Musta missed my response to theirs (and others like it)...I guess I just don't "get it".

That's OK. He's missed my avoidance suggestions in several threads. Edited September 6, 2007 by sbell111

[4wheelin_fool]

 

I didn't realize that you needed a certain amount of finds to have an opinion. It's pretty obvious you don't need manners to have one.

 

Your post is rude and out of line. I'm not complaining about people who don't place caches that don't satisfy me. The OP is.

 

Not really. No more then several people who were rude to the OP, basically saying the same thing. And you certainly only do seem to show up in the lame cache threads to defend lame caches. Sorry if I offended you though.

 

If you are referring to the post I made, I was not trying to be rude, but trying to determine why the OP started this thread all of a sudden about lame caches, and why he was advocating CITOing the ones he didnt like. I cannot figure out how he is determining "critical mass" when he hasn't posted any finds on any, or done much caching recently (that we know about)...

[Mushtang]

Since there are many ways to avoid Lame Micros, including not being a "radius slave," I don't really see a problem.

Could you please explain many ways? I've yet to discover one. Short of a "Junk cache for numbers hounds only" attribute, I see no way to filter out garbage micros. Many have suggested ways, but every one I've seen potentially eliminates a lot of excellent caches as well.

That's not a problem, it's a feature.

 

Seriously, as long as your filtering leaves you with mostly caches that you will like, who cares if it filters out some that you won't like. You can look closer at the caches that were filtered out after you've found all the 'mostly good' caches that were filtered in. (BTW, this is the meat of methods that were discussed in previous threads about this subject. Threads that you participated in.)

 

Bravo! Someone who actually gets it and the reason why the "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em" argument is actually valid.

 

If you don't like em... filter out caches that have traits of those you don't like, and you'll vastly increase the percentage of caches you enjoy in your PQ. You'll also remove quite a few caches you would also have enjoyed, but there are so many caches available you won't run out of these anyway.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Since there are many ways to avoid Lame Micros, including not being a "radius slave," I don't really see a problem.

Could you please explain many ways? I've yet to discover one. Short of a "Junk cache for numbers hounds only" attribute, I see no way to filter out garbage micros. Many have suggested ways, but every one I've seen potentially eliminates a lot of excellent caches as well.

That's not a problem, it's a feature.

 

Seriously, as long as your filtering leaves you with mostly caches that you will like, who cares if it filters out some that you won't like. You can look closer at the caches that were filtered out after you've found all the 'mostly good' caches that were filtered in. (BTW, this is the meat of methods that were discussed in previous threads about this subject. Threads that you participated in.)

 

Bravo! Someone who actually gets it and the reason why the "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em" argument is actually valid.

 

If you don't like em... filter out caches that have traits of those you don't like, and you'll vastly increase the percentage of caches you enjoy in your PQ. You'll also remove quite a few caches you would also have enjoyed, but there are so many caches available you won't run out of these anyway.

 

Why be happy with a method that does not work very well. Then there's the issue of the LUM being placed somewhere that prevents the placement of caches within .1 miles in all directions... My filtering out the LUM's doesn't change the fact that it is there and preventing a good cache from being placed there.

[Mr.Yuck]

<snip>

There must be a problem because this subject comes up in the forums like every 5 days or so. In my

6 years here I've yet to see a thread complaining about too many caches in interesting locations.

But I have seen MANY different types of caches described as lame.

Speaking of people (since it was brought up as a negative against the OP) who do a lot of talking about caching, but haven't done all too much of it.

I didn't realize that you needed a certain amount of finds to have an opinion. It's pretty obvious you don't need manners to have one.

Your post is rude and out of line. I'm not complaining about people who don't place caches that don't satisfy me. The OP is.

Not really. No more then several people who were rude to the OP, basically saying the same thing. And you certainly only do seem to show up in the lame cache threads to defend lame caches. Sorry if I offended you though.

I haven't been rude to the OP. My "judge, jury, and executioner" statement was a direct response to The OPs suggestion to "throw away" caches that didn't suit him.

 

I NEVER called his recent caching activities into question, nor did I respond to those who did.

And for the record, I don't defend lame caches. I defend the right to place any cache that meets the guidelines regardless of whether they suit your or anyone else's personal, arbitrary standards.

 

Edit: Added arbitrary arbitrarily.

 

Fair enough. But to me, it appears you come running into every single "lame micro" thread to defend lame micros, and sit dormant until the next. Ask yourself honestly, have you personally seen the caches of which we (the whiners) speak? When is the last time you ran a PQ for your area? When is the last time you surfed the listings for some major city, and saw what is out there?

 

Ah yes, "caches that meet the guidelines". From the guidelines:

 

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

 

know of any caches in store parking lots, out back next to their dumpsters, or next to their loading docks that were placed with permission? This spew is approved under a "look the other way and assume permision" policy. I'd argue that most of them don't meet the listing guidelines.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Lead by example. Coach and train. Report guideline violations. Best we can do. These usually otherwise fit the current guidelines and so will continue to be published.

 

I'll vote for coaching and training but it's not as easy as it sounds.

 

I think this can only be accomplished on a regional basis by like minded cachers who are monitoring the area for new players. These individuals would need to have enough hides to know when a new cacher has just begun caching or have a dedicated premium account that has a notification set up on different types of caches (granted, this could be overwhelming).

 

It's a lot of work to coach and train but finding someone who has just started caching and offering help is the biggest challenge. Then, of course, they have to accept the help offered.

[Trinity's Crew]

My filtering out the LUM's doesn't change the fact that it is there and preventing a good cache from being placed there.

I would bet that if there is an interesting spot less than 528 feet away then eight or nine times out of ten that's why the cache was put there in the first place.

[Trinity's Crew]

Fair enough. But to me, it appears you come running into every single "lame micro" thread to defend lame micros, and sit dormant until the next. Ask yourself honestly, have you personally seen the caches of which we (the whiners) speak? When is the last time you ran a PQ for your area? When is the last time you surfed the listings for some major city, and saw what is out there?

 

Ah yes, "caches that meet the guidelines". From the guidelines:

 

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

know of any caches in store parking lots, out back next to their dumpsters, or next to their loading docks that were placed with permission? This spew is approved under a "look the other way and assume permission" policy. I'd argue that most of them don't meet the listing guidelines.

I have avoided MANY of the lame cache threads but it is a hot button for me. I have found DOZENS of caches that I consider lame but I wouldn't impose my arbitrary standard of lame on anyone else.

 

As for caches that don't meet the guidelines, that is what the SBA button is for.

 

Edit: Removed a TON of previous quotes.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+briansnat]

If you don't like em... filter out caches that have traits of those you don't like, and you'll vastly increase the percentage of caches you enjoy in your PQ. You'll also remove quite a few caches you would also have enjoyed, but there are so many caches available you won't run out of these anyway.

 

I want to find the enjoyable caches out there and any method that filters some of them out is not satisfactory to me.

[+sbell111]

Seriously, as long as your filtering leaves you with mostly caches that you will like, who cares if it filters out some that you won't like. You can look closer at the caches that were filtered out after you've found all the 'mostly good' caches that were filtered in. (BTW, this is the meat of methods that were discussed in previous threads about this subject. Threads that you participated in.)

Bravo! Someone who actually gets it and the reason why the "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em" argument is actually valid.

 

If you don't like em... filter out caches that have traits of those you don't like, and you'll vastly increase the percentage of caches you enjoy in your PQ. You'll also remove quite a few caches you would also have enjoyed, but there are so many caches available you won't run out of these anyway.

Why be happy with a method that does not work very well. Then there's the issue of the LUM being placed somewhere that prevents the placement of caches within .1 miles in all directions... My filtering out the LUM's doesn't change the fact that it is there and preventing a good cache from being placed there.

The truth is, I don't have a clue what LUM stands for. I assume that it's another 'cool kid' way to say that they aren't happy with other people's efforts. Ill file it in the same file as I put 'DPM', 'microspew', 'odious', and the rest; the circular one.

 

The fact is, the method works as well as you try to make it work. It clearly will never weed out every cache that doesn't make you pleased. It will also weed out some caches that you would like. However, used properly, it will somewhat easily give you a file of lots of caches that you are very likely to enjoy. I hardly see that as a failure and it will likely not get better than that until Jeremy implements the feature that would allow the PQ server to read your mind.

 

BTW, I believe that the 'blocking a good spot' is also a red herring. One tenth of a mile is simply too small of a distance for all these 'lame' caches to be blocking great spots. In one of these threads, I mentioned that from my office to the rest room down the hall is over a tenth of a mile. It's that tiny of a distance.

Edited September 6, 2007 by sbell111

[Mr.Yuck]

<snip>

There must be a problem because this subject comes up in the forums like every 5 days or so. In my

6 years here I've yet to see a thread complaining about too many caches in interesting locations.

But I have seen MANY different types of caches described as lame.

Speaking of people (since it was brought up as a negative against the OP) who do a lot of talking about caching, but haven't done all too much of it.

I didn't realize that you needed a certain amount of finds to have an opinion. It's pretty obvious you don't need manners to have one.

Your post is rude and out of line. I'm not complaining about people who don't place caches that don't satisfy me. The OP is.

Not really. No more then several people who were rude to the OP, basically saying the same thing. And you certainly only do seem to show up in the lame cache threads to defend lame caches. Sorry if I offended you though.

I haven't been rude to the OP. My "judge, jury, and executioner" statement was a direct response to The OPs suggestion to "throw away" caches that didn't suit him.

 

I NEVER called his recent caching activities into question, nor did I respond to those who did.

And for the record, I don't defend lame caches. I defend the right to place any cache that meets the guidelines regardless of whether they suit your or anyone else's personal, arbitrary standards.

 

Edit: Added arbitrary arbitrarily.

 

Fair enough. But to me, it appears you come running into every single "lame micro" thread to defend lame micros, and sit dormant until the next. Ask yourself honestly, have you personally seen the caches of which we (the whiners) speak? When is the last time you ran a PQ for your area? When is the last time you surfed the listings for some major city, and saw what is out there?

 

Ah yes, "caches that meet the guidelines". From the guidelines:

 

Off-limit (Physical) Caches

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

 

know of any caches in store parking lots, out back next to their dumpsters, or next to their loading docks that were placed with permission? This spew is approved under a "look the other way and assume permision" policy. I'd argue that most of them don't meet the listing guidelines.

I have avoided MANY of the lame cache threads but it is a hot button for me. I have found DOZENS of caches that I consider lame but I wouldn't impose my arbitrary standard of lame on anyone else.

 

As for caches that don't meet the guidelines, that is what the SBA button is for.

 

Usually when I bring that up (believe it or not, I have before ). That same thing comes up, about the SBA button. No, I'm not going to go around posting SBA's to hundreds of parking lot caches in my area alone. The number ho's can have their fun, and impress themselves, and whoever else they think their impressing. However, you could say "meet the guidelines" is a hot button for me. Oh well, have a nice day, no sense in us going back and forth anymore. Besides, Ready or Not is much more fun to read then my posts.

Edited September 6, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+sbell111]

If you don't like em... filter out caches that have traits of those you don't like, and you'll vastly increase the percentage of caches you enjoy in your PQ. You'll also remove quite a few caches you would also have enjoyed, but there are so many caches available you won't run out of these anyway.

I want to find the enjoyable caches out there and any method that filters some of them out is not satisfactory to me.

Some people will never be pleased, no matter what. That doesn't mean that the method doesn't work or that others should suffer. Edited September 6, 2007 by sbell111

[+ReadyOrNot]

BTW, I believe that the 'blocking a good spot' is also a red herring. One tenth of a mile is simply too small of a distance for all these 'lame' caches to be blocking great spots. In one of these threads, I mentioned that from my office to the rest room down the hall is over a tenth of a mile. It's that tiny of a distance.

 

Maybe in the middle of nowhere (which I assume is where you live)... In Urban areas, it's a problem. I've placed a micro myself, but it was my only option and it was a killer view.. The issue isn't about micro's, it's about LAME micros

[Mushtang]

Since there are many ways to avoid Lame Micros, including not being a "radius slave," I don't really see a problem.

Could you please explain many ways? I've yet to discover one. Short of a "Junk cache for numbers hounds only" attribute, I see no way to filter out garbage micros. Many have suggested ways, but every one I've seen potentially eliminates a lot of excellent caches as well.

That's not a problem, it's a feature.

 

Seriously, as long as your filtering leaves you with mostly caches that you will like, who cares if it filters out some that you won't like. You can look closer at the caches that were filtered out after you've found all the 'mostly good' caches that were filtered in. (BTW, this is the meat of methods that were discussed in previous threads about this subject. Threads that you participated in.)

 

Bravo! Someone who actually gets it and the reason why the "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em" argument is actually valid.

 

If you don't like em... filter out caches that have traits of those you don't like, and you'll vastly increase the percentage of caches you enjoy in your PQ. You'll also remove quite a few caches you would also have enjoyed, but there are so many caches available you won't run out of these anyway.

 

Why be happy with a method that does not work very well. Then there's the issue of the LUM being placed somewhere that prevents the placement of caches within .1 miles in all directions... My filtering out the LUM's doesn't change the fact that it is there and preventing a good cache from being placed there.

Because it's the best method out there, and the best one that will ever be out there. And it works very well for increasing the percentage of caches you enjoy in your PQ.

 

There will never be an icon for "Lame Cache". Even if one does get made, do you really think people that hide caches think their own caches are lame? There are a few that have been hidden as a joke, where the owner says so in the logs, but these aren't the ones you're complaining about.

 

There will never be a filter for "Caches that ReadyOrNot doesn't like", or "Caches that BrianSnat doesn't like". This method is the best way to do what you'd want that to do anyway.

 

As far as it not preventing caches from being placed in good spots, when does ANY filter do something like that.

 

BTW, if the spot were so good, why hadn't you already placed an "acceptable" cache there?

[+sbell111]

BTW, I believe that the 'blocking a good spot' is also a red herring. One tenth of a mile is simply too small of a distance for all these 'lame' caches to be blocking great spots. In one of these threads, I mentioned that from my office to the rest room down the hall is over a tenth of a mile. It's that tiny of a distance.

Maybe in the middle of nowhere (which I assume is where you live)... In Urban areas, it's a problem. I've placed a micro myself, but it was my only option and it was a killer view.. The issue isn't about micro's, it's about LAME micros

I currently live Franklin, TN, a suburb of Nashville (which once had a reputation in the forums as the 'microspew' capital of the world). I've also cached in some of the largest cities in the US and Europe. I'm very familiar with urban geocaching.

 

ETA: Nashville has about the same population as Portland.

Edited September 6, 2007 by sbell111

[magellan315]

Maybe in the middle of nowhere (which I assume is where you live)... In Urban areas, it's a problem. I've placed a micro myself, but it was my only option and it was a killer view.. The issue isn't about micro's, it's about LAME micros

 

I live in an urban area larger than yours and its not a problem. If this is about lame micros please provide the criteria by which you consider a micro lame.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Maybe in the middle of nowhere (which I assume is where you live)... In Urban areas, it's a problem. I've placed a micro myself, but it was my only option and it was a killer view.. The issue isn't about micro's, it's about LAME micros

 

I live in an urban area larger than yours and its not a problem. If this is about lame micros please provide the criteria by which you consider a micro lame.

 

Does it really need to be spelled out? A cache that has no other redeeming qualities beyond adding +1 to your find count. Is that ok? I think people generally understand the differences between something being GOOD and something being BAD.. I want to believe that you know the difference and you are just being difficult.

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't defend lame caches. I defend the right to place any cache that meets the guidelines regardless of whether they suit your or anyone else's personal standards.

 

I agree.

Works for me as well.

[Mushtang]

If you don't like em... filter out caches that have traits of those you don't like, and you'll vastly increase the percentage of caches you enjoy in your PQ. You'll also remove quite a few caches you would also have enjoyed, but there are so many caches available you won't run out of these anyway.

 

I want to find the enjoyable caches out there and any method that filters some of them out is not satisfactory to me.

There will never be a "Caches that BrianSnat doesn't like" filter. Anything other that this will not be satisfactory to you.

[+Renegade Knight]

Maybe in the middle of nowhere (which I assume is where you live)... In Urban areas, it's a problem. I've placed a micro myself, but it was my only option and it was a killer view.. The issue isn't about micro's, it's about LAME micros

 

I live in an urban area larger than yours and its not a problem. If this is about lame micros please provide the criteria by which you consider a micro lame.

 

Does it really need to be spelled out? A cache that has no other redeeming qualities beyond adding +1 to your find count. Is that ok? I think people generally understand the differences between something being GOOD and something being BAD.. I want to believe that you know the difference and you are just being difficult.

Yes you need to spell it out. I can say Whoo Hoo +1 to my find count about any cache at all. I want to believe you can clearly articulate exactly what a lame cache is. I truly doubt you can come up with a universally accepted definition but you should at least be able to spell out your own version.

[Mr.Yuck]

Since there are many ways to avoid Lame Micros, including not being a "radius slave," I don't really see a problem.

Could you please explain many ways? I've yet to discover one. Short of a "Junk cache for numbers hounds only" attribute, I see no way to filter out garbage micros. Many have suggested ways, but every one I've seen potentially eliminates a lot of excellent caches as well.

That's not a problem, it's a feature.

 

Seriously, as long as your filtering leaves you with mostly caches that you will like, who cares if it filters out some that you won't like. You can look closer at the caches that were filtered out after you've found all the 'mostly good' caches that were filtered in. (BTW, this is the meat of methods that were discussed in previous threads about this subject. Threads that you participated in.)

 

Bravo! Someone who actually gets it and the reason why the "If you don't like 'em, don't hunt 'em" argument is actually valid.

 

If you don't like em... filter out caches that have traits of those you don't like, and you'll vastly increase the percentage of caches you enjoy in your PQ. You'll also remove quite a few caches you would also have enjoyed, but there are so many caches available you won't run out of these anyway.

 

Why be happy with a method that does not work very well. Then there's the issue of the LUM being placed somewhere that prevents the placement of caches within .1 miles in all directions... My filtering out the LUM's doesn't change the fact that it is there and preventing a good cache from being placed there.

Because it's the best method out there, and the best one that will ever be out there. And it works very well for increasing the percentage of caches you enjoy in your PQ.

 

There will never be an icon for "Lame Cache". Even if one does get made, do you really think people that hide caches think their own caches are lame? There are a few that have been hidden as a joke, where the owner says so in the logs, but these aren't the ones you're complaining about.

 

Correct. Many people don't think their caches are lame. A newbie who joined 6 months ago see's that half the caches in his area are keyholders in parking lots, and emulates what they see for their first cache hide. They don't think it's lame, many of the gleeful smiley seekers don't think it's lame. They have no idea there are whiners in the forums who think it's lame. Unless of course they have one of those mentioned joke "lame caches" in their area!! Then at least they'd have a clue that people think such things are lame.

 

There will never be a filter for "Caches that ReadyOrNot doesn't like", or "Caches that BrianSnat doesn't like". This method is the best way to do what you'd want that to do anyway.

 

Actually, I'd pay for a "caches that Briansnat doesn't like" filter. Not a lot of money though.

[+wesleykey]

 

Does it really need to be spelled out? A cache that has no other redeeming qualities beyond adding +1 to your find count. Is that ok? I think people generally understand the differences between something being GOOD and something being BAD.. I want to believe that you know the difference and you are just being difficult.

 

When it is 100 degrees out and snakes, ticks, and poison plants are out in full force I enjoy parking lot hides. In over 1900 cache finds I have found maybe 5 that I considered lame. This is less than half a percent.

[Mushtang]

Maybe in the middle of nowhere (which I assume is where you live)... In Urban areas, it's a problem. I've placed a micro myself, but it was my only option and it was a killer view.. The issue isn't about micro's, it's about LAME micros

 

I live in an urban area larger than yours and its not a problem. If this is about lame micros please provide the criteria by which you consider a micro lame.

 

Does it really need to be spelled out? A cache that has no other redeeming qualities beyond adding +1 to your find count. Is that ok? I think people generally understand the differences between something being GOOD and something being BAD.. I want to believe that you know the difference and you are just being difficult.

Oh, well if that's the definition then there are NO lame micros. There are redeeming qualities on all caches other than just adding to the find count.

 

I guess the discussion is over?

[+ReadyOrNot]

Oh, well if that's the definition then there are NO lame micros. There are redeeming qualities on all caches other than just adding to the find count.

 

I guess the discussion is over?

 

Ok... I am a co-worker of yours and you are describing geocaching to me. Please describe to me your experience finding a magnet case stuck to the back of a dumpster. Explain the redeeming qualities of that cache. Seriously, do this for me, because I want to hear it.

[magellan315]

 

Does it really need to be spelled out? A cache that has no other redeeming qualities beyond adding +1 to your find count. Is that ok? I think people generally understand the differences between something being GOOD and something being BAD.. I want to believe that you know the difference and you are just being difficult.

 

Yes it does need to be spelled out, I'm asking for specifics to vauge statements and suppositions you make. First it was a vague theory about critical mass, with just your common sense to justify it. Now you seem to have applied common sense about what makes a lame cache.What exact qualities does a cache have to have to be lame? What redeeming qualities is it supposed to have?

[Trinity's Crew]

<snip>

I think people generally understand the differences between something being GOOD and something being BAD.. I want to believe that you know the difference and you are just being difficult.

 

My partial list of "bad" things:

Motorcycles

Brussels sprouts

Pepsi

Anchovies

Bees

Snakes

Popcorn

Coors Light (or any tasteless beer)

Strawberries

Peaches

 

Does my list match yours?

[+sbell111]

... Many people don't think their caches are lame. A newbie who joined 6 months ago see's that half the caches in his area are keyholders in parking lots, and emulates what they see for their first cache hide. They don't think it's lame, many of the gleeful smiley seekers don't think it's lame. They have no idea there are whiners in the forums who think it's lame. Unless of course they have one of those mentioned joke "lame caches" in their area!! Then at least they'd have a clue that people think such things are lame.

I think that you've given us a pretty good scenario explaining why some LPCs get hidden.

 

Personally, I don't see a problem with these caches being placed in this manner. To boil it down, cacher A found some caches and enjoyed them. Cacher A placed a similar cache that he would enjoy finding. Other cachers enjoyed finding Cacher A's cache.

 

Sounds good, to me.

[+ReadyOrNot]

<snip>

I think people generally understand the differences between something being GOOD and something being BAD.. I want to believe that you know the difference and you are just being difficult.

 

My partial list of "bad" things:

Motorcycles

Brussels sprouts

Pepsi

Anchovies

Bees

Snakes

Popcorn

Coors Light (or any tasteless beer)

Strawberries

Peaches

 

Does my list match yours?

 

But it's well defined. If I don't like strawberries, I don't buy the strawberries. If all these items were placed into a box and labeled the same, the only way I could find out if they are strawberries is to open up the box and look.. Understand the difference?