Spew Be Gone!

[+ReadyOrNot]

And even more important, I hope ReadyOrNot can use your filter system before he steals someone's cache and throws it in the garbage simply because he doesn't like it.

 

For the love of Pete and his dragon, can you explain said "filter system" and how it works for filtering out lame caches.. (You don't have to answer this because I'm already coming to the conclusion that there is no answer)

[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.

 

It was not my intent to say that handicapped people should be sentenced to skirt-lifting, etc. and I apologize if that was how it was interpreted. I was just trying to find a way that the OP could use to try and rid himself of caches he deems lame. I got the impression that he thought urban micros that were easily found, park and grabs, and 1/1's were beneath him. I know some micros that have a terrain of 1 with a 4-5 difficulty that are handicapped accessible and great urban caches.

 

Oh I don't think you were misinterpreted. I was more responding to BrianSnat then you. It always seems in these threads that someone not familiar with the same old arguments we've all heard 10 gazillion times will pipe up with "yeah, there are handicapped cachers out there". But I don't think even the staunchest defender o' lame would argue that the statistically insignificant number of handicapped geocachers (as obnoxious as that sounds, sorry) need 50% of the caches to be keyholders or film cans in parking lots. I could be wrong about that though.

 

Oh, and no one is ever going to come up with a way to rid Ready or Not of the caches he deems lame.

Edited September 6, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Team GeoBlast]

From Markwell's great post.

 

Cache seekers are trying to find caches that they will enjoy (however they personally define "enjoyment").

 

The fact this is a core issue is undeniable. Just look at how fast this thread ballooned. I don't know of another topic that could generate this kind of activity.

 

Is it because you cannot define enjoyment or is it too difficult to develop tools that will help cachers sort them out? There are examples everywhere of successful web based entities doing it. Ebay did it. Netflix did it. Digg, Stumbleupon.. the list goes on. While people are interested in characteristics, they want to know what other people like just as much or more.

 

Cache seekers can use tools to limit the caches on their seek list by characteristics (terrain, attributes, difficulty, type, size, etc.).

 

Yes, they can and do use them a lot. People want to know about a cache before they spend time, energy, and money seeking it. As you point out, the number of caches is growing steadily, this certainly is going never become less important as the game grows. But where this falls short is that none of these characteristics tell you anything about the experience the cache provides.

 

Groundspeak does not limit cache hiders to the style and type of hide based on quality. According to Groundspeak listing guidelines, cache hiders ought to be able to place caches in a method and location that they believe is good so long as the cache conforms to land manager and Groundspeak rules.

In many threads since 2001, both sides have argued the same arguments over and over again regarding glut of what they consider lame caches.

 

A very small minority is asking that cacher hiders be limited by style or ability. That is not in the spirit of the game that I know. But in the current game conditions there's very little incentive for and cache hiders to "do better" other than collecting good positive logs. The feedback the website provides is number driven and that is the behavior that you encouraging by providing only that.

 

There is one camp that wants to place caches in any way, and they are not concerned with how they are perceived by the public.

 

I submit that if this was the only type of cacher that played the game, the game would perish. Shouldn't the ones who do care be encouraged to keep caring? If they are hiders, it would seem that finding these cachers placements would be a key to improving the game.

 

I could have predicted almost every aspect of this thread (and who the posters would be)

 

If it keeps coming up in the same form, it's an issue. Sheer volume of discussion would say that it's clearly an issue that is currently not addressed to the satisfaction of many

 

Netflix or Amazon style ratings have been mentioned (an automatic "if-you-liked-this-cache-you'll-love-this-cache"), but I'm not sure how high on a priority list of programming features this would be. Jeremy indicated that this was something he was considering back in 2005 with these two posts - but that was 2+ years ago and nothing has happened.

 

Maybe it is time to get an update on this from Jeremy? I know a lot posters in this thread would appreciate it.

Edited September 6, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+tozainamboku]

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.

I have a little more sympathy for the briansnats and ReadyOrNots. There is no perfect method for eliminating what you don't like or making sure you don't miss ones you do like. Like briansnat has says, its as if all ice cream came in identical containers with only a few markings on the outside that might indicate the color or texture of the product but not the flavor. I like pistachio so I get the green chunky ice cream and only afterward discover it's brussel spouts ice cream. I think that an affinity cache rating system might work better. I could find caches recommended by people who liked some of the same caches I like. The problem may be when I travel. I may go some place where there are not many people who have ranked the same cache I've ranked so there is not enough data to make any recommendation. However, I generally enjoy finding caches when I travel. Many may be what the locals would consider lame, but I'm likely to be happy finding the nearest Starbucks to my hotel because of the LPC there.

[+sbell111]

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.

It may be the best way, but it's a lousy way.

It's a lousy way that isn't too hard to set up and actually works very well.

Really? How does it work well? I've yet to see a way to filter out the junk caches that doesn't also filter out quality caches. If you have a method that accomplishes this without extensive research into each cache, please explain it. A lot of people would be delighted to learn of it.

I've walked very calmly through the method in several threads in which you have participated. If you weren't paying attention, do a search and find it yourself. I'm not in the mood to jump through hoops for you.

[+TrailGators]

However, I generally enjoy finding caches when I travel. Many may be what the locals would consider lame, but I'm likely to be happy finding the nearest Starbucks to my hotel because of the LPC there.

I wouldn't bother. What's the point? Getting a smiley?

[+ReadyOrNot]

However, I generally enjoy finding caches when I travel. Many may be what the locals would consider lame, but I'm likely to be happy finding the nearest Starbucks to my hotel because of the LPC there.

I wouldn't bother. What's the point? Getting a smiley?

 

One has to assume that is the reason... Or being so new you don't realize they are garbage yet Or being so entrenched in your position that you aren't willing to admin that a magnetic container on a dumpster is TRASH.

 

It's got to be one of those reasons... Or maybe the world isn't as it seems....

[+sbell111]

However, I generally enjoy finding caches when I travel. Many may be what the locals would consider lame, but I'm likely to be happy finding the nearest Starbucks to my hotel because of the LPC there.

I wouldn't bother. What's the point? Getting a smiley?

and a mocha

and making the find without the muggles catching on

[Trinity's Crew]

My point? Look, Biff, just because it works for you doesn't mean it works.

And conversely, just because doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work.

 

To use your car analogy, my daughter can't drive my 5 speed Altima. She can't drive a clutch. Millions can't but there is nothing wrong with the car.

 

How about answering the question from Briansnat now?

 

Here's the question:

 

"Really? How does it work well? I've yet to see a way to filter out the junk caches that doesn't also filter out quality caches. If you have a method that accomplishes this without extensive research into each cache,

please explain it. A lot of people would be delighted to learn of it."

You haven't been able to define "good" caches and "bad" caches yet. It actually would take a magical filter to sort that which you can't even define.

[+ReadyOrNot]

My point? Look, Biff, just because it works for you doesn't mean it works.

And conversely, just because doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work.

 

To use your car analogy, my daughter can't drive my 5 speed Altima. She can't drive a clutch. Millions can't but there is nothing wrong with the car.

 

How about answering the question from Briansnat now?

 

Here's the question:

 

"Really? How does it work well? I've yet to see a way to filter out the junk caches that doesn't also filter out quality caches. If you have a method that accomplishes this without extensive research into each cache,

please explain it. A lot of people would be delighted to learn of it."

You haven't been able to define "good" caches and "bad" caches yet. It actually would take a magical filter to sort that which you can't even define.

 

It's so magical that many websites are able to do it.. That doesn't sound magical to me.

[Trinity's Crew]

However, I generally enjoy finding caches when I travel. Many may be what the locals would consider lame, but I'm likely to be happy finding the nearest Starbucks to my hotel because of the LPC there.

I wouldn't bother. What's the point? Getting a smiley?

 

One has to assume that is the reason... Or being so new you don't realize they are garbage yet Or being so entrenched in your position that you aren't willing to admin that a magnetic container on a dumpster is TRASH.

 

It's got to be one of those reasons... Or maybe the world isn't as it seems....

Or maybe some of us aren't so jaded and expectant to believe that EVERY cache placed must entertain us sufficiently or be deemed unworthy.

[Trinity's Crew]

It's so magical that many websites are able to do it.. That doesn't sound magical to me.

You found websites that have filtered out caches that you don't like without filtering out a few that you might like? Problem solved! Go to one of those websites.

[+TrailGators]

However, I generally enjoy finding caches when I travel. Many may be what the locals would consider lame, but I'm likely to be happy finding the nearest Starbucks to my hotel because of the LPC there.

I wouldn't bother. What's the point? Getting a smiley?

 

One has to assume that is the reason... Or being so new you don't realize they are garbage yet Or being so entrenched in your position that you aren't willing to admin that a magnetic container on a dumpster is TRASH.

 

It's got to be one of those reasons... Or maybe the world isn't as it seems....

Or maybe some of us aren't so jaded and expectant to believe that EVERY cache placed must entertain us sufficiently or be deemed unworthy.

That one would be an obvious thumbs down to me and I know I would not be entertained. So (like I said) I wouldn't bother with it. But I would go inside get a cup of coffee. If it was good I would go back. If I got a cup of bad coffee I wouldn't go back. By the way, am I jaded for preferring good coffee too? Edited September 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Team GeoBlast]

However, I generally enjoy finding caches when I travel. Many may be what the locals would consider lame, but I'm likely to be happy finding the nearest Starbucks to my hotel because of the LPC there.

I wouldn't bother. What's the point? Getting a smiley?

 

One has to assume that is the reason... Or being so new you don't realize they are garbage yet Or being so entrenched in your position that you aren't willing to admin that a magnetic container on a dumpster is TRASH.

 

It's got to be one of those reasons... Or maybe the world isn't as it seems....

Or maybe some of us aren't so jaded and expectant to believe that EVERY cache placed must entertain us sufficiently or be deemed unworthy.

 

Markwell is right. This entire conversation is recycled. The same people saying the same things. I wonder how many more times it will be rehashed before changes are made? Or is anyone even listening?

[Trinity's Crew]

However, I generally enjoy finding caches when I travel. Many may be what the locals would consider lame, but I'm likely to be happy finding the nearest Starbucks to my hotel because of the LPC there.

I wouldn't bother. What's the point? Getting a smiley?

 

One has to assume that is the reason... Or being so new you don't realize they are garbage yet Or being so entrenched in your position that you aren't willing to admin that a magnetic container on a dumpster is TRASH.

 

It's got to be one of those reasons... Or maybe the world isn't as it seems....

Or maybe some of us aren't so jaded and expectant to believe that EVERY cache placed must entertain us sufficiently or be deemed unworthy.

 

Markwell is right. This entire conversation is recycled. The same people saying the same things. I wonder how many more times it will be rehashed before changes are made? Or is anyone even listening?

It's funny that you presume changes must be made. There seem to be quite a few of us who are arguing against wholesale change for the sake of those who don't like lame (whatever that means) caches.

[+Miragee]

However, I generally enjoy finding caches when I travel. Many may be what the locals would consider lame, but I'm likely to be happy finding the nearest Starbucks to my hotel because of the LPC there.

I wouldn't bother. What's the point? Getting a smiley?

 

One has to assume that is the reason... Or being so new you don't realize they are garbage yet Or being so entrenched in your position that you aren't willing to admin that a magnetic container on a dumpster is TRASH.

 

It's got to be one of those reasons... Or maybe the world isn't as it seems....

Or maybe some of us aren't so jaded and expectant to believe that EVERY cache placed must entertain us sufficiently or be deemed unworthy.

 

Markwell is right. This entire conversation is recycled. The same people saying the same things. I wonder how many more times it will be rehashed before changes are made? Or is anyone even listening?

Uh . . . What changes would you suggest? Who is supposed to be listening? Who can do anything about it?

[+Team Cotati]

"Markwell is right. This entire conversation is recycled." Lord knows we can't have any of that!!

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

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?

 

 

So........

Which day (out of the 2) you have gone out caching in the last six months, have you run into this "spew"?

 

 

Perhaps there is a reason for that? Hmmmmmm

 

Could be you dont like geocaching.

[+briansnat]

However, I generally enjoy finding caches when I travel. Many may be what the locals would consider lame, but I'm likely to be happy finding the nearest Starbucks to my hotel because of the LPC there.

I wouldn't bother. What's the point? Getting a smiley?

 

One has to assume that is the reason... Or being so new you don't realize they are garbage yet Or being so entrenched in your position that you aren't willing to admin that a magnetic container on a dumpster is TRASH.

 

It's got to be one of those reasons... Or maybe the world isn't as it seems....

Or maybe some of us aren't so jaded and expectant to believe that EVERY cache placed must entertain us sufficiently or be deemed unworthy.

 

Why do we geocache if not for entertainment?

[+Markwell]

"Markwell is right. This entire conversation is recycled." Lord knows we can't have any of that!!

 

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Rabbit Season!

Duck Season!

Rabbit Season!

Rabbit Season!

Duck Season! FIRE!

BOOM!

Edited September 7, 2007 by Markwell

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I still don't agree at all with people who say that you can't tell a lame micro (or regular cache) from a decent one, particularly while traveling. I've been on all sorts of trips, some of them to notorious "lame micro" type spots like Dallas/Fort Worth, Nasheville, Phoenix, LA, etc. And so far, I've been pleased for the most part. I'd have to say maybe about 90% or more of the time.

 

Dunno. Maybe I have some wonderful talent for sifting through the worst of it. Perhaps God is being extra helpful to me in this area. Or it could just be that I'm easy to please.

 

We are able to sort out good from lame caches too, by scanning the cache page. For those who hate LPC etc, using the aerial photos on mapquest help too. I can tell if its a park or a parking lot from the photos.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I still don't agree at all with people who say that you can't tell a lame micro (or regular cache) from a decent one, particularly while traveling. I've been on all sorts of trips, some of them to notorious "lame micro" type spots like Dallas/Fort Worth, Nasheville, Phoenix, LA, etc. And so far, I've been pleased for the most part. I'd have to say maybe about 90% or more of the time.

 

Dunno. Maybe I have some wonderful talent for sifting through the worst of it. Perhaps God is being extra helpful to me in this area. Or it could just be that I'm easy to please.

 

We are able to sort out good from lame caches too, by scanning the cache page. For those who hate LPC etc, using the aerial photos on mapquest help too. I can tell if its a park or a parking lot from the photos.

 

We understand, really.... There's the "gremlin" way of doing it that seems to work for some folks... I want the "Lambourghini" <sp> way of doing it. Yes, I could scan all the logs and perform research and contact previous cache finders and do a background investigation, but I don't want to have to do all that!!!!!!

[+ReadyOrNot]

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.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

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.

 

Then you are being elitist. You arbitrarily decide that their caches are not as important or as valid as other caches and therefore they dont have the right to place a cache. Sorry, but that isnt part of the rules here. Of course if you really feel your cache is better, you can always try and work with the so called lame cache owner to allow your cache to take precedence.

[+tozainamboku]

However, I generally enjoy finding caches when I travel. Many may be what the locals would consider lame, but I'm likely to be happy finding the nearest Starbucks to my hotel because of the LPC there.

I wouldn't bother. What's the point? Getting a smiley?

 

One has to assume that is the reason... Or being so new you don't realize they are garbage yet Or being so entrenched in your position that you aren't willing to admin that a magnetic container on a dumpster is TRASH.

 

It's got to be one of those reasons... Or maybe the world isn't as it seems....

Or maybe some of us aren't so jaded and expectant to believe that EVERY cache placed must entertain us sufficiently or be deemed unworthy.

 

Why do we geocache if not for entertainment?

It was actually a pretty good cache. Aside from being walking distance from my hotel and being able to grab a latte while there, I was with a co-worker who had just started geocaching. The look on his face when I walked up to lamppost and lifted the skirt was priceless.

 

I guess I can understand the feeling of "not another one of these". I've had that feeling on hikes where every cache was an ammo can under a pile of sticks. I guess I like variety. Some caches are ammo cans filled with swag, others a decon container in a bush, a bison tube in a fence post, a magnetic altoids tin on a utility box, a 35mm film can in a lamppost. If the cache is in a neat or interesting place, that's a bonus and I'll probably thank the hider for it in my log. But I really go to find the cache. If I just wanted to visit interesting places, I'd go Waymarking - they've got a whole category just for Starbucks

 

I'd think if you really don't like the common everyday types of urban hides you could filter out the 1/1 micros and not miss many "good" caches. If it is the location rather than the hiding style that you find lame, you may need to read the cache page and logs or look on a map to decide if it is worth doing.

Edited September 7, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+thedeadpirate]

"Markwell is right. This entire conversation is recycled." Lord knows we can't have any of that!!

 

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Rabbit Season!

Duck Season!

Rabbit Season!

Rabbit Season!

Duck Season! FIRE!

BOOM!

 

That's about the best summary of the "spew" threads that I've seen in a while.

[+TrailGators]

"Markwell is right. This entire conversation is recycled." Lord knows we can't have any of that!!

 

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Rabbit Season!

Duck Season!

Rabbit Season!

Rabbit Season!

Duck Season! FIRE!

BOOM!

[+Snoogans]

"Markwell is right. This entire conversation is recycled." Lord knows we can't have any of that!!

 

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Yes we can.

No we can't.

Rabbit Season!

Duck Season!

Rabbit Season!

Rabbit Season!

Duck Season! FIRE!

BOOM!

 

Gosh everyone knows it's baseball season.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

[*]Groundspeak does not limit cache hiders to the style and type of hide based on quality. According to Groundspeak listing guidelines, cache hiders ought to be able to place caches in a method and location that they believe is good so long as the cache conforms to land manager and Groundspeak rules.

 

I think this statement is patently wrong. Groundspeak has done this very thing in the past: it is the very reason that virtual caches were hamstrung with the 'wow factor'. This current thread covers some of the same arguments used against virts (and to an extent LCs & WCs too) in that regard.

 

I'll stick with the pornography test: I'll know it when I see it. That , however, is different for each and every individual. It is also the reason that BrianSnat will never get his wish- there is absolutely no way to filter out something that is unknowable until you see it, and by that point it is too late. You could use the 'community standards' as a guideline but it has already been pointed out that with so much 'spew' (as far as the detractors are concerned) it is the standard and thus that argument would hold no merit.

 

Until the people getting bent out of shape just learn to deal with it, GC.com starts requiring standards for all caches (I don't think anyone wants that) or just starts closing these threads down when they start, not much is going to change.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Corp Of Discovery

[+Ambrosia]

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.

[Trinity's Crew]

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.

Can I get an "AMEN"? Well said!

[+Rockin Roddy]

I cache to see new places I've not seen or didn't check out before! If in my own area, I know what the location will be like (or will have a good idea), and I can opt to ignore that hide based on my knowledge. Plus, I have a knowledge of how the locals like to hide caches.

 

When out in an unfamiliar area, I tend to appreciate those micros hidden near a local eatery or Wal-Mart! Caching usually means (for me) finding a cache and moving on to the next closest (I don't route). After searching awhile, I may want to take a break and get some food, gas or whatever...those micros placed in the middle of town steer me in the direction I want to go! I simply mark one that does get me to town if I find one before ready to stop or check names and descriptions for a clue that town is near.

 

Sure, I could pull out my map and find the next town, but why? I'm already "exploring" the area, seems logical (to me) that I'm going to run across a place I'll want to stop at just by continuing caching!

 

This happened recently while we were visiting Hell! We went out and found a cache which took us near town (if you can actually call Hell a "town")...a micro (which some would consider lame). The next one took us to a great location which required a long hike and some bushwacking! It started raining as we finished the hike cache, so we decided to visit the ice cream shop near the micro and wait out the rain! Shop was way overpriced, but we were happy to get a treat and keep dry while not just giving up and heading home! Had we simply skipped the micro before even getting into the area, we'd have missed the ice cream shop altogether. Hey, the cache wasn't bad either...just not as interesting as the long hike!!

[+Snoogans]

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.

 

This thread is an entertaining read... What I've bothered to read of it...

 

I gather it was posted for the entertainment of the OP, but I have been greatly amused by it.

 

I thought geocaching was hide and seek. As in someone hides something, lists it on a website, and others come along and find that hidden thing using a multi-million dollar satellite system and a hand held GPSr. Wellll, I guess it is and it isn't.........

 

Now I think it's really about the hiders and the seekers, their egos, and their respective sense of entitlement and expectation.

 

My ego is friggin' HUGE, but my sense of entitlement and expectation are fairly low, so I'm easily pleased when I have a dry log to sign on a cache that is within about 50 feet of where it should be. I'm even happier if there's an event going on in the vacinity.

 

I like geocaches, but I like geocachers even more. Without them there'd be NO CACHES to hunt so I tend not to look a gift horse in the mouth.

 

Should I get counseling to raise my level of entitlement and expectation? I guess I should if a wanna have something to complain about....

Edited September 7, 2007 by Snoogans

[+Snake & Rooster]

OMG, I actually find myself agreeing with Roddy! While I prefer a hike in the hills to a "lame" micro, there are times when LPCs are good. Yesterday, I was in a strange city for a conference. Going out near the hotel gave me an opportunity to walk off lunch, and see something of the city. I would likely have not done so were it not for the "need" to find a cache. One of them turned out to be quite unique. Regardless of the quality of the caches, I appreciate that someone took the time to place the cache, and in doing so, show me some of their city.

 

And Roddy, I too have been to Hell. Not much of a town, is it?

[+sbell111]

... There's the "gremlin" way of doing it that seems to work for some folks... I want the "Lambourghini" <sp> way of doing it. Yes, I could scan all the logs and perform research and contact previous cache finders and do a background investigation, but I don't want to have to do all that!!!!!!

The problem is, even those people who can spell lamborghini don't all agree that they are the best cars on the road. Similarly, there is no way to simply run a sort and pull out the best caches for everybody.

 

The best you can do is set up some PQs that tend to return caches that you mostly like. In another thread, I described the specifics for four PQs (I think) that would tend to return a high percentage of caches that a particular cacher liked. These PQs could be easily merged in GSAK and sent to a pda to give you a mobile database of mostly good caches.

 

This mobile database will contain a few stinkers. That's perfectly fine for two reasons. First, it will have a much lower percentage of stinkers than the general cache population. Also, as you cache, you will pull up then next cache page prior to hitting <goto> on your GPSr. If that cache reads like a stinker, you'll skip it and archive it later. (I use Cache Log Book on my pda to record each search and to note which caches to ignore later.)

 

The mobile database will also not include every good cache. That's OK because it still will return a large amount of caches that will please you. If you ever make it through all of the caches that are returned in your 'good' PQs, you can look at the rest. If you ever got to this point, I would recommend slight tweaks to your PQs to allow you to look at 'might be goods' without weeding through the 'probably bads'.

 

The method that I've explained works very well. Beyond taking a few minutes to set up the PQs, the only thing different with my system and how most people currently cache is that you will look at the cache page before you go after the next cache. That only takes a few moments and it will save you from wasting your time on some stinkers that slipped through the cracks. You'll still look for some stinkers who's cache page fooled you, but so what? There will be few of those if you have your PQs tweaked.

 

(Please don't let Brian see this post because I told him that if he wanted to know my method, then he should search for the other threads that he had been involved in and where I had explained it.)

 

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".. ...

Some of us might want to remember that this game is many things to many people. We shouldn't be so self-involved to expect everyone else to conform to our desires. Edited September 7, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

In another thread, I described the specifics for four PQs (I think) that would tend to return a high percentage of caches that a particular cacher liked.

[snip]

 

The method that I've explained works very well.

IIRC, the logic you used in those PQs wasn't available on the PQ page. Like I said IIRC, it could have been some other problem with the logic.

 

Additionally, it increased the number of PQs one would have to pull and that wouldn't work for someone near their weekly limit.

 

And part of your scheme was to eliminate 1/1 micros, yet those are not the one's I've had problems with. I believe I brought that up in the same thread, too.

 

The problem is "lame" is not defined in a size, type, or difficulty. That's where you, Mushtang, and others fail miserably in your attempts to present a workable solution. I will typically bypass just as many smalls and regular as micros, so filtering on micros does nothing. Few of the ones I bypass are 1/1s. I repeat: it's not the size, type,or difficulty.

[Mushtang]

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".

So geocaching is about languages and locations, and not about finding hidden containers using a GPSr?

 

How many geocaches have you found that were not in a LOCATION? Zero. See, if you read the tiny verbiage below the logo you'll also realize it says NOTHING about locations that are pleasing to ReadyOrNot.

 

If caches are in a bad spot and nobody likes them, then they won't get found. They'll also likely not be stealing any space for a cache that you'd consider "good". But have you noticed how many logs these "LUM"s are getting? Apparently a lot of people other than ReadyOrNot enjoys finding them.

 

I'd suggest not throwing them in the garbage. Maybe you could allow the people that enjoy them have the opportunity to find them on their way to their counseling sessions that they so obviously need.

[+briansnat]

The problem is "lame" is not defined in a size, type, or difficulty. That's where you, Mushtang, and others fail miserably in your attempts to present a workable solution. I will typically bypass just as many smalls and regular as micros, so filtering on micros does nothing. Few of the ones I bypass are 1/1s. I repeat: it's not the size, type,or difficulty.

 

That's the problem with any filtering system that has been presented. Filter out micros? Why would I want to do that when I enjoy many micros? Filter out 1/1 caches? That would eliminate many of the caches at historic sites and in suburban parks that like. Filter out urbans? There are many fascinating urban caches that I wouldn't want to miss. Heck, I've even found a few pretty cool caches in mall parking lots.

 

So Mr sbell111 can go on ad nauseam about his wonderful filtering system and maybe it works for him, but it wouldn't work for me.

[+sbell111]

In another thread, I described the specifics for four PQs (I think) that would tend to return a high percentage of caches that a particular cacher liked.

[snip]

 

The method that I've explained works very well.

IIRC, the logic you used in those PQs wasn't available on the PQ page. Like I said IIRC, it could have been some other problem with the logic.

The 'logic' for the PQs will vary somewhat based on the user. Without being you, I can't determine what it is that you like.

Additionally, it increased the number of PQs one would have to pull and that wouldn't work for someone near their weekly limit.

It actually replaces some of your current PQs. That being said, if you are seriously downloading over 17,000 caches per week and are not happy with sorting through them using GSAK macros, perhaps you should use your PQs to filter the caches better, as I've suggested. You also have the ability to become a premium member, yourself and be able to download even more caches.

And part of your scheme was to eliminate 1/1 micros, yet those are not the one's I've had problems with. I believe I brought that up in the same thread, too.

 

The problem is "lame" is not defined in a size, type, or difficulty. That's where you, Mushtang, and others fail miserably in your attempts to present a workable solution. I will typically bypass just as many smalls and regular as micros, so filtering on micros does nothing. Few of the ones I bypass are 1/1s. I repeat: it's not the size, type,or difficulty.

Eliminating 1/1 micros was part of the solution for the geocacher who believes that there are a high percentage of easy micros that are lame. If you mostly like 1/1 micros, don't sort them out. You need to decide for yourself what the bulk of the stinkers have in common. No one else can do that for you.

 

I hope this has helped you get a better of this method.

 

(Can someone translate 'IIRC' from geekspeak to English for me?)

Edited September 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

The problem is "lame" is not defined in a size, type, or difficulty. That's where you, Mushtang, and others fail miserably in your attempts to present a workable solution. I will typically bypass just as many smalls and regular as micros, so filtering on micros does nothing. Few of the ones I bypass are 1/1s. I repeat: it's not the size, type,or difficulty.

That's the problem with any filtering system that has been presented. Filter out micros? Why would I want to do that when I enjoy many micros? Filter out 1/1 caches? That would eliminate many of the caches at historic sites and in suburban parks that like. Filter out urbans? There are many fascinating urban caches that I wouldn't want to miss. Heck, I've even found a few pretty cool caches in mall parking lots.

 

So Mr sbell111 can go on ad nauseam about his wonderful filtering system and maybe it works for him, but it wouldn't work for me.

Never did I sugeest that Brian should filter out 1/1s or micros. You need to figure out what will work best for you. Also, as I've tried several times to explain, it doesn't matter if some good caches are filtered out as long as you are left with a higher percentage of 'good' caches to find. Finally, no filtering system will work for a cacher that refuses to use it and is convinced that nothing will work. It's much easier to wring one's hands and complain.

[Mushtang]

So Mr sbell111 can go on ad nauseam about his wonderful filtering system and maybe it works for him, but it wouldn't work for me.

From your replies I've realized that no filtering system will ever work for you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only filtering system you'd approve of is one that will eliminate all the caches you wouldn't like and leave all the caches that you would like.

[+tollerdudes]

Ah, lovely, the old "lame micro" thread reborn again. Don't we love this thread???

 

You know, I don't think this has anything to do with micros at all. We just like to argue.

 

[+Mudfrog]

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.

Can I get an "AMEN"? Well said!

 

I'll 2nd that AMEN!

 

We all have different tastes, most of us have cache types that we like and cache types that we dislike. There are some who could care less about what type of cache it is or how and where it's placed as they are only out to get that smilie. The thing is, there's nothing wrong with having any of these preferences.

 

Yes it can be disappointing when we come across what we think is is bad cache. But we do have options for when this inevitable situation occurs. The one option that i think works the best is to simply mark it off your list and get on with your caching life. There is no reason to take this stuff so seriously.

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

Can I get an "AMEN"? Well said!

 

I'll 2nd that AMEN!

 

 

I'll 3rd it!! Man, if you have Ambrosia dissing you Ready or Not, it's probably time to report yourself.

 

I like Markwell's "wabbit season - duck season" arguement. But doesn't Bugs Bunny always win that one, and it's always duck season?

 

For Mr. Sbell111: If I Recall Correctly.

Edited September 7, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+sbell111]

What exactly is the problem that a majority of us agree is a problem?

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.

Well, here's your problem:

... When traveling I run a PQ and just follow the arrow to the nearest cache.

Lots of people use the 'wide open' method and really enjoy themselves. However, if people are not enjoying themselves, I recommend that they try a different method. Edited September 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Can we all agree that it would be great if this site added an affinity rating system or an awards system to help it's customers maximize their enjoyment? I think it is evident that many people are happy with anything and many people are not. The key is to be able to make it as easy as possible for both groups to co-exist. If you talked to me 2-3 years ago I would have admitted that just about any cache was OK. When you talk to me now, I'm grown tired of certain kinds of caches and no longer wish to find them. So if you like any cache now, don't be surprised if your feelings change over the coming years and you shift from one group to the other. At that point, you'll wish you would have supported the other style more and not just poo-pooed it.

[+Jhwk]

Unfortunately you are looking for something that most will not find - the perfect caches for you.

 

As I see it, you have two basic problems:

 

1) people are involved and will do whatever they want (including placing caches you deem less than worthy).

2) you have gone beyond the basic simple beauty that drew most of us to the sport. Hide and seek. Hide something, find something, log your visit. Once you went beyond that simple joy, and started looking for some larger unifying theory (or pleasure) you fell off the boat.

 

never get off the boat!

 

and yes, this is the same old carp, recycled by a lame sockpuppet. Your troll is weak and uninteresting. )

 

good bye

[+jellis]

Lame micros are bad but also a tupperware under a weed that is going to die out it the open is really stupid.

[Trinity's Crew]

Can we all agree that it would be great if this site added an affinity rating system or an awards system to help it's customers maximize their enjoyment? I think it is evident that many people are happy with anything and many people are not. The key is to be able to make it as easy as possible for both groups to co-exist. If you talked to me 2-3 years ago I would have admitted that just about any cache was OK. When you talk to me now, I'm grown tired of certain kinds of caches and no longer wish to find them. So if you like any cache now, don't be surprised if your feelings change over the coming years and you shift from one group to the other. At that point, you'll wish you would have supported the other style more and not just poo-pooed it.

I hope I never get to the point where I'm complaining about caches. I imagine that if I do get to that point I'll just quit doing this entirely (instead of just quitting in the Summer) because it wouldn't be fun anymore.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I hope I never get to the point where I'm complaining about caches. I imagine that if I do get to that point I'll just quit doing this entirely (instead of just quitting in the Summer) because it wouldn't be fun anymore.

 

Good point. I hate micro's. But I like hating micros. I get satisfaction out of ignoring the little buggars. Every now and then I find one anyway and either I have fun, or I enjoy knowing that I'm vindicated for hating them.

 

If I ever really and truly hated them, that all would change.