Spew Be Gone!

[+briansnat]

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.

 

Unless there was a "for numbers cachers only" attribute, or some sort of rating system, no filtering system would work. Rather I'd like to encourage owners to put a little though into their hides. That way the numbers people will still have plenty of quickie caches and people like me will be as happy as cows.

[+StarBrand]

....Unless there was a "for numbers cachers only" attribute, or some sort of rating system, no filtering system would work. Rather I'd like to encourage owners to put a little though into their hides. That way the numbers people will still have plenty of quickie caches and people like me will be as happy as cows.

That pretty well sums up my thoughts as well. As someone once said - "What is wrong with wanting cache hiders to raise the bar of expectations - just a bit??"

[+briansnat]

... 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.

 

Which brings us back to my original complaint. I have always enjoyed geocaching a certain way and I'm no longer able to enjoy the sport in the manner I prefer.

 

When I started this sport, what made it so attractive to me was that I could travel to a new area, load in a bunch of waypoints and I was likely to be taken someplace unique, pretty or somehow interesting. I enjoyed the sense of discovery.

 

Now if I do that, more often than not I'm taken to mall parking lots and other mundane, or unappealing and sometimes downright disgusting places.

 

When I lament the fact that I can no longer enjoy the sport the way I used to, the DOETL tell me I need to research, or filter, or change this or that - which is exactly my complaint.

[+Jhwk]

Time to move along, or feel free to search for the other 'weekly' I hate micros, I want to rate caches, your method stinks threads. the OP account has been shut down for a month here. That is, if you are interested...

[Trinity's Crew]

... 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.

 

Which brings us back to my original complaint. I have always enjoyed geocaching a certain way and I'm no longer able to enjoy the sport in the manner I prefer.

 

When I started this sport, what made it so attractive to me was that I could travel to a new area, load in a bunch of waypoints and I was likely to be taken someplace unique, pretty or somehow interesting. I enjoyed the sense of discovery.

 

Now if I do that, more often than not I'm taken to mall parking lots and other mundane, or unappealing and sometimes downright disgusting places.

 

When I lament the fact that I can no longer enjoy the sport the way I used to, the DOETL tell me I need to research, or filter, or change this or that - which is exactly my complaint.

Which brings us back to the fact that there is nothing that will work for you. You will never be able to cache the way you used to. I actually have to wonder whether anyone ever did cache "the way they used to". Time tends to distort our memories, leaving the positive experiences much more memorable than the negative ones.

 

I also think that a lot of the dissatisfaction is driven by the sheer number of caches that some people have found. It's going to get harder and harder to get enjoyment out of something that becomes mundane through sheer repetition.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+sbell111]

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.

Unless there was a "for numbers cachers only" attribute, or some sort of rating system, no filtering system would work. Rather I'd like to encourage owners to put a little though into their hides. That way the numbers people will still have plenty of quickie caches and people like me will be as happy as cows.

How would you explain those cachers who are not 'numbers cachers' but still like those caches that you don't?

 

I guess they are doing it wrong.

[+sbell111]

When I started this sport, what made it so attractive to me was that I could travel to a new area, load in a bunch of waypoints and I was likely to be taken someplace unique, pretty or somehow interesting. I enjoyed the sense of discovery. ...

When I started playing this game, a few months before you, what made it so attractive to me was that "I could travel to a new area, load in a bunch of waypoints and I was likely to be taken someplace unique, pretty or somehow interesting. I enjoyed the sense of discovery". As a bonus, I got to play the game wherever I happened to be. It was like a secret hide-and-seek game that most people weren't even aware of.

 

Come to think of it, the game hasn't changed a darn bit. Some cachers have apparently changed, however. It's like TrailGators experienced:

... 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. ...

It's not the game that is changing. It's the perceptions, attitude, and feelings of entitlement of some geocachers. Edited September 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+Jhwk]

Swannerbunch/ready or not, just in case you can only read now instead of post I leave the following, which couldn't be posted to your other thread.

 

I thought sockpuppet accounts were againt the "rules' or 'gudelines' or whatever happy term you use around here to make the bad man go away.

 

edit to add the guidelines. I found the relevent text HERE. which are the forum 'guidelines.' They state:

"Sock Puppet accounts will not be allowed. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts will be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak."

 

saving you the jump, and answering the question at the same time. seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

Why does my post say ringbone...

 

Neither of these accounts are sockpuppet accounts. this account is my wife's with my LAST NAME in the account name that she hardly ever uses.. The other account "ReadyOrNot" is the account I use for everything.. do you know what a sockpuppet is?

 

Deleted the whole MICHAEL whining line as it was not germane to the apology.

Yes, I know what a sockpuppet account is, and what it is normally used for around here.

 

I must apologize to you for assuming you were using a puppet account. I thought you had outted yourself in the previous thread. Going back and re-reading the lame micro thread again, I see that you did not , you were accused of being a troll/puppet by others. For this lame assumption, I am sorry.

 

If I could just give some small advice? Take a break from here, until cooler heads prevail. It appears that you are slipping towards a total ban, versus the inability to post to the forums for 30 days.

 

Good luck, and I do hope you find some quality caches out there.

 

rain here all weekend. we need it, but it's going to make caching stink...

 

i think its time for me to go and find some caches... Have a good weekend all.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Jhwk

[+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.

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.

I am asking for an affinity rating system or an awards system to help me to spend more time finding the types of caches I enjoy the most. How is that complaining? Edited September 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+StarBrand]

.....and feelings of entitlement of some geocachers.

If you insist on demeaning the quality of an argument on certain caches. Shouldn't everybody else have the right to complain about the "quality" of caches themselves??

 

I get that some caches are placed for numbers alone. I get that some caches are placed for the "evil" factor alone. I get that physical limitations prevent all cachers from going after all hides. I get that certain areas and situations do call for a micro cache. I really do get all that and more.

 

What I don't get is how I can avoid caches placed solely for the above reasons with no other redeeming values. If they had some clear indicator or marking or attribute I could. There isn't one.

 

So best I can do is bring up that a certain segment of cachers find these caches to be lame and boring, I followup that with a request to please put a bit more thought and effort into your hides and thier locations. How can that hurt?

 

I am not entitled to anything when it comes to caching. But I sure can hope for more. I can teach and share. It is all I can do and the best I can do.

[+sbell111]

.....and feelings of entitlement of some geocachers.

If you insist on demeaning the quality of an argument on certain caches. Shouldn't everybody else have the right to complain about the "quality" of caches themselves??

 

I get that some caches are placed for numbers alone. I get that some caches are placed for the "evil" factor alone. I get that physical limitations prevent all cachers from going after all hides. I get that certain areas and situations do call for a micro cache. I really do get all that and more.

 

What I don't get is how I can avoid caches placed solely for the above reasons with no other redeeming values. If they had some clear indicator or marking or attribute I could. There isn't one.

 

So best I can do is bring up that a certain segment of cachers find these caches to be lame and boring, I followup that with a request to please put a bit more thought and effort into your hides and thier locations. How can that hurt?

 

I am not entitled to anything when it comes to caching. But I sure can hope for more. I can teach and share. It is all I can do and the best I can do.

What get's me is when geocachers who like caches that another geocacher may not enjoy gets painted with the same brush (whether that brush is covered with 'lame' paint, 'numbers hound' paint, 'uninspired' paint or some other kind of paint that basically is used to insult their game play).

 

I totally understand that some people don't like some caches. That's why I've tried to explain a solution to those people's issues.

Edited September 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

When I started this sport, what made it so attractive to me was that I could travel to a new area, load in a bunch of waypoints and I was likely to be taken someplace unique, pretty or somehow interesting. I enjoyed the sense of discovery. ...

When I started playing this game, a few months before you, what made it so attractive to me was that "I could travel to a new area, load in a bunch of waypoints and I was likely to be taken someplace unique, pretty or somehow interesting. I enjoyed the sense of discovery". As a bonus, I got to play the game wherever I happened to be. It was like a secret hide-and-seek game that most people weren't even aware of.

 

Come to think of it, the game hasn't changed a darn bit. Some cachers have apparently changed, however. It's like TrailGators experienced:

... 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. ...

It's not the game that is changing. It's the perceptions, attitude, and feelings of entitlement of some geocachers.

 

The game has changed a great deal in the past few years. To deny that is like denying that clams are invertebrates with shells divided into two pieces called valves and while the term "clam" has no taxonomic significance in biology, it usually refers to either a bivalve (a mollusk whose body is protected by two symmetrical shells) that is not an oyster, mussel, or scallop, and that has a more-or-less oval shape, or to a freshwater mussel.

 

How would you explain those cachers who are not 'numbers cachers' but still like those caches that you don't?

 

I guess they are doing it wrong.

 

Take away the numbers and we'll see how popular the traches are. I don't buy the idea that there are a significant number of geocachers who simply love lurking around loading docks, dumpsters and in feces and litter strewn lots.

[+sbell111]

Trache - In my opinion, another lame attempt at minimizing the opinions of others. I'll file that away with DPM, odious, lame, microspew, and all the rest.

Edited September 7, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team GeoBlast]

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.

I am asking for an affinity rating system or an awards system to help me to spend more time finding the types of caches I enjoy the most. How is that complaining?

 

I think all sides can concede that there is a good number of cachers that believe that the game would be more enjoyable if some changes were implemented. Changes that made more information available on caches than the existing attributes provide. Even those in the camp that can't see the use of it for the way they cache surely must recognize this. I don't understand the downside of not supporting change of this nature. Just the possibility of not spending hundreds of hours in the future debating this same topic should provide some incentive to support it..

[+sbell111]

When I started this sport, what made it so attractive to me was that I could travel to a new area, load in a bunch of waypoints and I was likely to be taken someplace unique, pretty or somehow interesting. I enjoyed the sense of discovery. ...

When I started playing this game, a few months before you, what made it so attractive to me was that "I could travel to a new area, load in a bunch of waypoints and I was likely to be taken someplace unique, pretty or somehow interesting. I enjoyed the sense of discovery". As a bonus, I got to play the game wherever I happened to be. It was like a secret hide-and-seek game that most people weren't even aware of.

 

Come to think of it, the game hasn't changed a darn bit. Some cachers have apparently changed, however. It's like TrailGators experienced:

... 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. ...

It's not the game that is changing. It's the perceptions, attitude, and feelings of entitlement of some geocachers.

The game has changed a great deal in the past few years. ...

It sure has. There are many more caches than there used to be and much better tools to spin out the caches that you like.

 

The caches themselves, however, haven't changed very much at all in the last few years.

[+sbell111]

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.

I am asking for an affinity rating system or an awards system to help me to spend more time finding the types of caches I enjoy the most. How is that complaining?

I think all sides can concede that there is a good number of cachers that believe that the game would be more enjoyable if some changes were implemented. Changes that made more information available on caches than the existing attributes provide. Even those in the camp that can't see the use of it for the way they cache surely must recognize this. I don't understand the downside of not supporting change of this nature. Just the possibility of not spending hundreds of hours in the future debating this same topic should provide some incentive to support it..

Jeremy said he was workin' on it. How much more support does it need?

[+Team Cotati]

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?

 

Exercise, fresh air, soak up nature's beauty, practice our creative writing skills, brush up our comedy routines, practice navigational skills, test out our new and expensive gear................any number of things. Except go to a movie, The Team goes to movies for entertainment, we occasionally rent them for home viewing as well. We also from time to time visit our local pub where we responsibly consume adult beverages, this we also view as entertainment. It is not the same entertainment as going to a movie but we enjoy it nonetheless. Actually sometimes it is better entertainment than a movie because everonceinawhile we encounter a really really bad movie. Beer, any beer always beats a bad movie.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Team Cotati

[Mushtang]

Take away the numbers and we'll see how popular the traches are. I don't buy the idea that there are a significant number of geocachers who simply love lurking around loading docks, dumpsters and in feces and litter strewn lots.

That's pretty profound. Take away the caches that are deep in the woods at parks and you'll also reduce the number of people that go off the trails in the parks to look for them. I don't buy the idea that these people love walking off the path and through the woods at random moments and then getting back on the trail.

 

Geocaching is not a travel agency that is supposed to bring you to scenic locations only. It definitely adds to the caches when you get something other than the cache, no doubt.

[+briansnat]

Geocaching is not a travel agency that is supposed to bring you to scenic locations only.

 

If you read Dave Ulmer's early posts on the sport, that is exactly what he had in mind.

[+Packanack]

I am inspired by this thread to make the best hide I have ever made, and I shall do it forthwith--that is my pledge and to do that I suspect that it will not be a lamp post micro. If it turns out well, it shall become a series.

[+briansnat]

I am inspired by this thread to make the best hide I have ever made, and I shall do it forthwith--that is my pledge and to do that I suspect that it will not be a lamp post micro. If it turns out well, it shall become a series.

 

Yay!

[+sbell111]

Geocaching is not a travel agency that is supposed to bring you to scenic locations only.

 

If you read Dave Ulmer's early posts on the sport, that is exactly what he had in mind.

It's a good thing that we have Waymarking.com to pick up his torch.

[Dosido]

Just a thought on further tweaking one's filters to avoid certain caches.

 

If it's true that caches have declined in quality in the last couple of years, then a simple PQ of the area you are looking to go, but restricted by date - say through eoy 2005 - should better equip your GPSr with waypoints that will be deemed 'higher quality'.

 

Now, myself, I have little use for micros in general - my excuse is that my kids dislike not being able to trade - when in reality, I'm just not a fan of LPCs, and other varieties of Walmart micros. Though, I'll admit, we might go bag a magnetic ammo can or two, even if stuck to the guard rail in a Walmart parking lot!

 

I will admit to spending way too much time reading cache pages & logs to ensure that I get to find caches I like when traveling, but also admit to having the entire state of Mass on my GPSr, and stopping on a whim every now and then. However, if I park, and don't like what I see, I'm more than happy to move on without a smiley...

[+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.

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.

I am asking for an affinity rating system or an awards system to help me to spend more time finding the types of caches I enjoy the most. How is that complaining?

I think all sides can concede that there is a good number of cachers that believe that the game would be more enjoyable if some changes were implemented. Changes that made more information available on caches than the existing attributes provide. Even those in the camp that can't see the use of it for the way they cache surely must recognize this. I don't understand the downside of not supporting change of this nature. Just the possibility of not spending hundreds of hours in the future debating this same topic should provide some incentive to support it..

Jeremy said he was workin' on it. How much more support does it need?

I was talking about support from the naysayers for your fellow cachers. Maybe some acknowledgement and some empathy would get these threads going the right way for a change. I bet if we were discussing sitting in traffic for hours. Some naysayer would chime in and say "I enjoy sitting in traffic. Why are you complaining? They could say something like "Yea, I know what you mean dude" or "There's a cool new GPS out that get real-time traffic info. It will tell you where to drive to avoid the traffic!"

[+sbell111]

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.

I am asking for an affinity rating system or an awards system to help me to spend more time finding the types of caches I enjoy the most. How is that complaining?

I think all sides can concede that there is a good number of cachers that believe that the game would be more enjoyable if some changes were implemented. Changes that made more information available on caches than the existing attributes provide. Even those in the camp that can't see the use of it for the way they cache surely must recognize this. I don't understand the downside of not supporting change of this nature. Just the possibility of not spending hundreds of hours in the future debating this same topic should provide some incentive to support it..

Jeremy said he was workin' on it. How much more support does it need?

I was talking about support from the naysayers for your fellow cachers. Maybe some acknowledgement and some empathy would get these threads going the right way for a change. I bet if we were discussing sitting in traffic for hours. Some naysayer would chime in and say "I enjoy sitting in traffic. Why are you complaining? They could say something like "Yea, I know what you mean dude" or "There's a cool new GPS out that get real-time traffic info. It will tell you where to drive to avoid the traffic!"

This isn't the same as your analogy becouse many, many people like these caches.

[+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.

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.

I am asking for an affinity rating system or an awards system to help me to spend more time finding the types of caches I enjoy the most. How is that complaining?

I think all sides can concede that there is a good number of cachers that believe that the game would be more enjoyable if some changes were implemented. Changes that made more information available on caches than the existing attributes provide. Even those in the camp that can't see the use of it for the way they cache surely must recognize this. I don't understand the downside of not supporting change of this nature. Just the possibility of not spending hundreds of hours in the future debating this same topic should provide some incentive to support it..

Jeremy said he was workin' on it. How much more support does it need?

I was talking about support from the naysayers for your fellow cachers. Maybe some acknowledgement and some empathy would get these threads going the right way for a change. I bet if we were discussing sitting in traffic for hours. Some naysayer would chime in and say "I enjoy sitting in traffic. Why are you complaining? They could say something like "Yea, I know what you mean dude" or "There's a cool new GPS out that get real-time traffic info. It will tell you where to drive to avoid the traffic!"

This isn't the same as your analogy because many, many people like these caches.

I bet if people got a smiley for each day they sat in traffic, they'd like it a lot better too!

[Trinity's Crew]

I don't have a problem with any solution that makes caching more enjoyable as long as it doesn't lead to a ban on certain types of caches, more restrictions on placement, or vigilante cachers who dispose of caches they deem unworthy. And as SBell said, Jeremy's workin' on it.

 

Oh, and I'm also not a big fan of roughing up cache owners through the online logs.

[+TrailGators]

I don't have a problem with any solution that makes caching more enjoyable as long as it doesn't lead to a ban on certain types of caches, more restrictions on placement, or vigilante cachers who dispose of caches they deem unworthy. And as SBell said, Jeremy's workin' on it.

 

Oh, and I'm also not a big fan of roughing up cache owners through the online logs.

I agree. Live and let live. I have never roughed somebody up in a log. I simply write very little in my log. It's subtle, yet effective. Have you noticed the threads popping up with people complaining about how people write very little. Have these people stopped and thought about their cache and why people are writing so little on some of their caches?

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't have a problem with any solution that makes caching more enjoyable as long as it doesn't lead to a ban on certain types of caches, more restrictions on placement, or vigilante cachers who dispose of caches they deem unworthy. And as SBell said, Jeremy's workin' on it.

 

Oh, and I'm also not a big fan of roughing up cache owners through the online logs.

I agree. Live and let live. I have never roughed somebody up in a log. I simply write very little in my log. It's subtle, yet effective. Have you noticed the threads popping up with people complaining about how people write very little. Have these people stopped and thought about their cache and why people are writing so little on some of their caches?

 

Short answer to a long post. It makes you wonder...

[+Sileny Jizda]

I still don't see the difficulty in filtering out micro/nano caches. We do it when we are not interested in looking for them. We also take the 5 minutes it takes to look in Google Earth to see if it's actually in a park of interest. No sense in being lazy then whizzing and moaning about being surprised about finding crap under a lamp post. It's not like you're going to toss a regular in the parking lot anyway. The attitude that gives someone the idea that their way is the only way is the same type that I equate to the likes of Hitler and Stalin and this world can do without that. Just my two cents.

 

The only cache that rubs me are those that are constantly soaked because the container isn't adequate enough to hold out moisture.

[+TrailGators]

I don't have a problem with any solution that makes caching more enjoyable as long as it doesn't lead to a ban on certain types of caches, more restrictions on placement, or vigilante cachers who dispose of caches they deem unworthy. And as SBell said, Jeremy's workin' on it.

 

Oh, and I'm also not a big fan of roughing up cache owners through the online logs.

I agree. Live and let live. I have never roughed somebody up in a log. I simply write very little in my log. It's subtle, yet effective. Have you noticed the threads popping up with people complaining about how people write very little. Have these people stopped and thought about their cache and why people are writing so little on some of their caches?

 

Short answer to a long post. It makes you wonder...

Funny! But that's not what I intended but that's a good idea...... Maybe I'll repsond to posts l don't like with just "TFTP." Edited September 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Team Cotati]

Geocaching is not a travel agency that is supposed to bring you to scenic locations only.

 

If you read Dave Ulmer's early posts on the sport, that is exactly what he had in mind.

It's a good thing that we have Waymarking.com to pick up his torch.

 

Be careful where you place that torch, don't want to over cook one of them "scenic" Mickey D's burgers.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+TrailGators]

I still don't see the difficulty in filtering out micro/nano caches. We do it when we are not interested in looking for them. We also take the 5 minutes it takes to look in Google Earth to see if it's actually in a park of interest. No sense in being lazy then whizzing and moaning about being surprised about finding crap under a lamp post. It's not like you're going to toss a regular in the parking lot anyway. The attitude that gives someone the idea that their way is the only way is the same type that I equate to the likes of Hitler and Stalin and this world can do without that. Just my two cents.

 

The only cache that rubs me are those that are constantly soaked because the container isn't adequate enough to hold out moisture.

This was brought up already. There are many micros that are very fun....

[+Harry Dolphin]

I will admit to spending way too much time reading cache pages & logs to ensure that I get to find caches I like when traveling, but also admit to having the entire state of Mass on my GPSr, and stopping on a whim every now and then. However, if I park, and don't like what I see, I'm more than happy to move on without a smiley...

 

Somehow, I managed to get every unfound cache within a hundred miles onto my GPS. (Don't ask me. This is what geeky brothers are there for!) (Actually found one 74 miles away last weekend!)

But! I plan what I want to seek before I set out. Read the cache pages, and make decisions.

The problem here is that people want to go 'paperless', and yet have only interesting caches on their GPS. (Interesting to them, that is.) They should invest in a Ouija board. Or take the time to read through the cache pages.

Sometimes I do caches that are major hikes. Sometimes, I do the 'short walk in the park' caches. I plan in advance what I plan to do. Sometimes I run out of them, and turn the GPS to 'nearest' and take my chances. Can be very interesting with no idea of what I'm looking for!

Here is what I would like to filter out:

Caches in cemeteries

Kayaking caches

Caches that require climbing trees or abandoned railroad trestles.

Caches hidden by cache owners ABC or XYZ.

 

Hey! I know how to do this!!! I can read the cache pages!! Duh!

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I don't have a problem with any solution that makes caching more enjoyable as long as it doesn't lead to a ban on certain types of caches, more restrictions on placement, or vigilante cachers who dispose of caches they deem unworthy. And as SBell said, Jeremy's workin' on it.

 

Oh, and I'm also not a big fan of roughing up cache owners through the online logs.

I agree. Live and let live. I have never roughed somebody up in a log. I simply write very little in my log. It's subtle, yet effective. Have you noticed the threads popping up with people complaining about how people write very little. Have these people stopped and thought about their cache and why people are writing so little on some of their caches?

 

Many people dont write much on any cache, not just the so called lame ones.

[+TrailGators]

I don't have a problem with any solution that makes caching more enjoyable as long as it doesn't lead to a ban on certain types of caches, more restrictions on placement, or vigilante cachers who dispose of caches they deem unworthy. And as SBell said, Jeremy's workin' on it.

 

Oh, and I'm also not a big fan of roughing up cache owners through the online logs.

I agree. Live and let live. I have never roughed somebody up in a log. I simply write very little in my log. It's subtle, yet effective. Have you noticed the threads popping up with people complaining about how people write very little. Have these people stopped and thought about their cache and why people are writing so little on some of their caches?

Many people dont write much on any cache, not just the so called lame ones.

This is true but some caches have a higher percentage of short logs. Also IMHO numbers cachers typically write shorter logs. So, if people don't like getting short logs then they shouldn't place numbers types of caches.

[+horsegeeks]

I will admit to spending way too much time reading cache pages & logs to ensure that I get to find caches I like when traveling, but also admit to having the entire state of Mass on my GPSr, and stopping on a whim every now and then. However, if I park, and don't like what I see, I'm more than happy to move on without a smiley...

 

Somehow, I managed to get every unfound cache within a hundred miles onto my GPS. (Don't ask me. This is what geeky brothers are there for!) (Actually found one 74 miles away last weekend!)

But! I plan what I want to seek before I set out. Read the cache pages, and make decisions.

The problem here is that people want to go 'paperless', and yet have only interesting caches on their GPS. (Interesting to them, that is.) They should invest in a Ouija board. Or take the time to read through the cache pages.

Sometimes I do caches that are major hikes. Sometimes, I do the 'short walk in the park' caches. I plan in advance what I plan to do. Sometimes I run out of them, and turn the GPS to 'nearest' and take my chances. Can be very interesting with no idea of what I'm looking for!

Here is what I would like to filter out:

Caches in cemeteries

Kayaking caches

Caches that require climbing trees or abandoned railroad trestles.

Caches hidden by cache owners ABC or XYZ.

 

Hey! I know how to do this!!! I can read the cache pages!! Duh!

But reading the cache pages involves putting a little effort in planning your caching day (or night). We cache for anything we are in the mood for by merely reading a few logs but that seems to not be the norm for the folks that complain incessantly about not being "entertained".

[+horsegeeks]

I will admit to spending way too much time reading cache pages & logs to ensure that I get to find caches I like when traveling, but also admit to having the entire state of Mass on my GPSr, and stopping on a whim every now and then. However, if I park, and don't like what I see, I'm more than happy to move on without a smiley...

 

Somehow, I managed to get every unfound cache within a hundred miles onto my GPS. (Don't ask me. This is what geeky brothers are there for!) (Actually found one 74 miles away last weekend!)

But! I plan what I want to seek before I set out. Read the cache pages, and make decisions.

The problem here is that people want to go 'paperless', and yet have only interesting caches on their GPS. (Interesting to them, that is.) They should invest in a Ouija board. Or take the time to read through the cache pages.

Sometimes I do caches that are major hikes. Sometimes, I do the 'short walk in the park' caches. I plan in advance what I plan to do. Sometimes I run out of them, and turn the GPS to 'nearest' and take my chances. Can be very interesting with no idea of what I'm looking for!

Here is what I would like to filter out:

Caches in cemeteries

Kayaking caches

Caches that require climbing trees or abandoned railroad trestles.

Caches hidden by cache owners ABC or XYZ.

 

Hey! I know how to do this!!! I can read the cache pages!! Duh!

But reading the cache pages involves putting a little effort in planning your caching day (or night). We cache for anything we are in the mood for by merely reading a few logs but that seems to not be the norm for the folks that complain incessantly about not being "entertained".

[+horsegeeks]

I will admit to spending way too much time reading cache pages & logs to ensure that I get to find caches I like when traveling, but also admit to having the entire state of Mass on my GPSr, and stopping on a whim every now and then. However, if I park, and don't like what I see, I'm more than happy to move on without a smiley...

 

Somehow, I managed to get every unfound cache within a hundred miles onto my GPS. (Don't ask me. This is what geeky brothers are there for!) (Actually found one 74 miles away last weekend!)

But! I plan what I want to seek before I set out. Read the cache pages, and make decisions.

The problem here is that people want to go 'paperless', and yet have only interesting caches on their GPS. (Interesting to them, that is.) They should invest in a Ouija board. Or take the time to read through the cache pages.

Sometimes I do caches that are major hikes. Sometimes, I do the 'short walk in the park' caches. I plan in advance what I plan to do. Sometimes I run out of them, and turn the GPS to 'nearest' and take my chances. Can be very interesting with no idea of what I'm looking for!

Here is what I would like to filter out:

Caches in cemeteries

Kayaking caches

Caches that require climbing trees or abandoned railroad trestles.

Caches hidden by cache owners ABC or XYZ.

 

Hey! I know how to do this!!! I can read the cache pages!! Duh!

But reading the cache pages involves putting a little effort in planning your caching day (or night). We cache for anything we are in the mood for by merely reading a few logs but that seems to not be the norm for the folks that complain incessantly about not being "entertained".HMMM how did three posts happen? Edited September 7, 2007 by horsegeeks

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

I will admit to spending way too much time reading cache pages & logs to ensure that I get to find caches I like when traveling, but also admit to having the entire state of Mass on my GPSr, and stopping on a whim every now and then. However, if I park, and don't like what I see, I'm more than happy to move on without a smiley...

 

Somehow, I managed to get every unfound cache within a hundred miles onto my GPS. (Don't ask me. This is what geeky brothers are there for!) (Actually found one 74 miles away last weekend!)

But! I plan what I want to seek before I set out. Read the cache pages, and make decisions.

The problem here is that people want to go 'paperless', and yet have only interesting caches on their GPS. (Interesting to them, that is.) They should invest in a Ouija board. Or take the time to read through the cache pages.

Sometimes I do caches that are major hikes. Sometimes, I do the 'short walk in the park' caches. I plan in advance what I plan to do. Sometimes I run out of them, and turn the GPS to 'nearest' and take my chances. Can be very interesting with no idea of what I'm looking for!

Here is what I would like to filter out:

Caches in cemeteries

Kayaking caches

Caches that require climbing trees or abandoned railroad trestles.

Caches hidden by cache owners ABC or XYZ.

 

Hey! I know how to do this!!! I can read the cache pages!! Duh!

But reading the cache pages involves putting a little effort in planning your caching day (or night). We cache for anything we are in the mood for by merely reading a few logs but that seems to not be the norm for the folks that complain incessantly about not being "entertained".HMMM how did three posts happen?

 

I to have noticed that many of those who complain about driving to a catch and then discovering it's "lame" are the same people who claim they never read the cache descriptions because it makes the game more challenging that way. I blame PQ's for making mass loading of caches to easy. If you had to read the cache page first and then decide for yourself if you wanted to load it the problem would vanish. But this is the "gotta hurry" generation, don't have time for stuff like research, we only have time to complain.

Personally all I care about when loading caches is type, puzzle, multi etc. I don't want to walk around looking for a traditional cache when it's really a puzzle cache hidden miles away.

Life is short people, you'll enjoy it more if you simply accept the bad with the good and make the best of it, 100 years from now no one is going to care about it anyway.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Take away the numbers and we'll see how popular the traches are. I don't buy the idea that there are a significant number of geocachers who simply love lurking around loading docks, dumpsters and in feces and litter strewn lots.

That's pretty profound. Take away the caches that are deep in the woods at parks and you'll also reduce the number of people that go off the trails in the parks to look for them. I don't buy the idea that these people love walking off the path and through the woods at random moments and then getting back on the trail.

 

Geocaching is not a travel agency that is supposed to bring you to scenic locations only. It definitely adds to the caches when you get something other than the cache, no doubt.

 

Geocaching without the deep woods? Only caches in urban areas? Game over.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I don't have a problem with any solution that makes caching more enjoyable as long as it doesn't lead to a ban on certain types of caches, more restrictions on placement, or vigilante cachers who dispose of caches they deem unworthy. And as SBell said, Jeremy's workin' on it.

 

Oh, and I'm also not a big fan of roughing up cache owners through the online logs.

 

About 4 months ago, I would have supported a ban or "slow growth" policy of urban caches (particularly YNWs) but frequent visits to this forum demonstrated that these caches are enjoyed by far more people than I thought.

 

As Markwell points out, the rating system (or the promise of looking into it) can't be that high of a priority. I just don't think GC.com is listening in this regard. I'm sure I am not alone in that I'd happily trade all the recent aesthetic changes to the website (obviously a higher priority) for a rating system. While it's true that these changes were pretty nifty, they did not offer any tools that would improve the game experience like a rating system.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Just a thought on further tweaking one's filters to avoid certain caches.

 

If it's true that caches have declined in quality in the last couple of years, then a simple PQ of the area you are looking to go, but restricted by date - say through eoy 2005 - should better equip your GPSr with waypoints that will be deemed 'higher quality'.

 

Now, myself, I have little use for micros in general - my excuse is that my kids dislike not being able to trade - when in reality, I'm just not a fan of LPCs, and other varieties of Walmart micros. Though, I'll admit, we might go bag a magnetic ammo can or two, even if stuck to the guard rail in a Walmart parking lot!

 

I will admit to spending way too much time reading cache pages & logs to ensure that I get to find caches I like when traveling, but also admit to having the entire state of Mass on my GPSr, and stopping on a whim every now and then. However, if I park, and don't like what I see, I'm more than happy to move on without a smiley...

 

Thing is, even a good cache has a life cycle and you are going to get some attrition that might prove disappointing looking for all caches that have been planted in 2005 or earlier.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team Cotati]

I still don't see the difficulty in filtering out micro/nano caches. We do it when we are not interested in looking for them. We also take the 5 minutes it takes to look in Google Earth to see if it's actually in a park of interest. No sense in being lazy then whizzing and moaning about being surprised about finding crap under a lamp post. It's not like you're going to toss a regular in the parking lot anyway. The attitude that gives someone the idea that their way is the only way is the same type that I equate to the likes of Hitler and Stalin and this world can do without that. Just my two cents.

 

The only cache that rubs me are those that are constantly soaked because the container isn't adequate enough to hold out moisture.

This was brought up already. There are many micros that are very fun....

 

And there are thousands that flat out suck and are not very fun either.

Edited September 7, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+horsegeeks]

I still don't see the difficulty in filtering out micro/nano caches. We do it when we are not interested in looking for them. We also take the 5 minutes it takes to look in Google Earth to see if it's actually in a park of interest. No sense in being lazy then whizzing and moaning about being surprised about finding crap under a lamp post. It's not like you're going to toss a regular in the parking lot anyway. The attitude that gives someone the idea that their way is the only way is the same type that I equate to the likes of Hitler and Stalin and this world can do without that. Just my two cents.

 

The only cache that rubs me are those that are constantly soaked because the container isn't adequate enough to hold out moisture.

This was brought up already. There are many micros that are very fun....

 

And there are thousands that flat out suck and are not very fun either.

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

[+Team Cotati]

I still don't see the difficulty in filtering out micro/nano caches. We do it when we are not interested in looking for them. We also take the 5 minutes it takes to look in Google Earth to see if it's actually in a park of interest. No sense in being lazy then whizzing and moaning about being surprised about finding crap under a lamp post. It's not like you're going to toss a regular in the parking lot anyway. The attitude that gives someone the idea that their way is the only way is the same type that I equate to the likes of Hitler and Stalin and this world can do without that. Just my two cents.

 

The only cache that rubs me are those that are constantly soaked because the container isn't adequate enough to hold out moisture.

This was brought up already. There are many micros that are very fun....

 

And there are thousands that flat out suck and are not very fun either.

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

Well its kinda like this: of the 80 or so that I searched for prior to not searching for them at all because they suck so bad, I have performed a mathematical interpolation approximation and determined that there must surely be several thousand that suck. Real scientific like.....numbers do not lie. Actually I think that my numbers are on the conservative side.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+horsegeeks]

I still don't see the difficulty in filtering out micro/nano caches. We do it when we are not interested in looking for them. We also take the 5 minutes it takes to look in Google Earth to see if it's actually in a park of interest. No sense in being lazy then whizzing and moaning about being surprised about finding crap under a lamp post. It's not like you're going to toss a regular in the parking lot anyway. The attitude that gives someone the idea that their way is the only way is the same type that I equate to the likes of Hitler and Stalin and this world can do without that. Just my two cents.

 

The only cache that rubs me are those that are constantly soaked because the container isn't adequate enough to hold out moisture.

This was brought up already. There are many micros that are very fun....

 

And there are thousands that flat out suck and are not very fun either.

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

Well its kinda like this: of the 80 or so that I searched for prior to not searching for thme at all because they suck so bad, I have performed a mathematical interpolation approximation and determined that there must surely be several thousand that suck. Real scientific like.....numbers do not lie. Actually I think that my numbers are on the conservative side.

HMMMMM

[+briansnat]

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

 

I've probably walked away from as many caches as I've found over the past year. I agree with Team Cotati on this one, there are thousands. In some places the overwhelming majority of them are worthless as far as I'm concerned.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I still don't see the difficulty in filtering out micro/nano caches. We do it when we are not interested in looking for them. We also take the 5 minutes it takes to look in Google Earth to see if it's actually in a park of interest. No sense in being lazy then whizzing and moaning about being surprised about finding crap under a lamp post. It's not like you're going to toss a regular in the parking lot anyway. The attitude that gives someone the idea that their way is the only way is the same type that I equate to the likes of Hitler and Stalin and this world can do without that. Just my two cents.

 

The only cache that rubs me are those that are constantly soaked because the container isn't adequate enough to hold out moisture.

This was brought up already. There are many micros that are very fun....

 

And there are thousands that flat out suck and are not very fun either.

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

Well its kinda like this: of the 80 or so that I searched for prior to not searching for thme at all because they suck so bad, I have performed a mathematical interpolation approximation and determined that there must surely be several thousand that suck. Real scientific like.....numbers do not lie. Actually I think that my numbers are on the conservative side.

 

Can you use the same mathematical interpolation to determine the percentage of caches that suck. I'd bet that this number fluctuates greatly from cacher to cacher. Preference is what is going to determine this.

[+TrailGators]

I still don't see the difficulty in filtering out micro/nano caches. We do it when we are not interested in looking for them. We also take the 5 minutes it takes to look in Google Earth to see if it's actually in a park of interest. No sense in being lazy then whizzing and moaning about being surprised about finding crap under a lamp post. It's not like you're going to toss a regular in the parking lot anyway. The attitude that gives someone the idea that their way is the only way is the same type that I equate to the likes of Hitler and Stalin and this world can do without that. Just my two cents.

 

The only cache that rubs me are those that are constantly soaked because the container isn't adequate enough to hold out moisture.

This was brought up already. There are many micros that are very fun....

 

And there are thousands that flat out suck and are not very fun either.

How would you know there were thousands? I've cached extensively in four states and haven't seen thousands that I would walk away from. There have been some definitely but thousands?????

 

Well its kinda like this: of the 80 or so that I searched for prior to not searching for thme at all because they suck so bad, I have performed a mathematical interpolation approximation and determined that there must surely be several thousand that suck. Real scientific like.....numbers do not lie. Actually I think that my numbers are on the conservative side.

I agree. You would hit thousands worldwide with only 1-2%.