Jump to content

Spew Be Gone!


ReadyOrNot

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
It's more like the game of Beer Hunter...
Nah - it's like Bertie Bots Every Flavored Beans. Most people seemed to have glossed over my post since it got buried at the bottom of page two quickly as page 3 swept up. :rolleyes:
I liked your analogy, Markwell.

 

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

The problem with both analogies is that in this game, people hide the kinds of caches that they would like to find. If there are lots of caches that Brian (or anyone else) doesn't like, perhaps it is because Brian is out of step with the average geocacher. Edited by sbell111
Posted (edited)
Adapt in a way we can live with, or give up caching.
That's basically what I've been hearing all along from the DOETL, adapt or get lost.
What other choice are you expecting?

 

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

 

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

That's correct, this is not like a supermarket. In a supermarket you're spending money to get what you're looking for. If a drink machine in front of the supermarket advertised that it was giving free drinks, all you had to to was push an unlabeled button and you'd get a drink, I'm sure you'd complain if it weren't giving you enough free drinks of the flavor you prefer even if a lot of other people enjoyed the drinks.

 

It's more like the game of Beer Hunter, where someone shakes a can of beer and places it with other cans of beer so one unlucky person gets sprayed in the face when he opens it. OK, maybe some people actually enjoy getting sprayed in the face with beer. I grant that. But do they have to shake nearly every gosh darn can?
Take off. What if SBell111 showed you a way to increase the chance you'd get a good beer, and decrease the chance you'd get a shaken beer? In your analogy you'd reject his help on the basis that you might miss out on a non-shaken beer. Edited by Mushtang
Posted
The problem with both analogies is that in this game, people hide the kinds of caches that they would like to find. If there are lots of caches that Brian (or anyone else) doesn't like, perhaps it is because Brian is out of step with the average geocacher.

 

Some hide what they like, but most hide what they know. I've pointed out many regional variances in style and those variances exist because people hide the kinds of caches they've been exposed to.

 

Also, having spoken with probably hundreds of geocachers over the years, I've met many who do LUMs. Their reason vary. For some it's to clear out an arbitrary radius around their home coordinates. For some it's numbers, some admit to doing it while holding their noses, but of all of the geocachers I've ever spoken with, I've never met a single one who actually prefers them. Not one. Do they exist? I'm sure they do, but I don't buy the idea that there are hordes of geocachers who would rather find a cache behind the 7-Eleven loading dock than in a nice park.

Posted
What if SBell111 showed you a way to increase the chance you'd get a good beer, and decrease the chance you'd get a shaken beer? In your analogy you'd reject his help on the basis that you might miss out on a non-shaken beer.
To follow this analogy through, sbell111 would tell brainsnat to set up a filter to select his beer, and that any beer in the Beer Hunter game would be filtered out.

 

If geocaching is like this game, it follows that if you leave the game, there are other places to get beer, but your selection is drastically reduced if you go play somewhere else. I don't want to get stuck in a game where there is a lot less beer to choose from, but I don't want the shaken cans, either. Now what?

Posted
What if SBell111 showed you a way to increase the chance you'd get a good beer, and decrease the chance you'd get a shaken beer? In your analogy you'd reject his help on the basis that you might miss out on a non-shaken beer.
To follow this analogy through, sbell111 would tell brainsnat to set up a filter to select his beer, and that any beer in the Beer Hunter game would be filtered out.

You're saying that using SBell111's suggestion Brian would eliminate all beer? I'm not sure why you're saying that. If I'm wrong, I don't understand what it is you're saying. Clarify?

 

If geocaching is like this game, it follows that if you leave the game, there are other places to get beer, but your selection is drastically reduced if you go play somewhere else. I don't want to get stuck in a game where there is a lot less beer to choose from, but I don't want the shaken cans, either. Now what?

Now you use filters that will reduce the chance that you'll get a shaken beer and increase the chance you'll get an unshaken one.

 

There are no filters that will guarantee you'll get an unshaken one. Sorry.

 

PTsssshhhhhhhh AAAAHHHH!!! (sound of a shaken beer opening on Doug McKenzie's head and him yelling)

Posted
The problem with both analogies is that in this game, people hide the kinds of caches that they would like to find. If there are lots of caches that Brian (or anyone else) doesn't like, perhaps it is because Brian is out of step with the average geocacher.

Some hide what they like, but most hide what they know. I've pointed out many regional variances in style and those variances exist because people hide the kinds of caches they've been exposed to.

 

Also, having spoken with probably hundreds of geocachers over the years, I've met many who do LUMs. Their reason vary. For some it's to clear out an arbitrary radius around their home coordinates. For some it's numbers, some admit to doing it while holding their noses, but of all of the geocachers I've ever spoken with, I've never met a single one who actually prefers them. Not one. Do they exist? I'm sure they do, but I don't buy the idea that there are hordes of geocachers who would rather find a cache behind the 7-Eleven loading dock than in a nice park.

I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a new section on the PQ Form that included these options, as well as the section for "Cache Types" and "Container Sizes."

 

d86e0e87-ed85-4193-ae69-248f33f63654.jpg

 

idea.gif

Posted

I've never met a single one who actually prefers them. Not one. Do they exist? I'm sure they do, but I don't buy the idea that there are hordes of geocachers who would rather find a cache behind the 7-Eleven loading dock than in a nice park.

Wow. Your 7-Eleven's have loading docks. I suppose this might be true in the Midwest and Northeast where it might be dificult to make deliveries thru the front door in the snow. Cause that's the way they deliver to 7-Elevens in So. California.

 

I have met people who say they like finding these hides. I would imagine that a cache in a nice park would be better for them than one by a dumpster in an alley. But they may have found that caches don't last long in the nicely maintain parks in their town. The groundskeepers and just the occasional muggles tend to find even something well hidden. Or perhaps they have asked their city's parks department for permission to place a cache and gotten turned down, while the proprietor of the 7-Eleven said it was OK. And in many cases the 7-Eleven in more than .1 miles from the park and there is already a cache in the park. The hider (and many people who want to find caches that are nearby to where they live - not just the numbers people who will look for any cache) feel that two caches are better than one. If you are only interested in the park you can drive right past the 7-Eleven and go to the park. (I would stop at the 7-Eleven and buy a drink to take with you so you don't get thirsty walking across the park to find the micro someone hid in the ivy on the fence way in the back where no one goes execept the people who walk their dogs back there and don't clean up the poop. That dumpster at the 7-Eleven is looking better :rolleyes: ).

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

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

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

Why do I need you to tell me what I think, when you could simply ask me what I truly think? :D
Posted (edited)
The problem with both analogies is that in this game, people hide the kinds of caches that they would like to find. If there are lots of caches that Brian (or anyone else) doesn't like, perhaps it is because Brian is out of step with the average geocacher.

Some hide what they like, but most hide what they know. I've pointed out many regional variances in style and those variances exist because people hide the kinds of caches they've been exposed to.

 

Also, having spoken with probably hundreds of geocachers over the years, I've met many who do LUMs. Their reason vary. For some it's to clear out an arbitrary radius around their home coordinates. For some it's numbers, some admit to doing it while holding their noses, but of all of the geocachers I've ever spoken with, I've never met a single one who actually prefers them. Not one. Do they exist? I'm sure they do, but I don't buy the idea that there are hordes of geocachers who would rather find a cache behind the 7-Eleven loading dock than in a nice park.

I've talked to well over a hundred geocachers as well and I also hear the same thing. It is very clear what most people really enjoy. That is the main reason I decided to compile everyone's favorites lists. Admittedly, it's only a small sample of the entire population, but it does agree with what Brian is hypothesizing. Plus it is common sense, so we would expect those kind of results. Edited by TrailGators
Posted
Now you use filters that will reduce the chance that you'll get a shaken beer and increase the chance you'll get an unshaken one.
I like an unfiltered wheat beer in the summer! Please, don't shake it though, too much head. :rolleyes:

 

Our area has seen a lot of spew lately. I agree with brian, I'll find them because I'm hopeless addicted, but I do not prefer them and would not miss them at all - including some of my own caches that might be considered spew by some!

Posted
I'll find them because I'm hopeless addicted, but I do not prefer them and would not miss them at all - including some of my own caches that might be considered spew by some!

I'll agree there! I don't know of anyone that prefers to find "spew" caches.

Posted (edited)
The problem with both analogies is that in this game, people hide the kinds of caches that they would like to find. If there are lots of caches that Brian (or anyone else) doesn't like, perhaps it is because Brian is out of step with the average geocacher.

Some hide what they like, but most hide what they know. I've pointed out many regional variances in style and those variances exist because people hide the kinds of caches they've been exposed to.

 

Also, having spoken with probably hundreds of geocachers over the years, I've met many who do LUMs. Their reason vary. For some it's to clear out an arbitrary radius around their home coordinates. For some it's numbers, some admit to doing it while holding their noses, but of all of the geocachers I've ever spoken with, I've never met a single one who actually prefers them. Not one. Do they exist? I'm sure they do, but I don't buy the idea that there are hordes of geocachers who would rather find a cache behind the 7-Eleven loading dock than in a nice park.

I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a new section on the PQ Form that included these options, as well as the section for "Cache Types" and "Container Sizes."

 

d86e0e87-ed85-4193-ae69-248f33f63654.jpg

 

idea.gif

One problem with this is that there are enough caches that people want to be secret - whether good or bad (wants it to be a surprise that there's a great, secret view, or the end of a puzzle cache) - that there would have to be an option to not specify the type, and then eventually most people would probably start not specifying after a while. Just a thought.

Edited by Ambrosia
Posted (edited)
The problem with both analogies is that in this game, people hide the kinds of caches that they would like to find. If there are lots of caches that Brian (or anyone else) doesn't like, perhaps it is because Brian is out of step with the average geocacher.
Some hide what they like, but most hide what they know. I've pointed out many regional variances in style and those variances exist because people hide the kinds of caches they've been exposed to.
You appear to be arguing that people find caches that they don't like and then place similar caches. I do not believe that this is what is happening.

 

More likely, people are finding caches that you don't like. These people, however, like the caches. They are then placing similar caches.

Also, having spoken with probably hundreds of geocachers over the years, I've met many who do LUMs. Their reason vary. For some it's to clear out an arbitrary radius around their home coordinates. For some it's numbers, some admit to doing it while holding their noses, but of all of the geocachers I've ever spoken with, I've never met a single one who actually prefers them. Not one. Do they exist? I'm sure they do, but I don't buy the idea that there are hordes of geocachers who would rather find a cache behind the 7-Eleven loading dock than in a nice park.

I don't know what 'LUM' stands for. Certainly, it's yet another way for you to put other people down while feeling superior. What I don't buy is your thesis that the people that are placing and finding these caches (whatever they are) are not enjoying themselves. You might note that none of us are playing this game for a living. If we weren't having fun, we'd play more golf. Edited by sbell111
Posted
The problem with both analogies is that in this game, people hide the kinds of caches that they would like to find. If there are lots of caches that Brian (or anyone else) doesn't like, perhaps it is because Brian is out of step with the average geocacher.

Some hide what they like, but most hide what they know. I've pointed out many regional variances in style and those variances exist because people hide the kinds of caches they've been exposed to.

 

Also, having spoken with probably hundreds of geocachers over the years, I've met many who do LUMs. Their reason vary. For some it's to clear out an arbitrary radius around their home coordinates. For some it's numbers, some admit to doing it while holding their noses, but of all of the geocachers I've ever spoken with, I've never met a single one who actually prefers them. Not one. Do they exist? I'm sure they do, but I don't buy the idea that there are hordes of geocachers who would rather find a cache behind the 7-Eleven loading dock than in a nice park.

I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a new section on the PQ Form that included these options, as well as the section for "Cache Types" and "Container Sizes."

 

d86e0e87-ed85-4193-ae69-248f33f63654.jpg

 

idea.gif

One problem with this is that there are enough caches that people want to be secret - whether good or bad (wants it to be a surprise that there's a great, secret view, or the end of a puzzle cache) - that there would have to be an option to not specify the type, and then eventually most people would probably start not specifying after a while. Just a thought.

 

I'd agree, there are a lot of people who want to surprise the finder. As far as the checklist, does anyone really know of a cache hidden on a dumpster? :rolleyes:

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

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

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

Why do I need you to tell me what I think, when you could simply ask me what I truly think? :D

I'm not trying to read your mind. I'm having enough trouble decrypting your posts.
Posted

We have all been guilty of being way to nice in our logs and leave a wrong impression. We need a way of saying this cache is lame and uninteresting to me but others can judge for themselves. Recently someone logged just the word 'Found' on one of my caches and I wasn't sure if that was an insult or not. We need a way of politely saying 'BORING' or maybe just not saying TFTC would do it. Do you think the lack of positive comments is a message from most cachers or do the number runners just not say much due to logging so many.

 

Here's a thought, feel free to copy and paste this for a log, if you wish.

 

"Cache was unimpressive, location uninteresting, and neither showed much imagination. But thanks for the smiley anyway."

 

Honest, in many cases, but polite too. Hope this suffices. :rolleyes:

Posted
I'd agree, there are a lot of people who want to surprise the finder. As far as the checklist, does anyone really know of a cache hidden on a dumpster? :rolleyes:
I was thinking of that just the other day. Given the fact that dumpsters are routinely traded out, I bet that there are no caches on any of them.
Posted (edited)
The problem with both analogies is that in this game, people hide the kinds of caches that they would like to find. If there are lots of caches that Brian (or anyone else) doesn't like, perhaps it is because Brian is out of step with the average geocacher.

Some hide what they like, but most hide what they know. I've pointed out many regional variances in style and those variances exist because people hide the kinds of caches they've been exposed to.

 

Also, having spoken with probably hundreds of geocachers over the years, I've met many who do LUMs. Their reason vary. For some it's to clear out an arbitrary radius around their home coordinates. For some it's numbers, some admit to doing it while holding their noses, but of all of the geocachers I've ever spoken with, I've never met a single one who actually prefers them. Not one. Do they exist? I'm sure they do, but I don't buy the idea that there are hordes of geocachers who would rather find a cache behind the 7-Eleven loading dock than in a nice park.

I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a new section on the PQ Form that included these options, as well as the section for "Cache Types" and "Container Sizes."

 

d86e0e87-ed85-4193-ae69-248f33f63654.jpg

 

idea.gif

One problem with this is that there are enough caches that people want to be secret - whether good or bad (wants it to be a surprise that there's a great, secret view, or the end of a puzzle cache) - that there would have to be an option to not specify the type, and then eventually most people would probably start not specifying after a while. Just a thought.

 

I'd agree, there are a lot of people who want to surprise the finder. As far as the checklist, does anyone really know of a cache hidden on a dumpster? :huh:

I have found several near smelly dumpsters. They always remind me of a song by Lynyrd Skynyrd: "Ooooh that smell. Can't you smell that smell." B):rolleyes: Edited by TrailGators
Posted
We have all been guilty of being way to nice in our logs and leave a wrong impression. We need a way of saying this cache is lame and uninteresting to me but others can judge for themselves. Recently someone logged just the word 'Found' on one of my caches and I wasn't sure if that was an insult or not. We need a way of politely saying 'BORING' or maybe just not saying TFTC would do it. Do you think the lack of positive comments is a message from most cachers or do the number runners just not say much due to logging so many.
Here's a thought, feel free to copy and paste this for a log, if you wish.

 

"Cache was unimpressive, location uninteresting, and neither showed much imagination. But thanks for the smiley anyway."

 

Honest, in many cases, but polite too. Hope this suffices. :rolleyes:

I recommend that you change the bit about 'imagination'. In my opinion, that's where you stopped talking about the cache and started to put down the cacher.
Posted
I'd agree, there are a lot of people who want to surprise the finder. As far as the checklist, does anyone really know of a cache hidden on a dumpster? :huh:
I have found several near a smelly dumpster. They always remind me of a song by Lynyrd Skynyrd: "Ooooh that smell. Can't you smell that smell. Ooooh that smell." B):rolleyes:
I've found exactly one that was close enough to smell the dumpster, if it were a smelly dumpster, but it wasn't. Instead, that was a memorable, enjoyable cache.

 

It was also one of the few caches that I've ever found that was made from PVC and the only cache that I ever logged within view of a LEO.

Posted

Didn't think that myself, thought the phase in context referred back to the location and cache. Am taking this under advisement and trying to think of another way to state the thought. Open for suggestions.

Posted (edited)

Didn't think that myself, thought the phase in context referred back to the location and cache. Am taking this under advisement and trying to think of another way to state the thought. Open for suggestions.

'I didn't much care for the container or the location, but thanks for hiding something for me to find.'

Edited by sbell111
Posted

..... As far as the checklist, does anyone really know of a cache hidden on a dumpster? :rolleyes:

Not directly. Found one on a metal post that staked out on side of where the dumpster should be. Found another on the gaurdrail placed a few inches from the back of a dumpster. Both close enough to be considered part of trash container.

Posted

..... As far as the checklist, does anyone really know of a cache hidden on a dumpster? :rolleyes:

Not directly. Found one on a metal post that staked out on side of where the dumpster should be. Found another on the gaurdrail placed a few inches from the back of a dumpster. Both close enough to be considered part of trash container.

 

Yep...right on the bottom of the back side (I mean under when I say bottom). Great place.....for a rat probably....

Posted

..... As far as the checklist, does anyone really know of a cache hidden on a dumpster? :rolleyes:

Not directly. Found one on a metal post that staked out on side of where the dumpster should be. Found another on the gaurdrail placed a few inches from the back of a dumpster. Both close enough to be considered part of trash container.

 

Yep...right on the bottom of the back side (I mean under when I say bottom). Great place.....for a rat probably....

 

Once I stopped at a KFC parking lot for my caching partner so he could find a cache which had been plonked on my ignore list. (I'm a nice guy, I do that for people :huh: ). And the cache was about 10 feet from the dumpster. Closest I know of. I also had him grab an LPC without leaving the passenger seat earlier in the day.

Posted

while the proprietor of the 7-Eleven said it was OK.

 

Now you are really stretching the limits of credibility. :rolleyes:

Has anyone ever gotten permission from a 7-Eleven employee to hide a cache on the 7-Eleven property?

Posted

while the proprietor of the 7-Eleven said it was OK.

 

Now you are really stretching the limits of credibility. :rolleyes:

Has anyone ever gotten permission from a 7-Eleven employee to hide a cache on the 7-Eleven property?

Are there even any 7-11s still in operation?

Posted

Didn't think that myself, thought the phase in context referred back to the location and cache. Am taking this under advisement and trying to think of another way to state the thought. Open for suggestions.

'I didn't much care for the container or the location, but thanks for hiding something for me to find.'

 

The cache container was a film can. The logbook was wet. I found it quickly just a few feet from where I parked. I was very exposed while I was poking around the dumpster. The smell here is incredibly bad. TNLNSL.

Posted (edited)
Didn't think that myself, thought the phase in context referred back to the location and cache. Am taking this under advisement and trying to think of another way to state the thought. Open for suggestions.
'I didn't much care for the container or the location, but thanks for hiding something for me to find.'
The cache container was a film can. The logbook was wet. I found it quickly just a few feet from where I parked. I was very exposed while I was poking around the dumpster. The smell here is incredibly bad. TNLNSL.
I would imagine that the cache owner is already aware that the cache container was a film can (which isn't inherently bad). Some cache owners may not way you to describe the container in your log. Edited by sbell111
Posted

while the proprietor of the 7-Eleven said it was OK.

 

Now you are really stretching the limits of credibility. :rolleyes:

Has anyone ever gotten permission from a 7-Eleven employee to hide a cache on the 7-Eleven property?

Are there even any 7-11s still in operation?

 

We have them here in Canada. I have never found a cache near a 7-Eleven but I have found a cache in a parking lot which I enjoyed. It was placed near a dumpster but not on the dumpster. It was a micro cache and it was behind a shopping mall in the parking lot.

 

There was an old buffalo jump behind the shopping mall and the sporadic hours meant that the cache placer opted to leave the cache on the outside of that attraction so that people could visit any time. The buffalo jump was very cool and the hider couldn't have fit an ammo can anywhere nearby. The parking lot had a lot of dumpsters for all the stores so the hide was going to be near a dumpster regardless.

 

It was match safe though, not a film can. If it had been a film can then the way it was hidden would have resulted in wet log which would have made the cache totally lame.

Posted

while the proprietor of the 7-Eleven said it was OK.

 

Now you are really stretching the limits of credibility. :rolleyes:

Has anyone ever gotten permission from a 7-Eleven employee to hide a cache on the 7-Eleven property?

Are there even any 7-11s still in operation?

 

We have them here in Canada.

We have them in San Diego.
Posted

while the proprietor of the 7-Eleven said it was OK.

 

Now you are really stretching the limits of credibility. :rolleyes:

Has anyone ever gotten permission from a 7-Eleven employee to hide a cache on the 7-Eleven property?

Are there even any 7-11s still in operation?

Well, they were all changed to Kwik-E-Marts leading up to the Simpsons movie, but I think they've reverted back by now.

 

Really? They're gone somewhere? Huh. But then, I heard an A&P ad on the radio the other day. That threw me for a loop. I guess Canada still has those.

Posted
... I have never found a cache near a 7-Eleven but I have found a cache in a parking lot which I enjoyed. It was placed near a dumpster but not on the dumpster. It was a micro cache and it was behind a shopping mall in the parking lot.

 

There was an old buffalo jump behind the shopping mall and the sporadic hours meant that the cache placer opted to leave the cache on the outside of that attraction so that people could visit any time. The buffalo jump was very cool and the hider couldn't have fit an ammo can anywhere nearby. The parking lot had a lot of dumpsters for all the stores so the hide was going to be near a dumpster regardless.

 

It was match safe though, not a film can. If it had been a film can then the way it was hidden would have resulted in wet log which would have made the cache totally lame.

I've never seen a buffalo jump, so that cache would be cool to me regardless of it's condition.
Posted

I would imagine that the cache owner is already aware that the cache container was a film can (which isn't inherently bad). Some cache owners may not way you to describe the container in your log.

 

Yes but now other cachers who read the logs will know that it is a film can. If the owner is concerned then he can delete my log. I wouldn't bother relogging the cache if my log was deleted.

 

The film can has a place in geocaching, indoor hides, hides completely protected from the weather etc.. but if a film can is exposed to the elements it will always be wet, it doesn't matter what style of film can it is, it will allow water to intrude.

Ask any geocacher. :rolleyes:

Posted (edited)
I would imagine that the cache owner is already aware that the cache container was a film can (which isn't inherently bad). Some cache owners may not way you to describe the container in your log.
...The film can has a place in geocaching, indoor hides, hides completely protected from the weather etc.. but if a film can is exposed to the elements it will always be wet, it doesn't matter what style of film can it is, it will allow water to intrude.

Ask any geocacher. :rolleyes:

I'm a geocacher, so I'll not bother asking someone else. I tested film cans for leakage when I was developing my fake rocks. The cans with a lid that fits over the can leak like crazy. The kind with the lid that snaps into the can tend not to leak.

 

I also used to have a series of micros that used film cans as a container. Most of them had no leakage problem. A few did have a problem, but it was due to the attachment method. Basically, if you used pressure to hold the can in place, it would flex slightly and leak. That being said, the container should not be submerged and buying some insurance through the use of tiny baggies is a good idea.

 

What was this thread about, again? Now I remember. It's about throwing away caches that you don't like.

Edited by sbell111
Posted

I enjoy the hunt and the "find". I'm new so I could really care less if it's a "micro" or not. Maybe I'll change my mind later on, but I doubt it.

Have Fun and enjoy Life! :rolleyes:

Posted

I enjoy the hunt and the "find". I'm new so I could really care less if it's a "micro" or not. Maybe I'll change my mind later on, but I doubt it.

Have Fun and enjoy Life! :rolleyes:

 

Welcome. And as long as you geocache, you'll always have the same anniversary date as me!! :huh:

 

So what're we doing here? Keeping this thread going so it's still on page one for the OP when he returns from his 30 day ban? B)

Posted (edited)

while the proprietor of the 7-Eleven said it was OK.

 

Now you are really stretching the limits of credibility. :rolleyes:

Has anyone ever gotten permission from a 7-Eleven employee to hide a cache on the 7-Eleven property?

Are there even any 7-11s still in operation?

Well, they were all changed to Kwik-E-Marts leading up to the Simpsons movie, but I think they've reverted back by now.

 

Really? They're gone somewhere? Huh. But then, I heard an A&P ad on the radio the other day. That threw me for a loop. I guess Canada still has those.

Speaking of 7-11 and A&P Food Stores, I still feel that the best and cheapest geocache containers may be found at E. J. Korvette's discount stores and McCrory five and dime stores.

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Posted

I enjoy the hunt and the "find". I'm new so I could really care less if it's a "micro" or not. Maybe I'll change my mind later on, but I doubt it.

Have Fun and enjoy Life! :huh:

 

Welcome. And as long as you geocache, you'll always have the same anniversary date as me!! :rolleyes:

 

So what're we doing here? Keeping this thread going so it's still on page one for the OP when he returns from his 30 day ban? :D

Is that what happened to him? I know keep that the DOETL want to keep talking about what the OP started talking about but I'm not falling for that. I got the mods message loud and clear. B)
Posted

I would imagine that the cache owner is already aware that the cache container was a film can (which isn't inherently bad). Some cache owners may not way you to describe the container in your log.

 

Yes but now other cachers who read the logs will know that it is a film can. If the owner is concerned then he can delete my log. I wouldn't bother relogging the cache if my log was deleted.

 

The film can has a place in geocaching, indoor hides, hides completely protected from the weather etc.. but if a film can is exposed to the elements it will always be wet, it doesn't matter what style of film can it is, it will allow water to intrude.

Ask any geocacher. :rolleyes:

 

Ive never seen a wet log in a film can. Ive seen a lot of wet logs in an altoids can even with a baggie, but not a film can.

Posted

DOETL

 

What is that?

It's a misspelling of DOEL, or SDOEL as it started, which is short for Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.

 

SDOEL is a name one of The Complainers came up with to attempt to insult those of us that suggest even the lame hides are worth something to someone, and shouldn't be removed as garbage (as the OP in this thread suggested) or banned (as other threads have suggested) simply because some people don't like them.

 

Those of us that are considered members of SDOEL actually like the term.

Posted
What if SBell111 showed you a way to increase the chance you'd get a good beer, and decrease the chance you'd get a shaken beer? In your analogy you'd reject his help on the basis that you might miss out on a non-shaken beer.
To follow this analogy through, sbell111 would tell brainsnat to set up a filter to select his beer, and that any beer in the Beer Hunter game would be filtered out.

You're saying that using SBell111's suggestion Brian would eliminate all beer? I'm not sure why you're saying that. If I'm wrong, I don't understand what it is you're saying. Clarify?

I'm not saying he'll eliminate all beer. The only way I can think of to filter out shaken beer would be to not drink beer used in the game. He'd have to go get his beer elsewhere.

PTsssshhhhhhhh AAAAHHHH!!! (sound of a shaken beer opening on Doug McKenzie's head and him yelling)

:huh: Don't waste the beer, eh? Hoser! :rolleyes:
Posted

even the lame hides are worth something to someone, and shouldn't be removed as garbage (as the OP in this thread suggested) or banned (as other threads have suggested) simply because some people don't like them.

You are correct and perhaps one reason for the proliferation of the type is the difficulty in getting a cache that is " different" or "creative" approved--which makes it not worth the effort after a point.

Posted
What if SBell111 showed you a way to increase the chance you'd get a good beer, and decrease the chance you'd get a shaken beer? In your analogy you'd reject his help on the basis that you might miss out on a non-shaken beer.
To follow this analogy through, sbell111 would tell brainsnat to set up a filter to select his beer, and that any beer in the Beer Hunter game would be filtered out.

You're saying that using SBell111's suggestion Brian would eliminate all beer? I'm not sure why you're saying that. If I'm wrong, I don't understand what it is you're saying. Clarify?

I'm not saying he'll eliminate all beer. The only way I can think of to filter out shaken beer would be to not drink beer used in the game. He'd have to go get his beer elsewhere.

In the beer hunter analogy there would still be beer left to chose from, and it wouldn't clearly be been that hadn't been shaken, but would be beer that was less likely to have been shaken.

 

Such as, only choosing beer from the outside since most shaken beers come from the middle. Or only choosing beers that still have a lot of condensate since the shaken beers have had it all flung off. Whatever the method there would still be beers to open.

 

In the geocaching method there are still caches to find, but they're less likely to be the kind someone wouldn't like.

 

Boy, this analogy makes me want to drink a nice cold one. I'd buy the first round Too Tall if you were closer!

Posted
You are correct and perhaps one reason for the proliferation of the type is the difficulty in getting a cache that is " different" or "creative" approved--which makes it not worth the effort after a point.

I'll disagree with you on that one. I've had several of my own approved, and lots of caches in my area approved, that I'd consider "different" or "creative".

 

There are ways of getting these "different" caches approved, even if they're way far out different.

 

The first would be to discuss them with the reviewers prior to hiding them to work out any possible problems, keep them involved if it's really different all through the hiding process so they can point out issues, and most importantly to be aware of the guidelines and stay within them.

 

The second, which is far easier, is to give the puppy monster lots of steaks and chew toys.

 

I wouldn't think that trying to hide a "different" or "creative" cache and it not being approved is a reason for lots of lame caches being hidden.

Posted (edited)
You are correct and perhaps one reason for the proliferation of the type is the difficulty in getting a cache that is " different" or "creative" approved--which makes it not worth the effort after a point.
That statement may have some truth to it. I live on the boundary of a state park in Maryland. I have placed (2) caches in the park. However, permission is required and paperwork has to be filed with the park office prior to publication of the cache. It took a fair amount of time working though all of this with the park rangers. It all worked out in the end, but hiding a Cracker Barrel micro is sounding better all the time! :rolleyes: Edited by Trinity's Crew
Posted (edited)
I wouldn't think that trying to hide a "different" or "creative" cache and it not being approved is a reason for lots of lame caches being hidden.

 

You missed the point, the point being that perhaps the effort needed to get the creative cache approved serves as a disincentive to that type of hide for many hiders. If it is too difficult then the hider will forego the effort. The other part is, that there are not many serial hiders. Look at the stats you see many, many folks with big number finds who have 10 hides and they have been in the game forever. We need to encourage people to make the effort to place the quality hide and to do it regularly, perhaps in a systematic way.

 

Trinity's Crew understands the point precisely. If my good efforts are constantly being thwarted I stick to finding instead of hiding. And when all of the types that I enjoy finding are not around, I will join BrianSnat on the back 9.

Edited by Packanack
Posted

Micros are about the hunt, and about getting your numbers up. Personaly, I'm thankful for the variety. After 5 hrs. of bushwacking in the woods and drudging through the swamps just to have a dnf, it's nice to have a little instant gratification micro sometimes. I'm not sure what you mean by 'spew'.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...