Spew Be Gone!

[+TeamBarstool]

are there any local cachers anywhere making sure the urbans are legal?

 

Yes, altho trying to get a missing and abandoned cache archived seems to be quite difficult in my area.

 

I understand. but I asked about legal urbans. Is there anyone in the caching community up there ( I'm guessing Phoenix) complaining & policing about illegal urbans. ( I really don't care about size)

[+tozainamboku]

I understand that TG believes the thread has progressed. My point is that a more constructive thread needs to be posted to accomplish that end.... If that could ever be accomplished.

Actually, traildad has started a thread in the Geocaching.com forums to discuss his idea for adding a "reason placed" or "location type" to the cache submission page. People could then filter out urban (or non-urban) hides that were placed in locations they don't like to look in. I don't hold much hope that we could agree on the "location type" or "reasons for placing caches", but it certainly could help with those who simply want to skip what they consider spew without missing out on all 1/1 urban hides.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

I understand that TG believes the thread has progressed. My point is that a more constructive thread needs to be posted to accomplish that end.... If that could ever be accomplished.

Well, actually this thread had a nice progression to it where people were proposing ideas.

 

In my opinion this whole discussion should be about how to more easily filter out caches we don't want to look for. It should not be about how to convince everyone to only hide caches we want to look for.

I couldn't agree more.

And then instead of discussing the ideas that were proposed, they were shot down. Hopefully some discussion, without name-calling, will continue in traildad's thread in the Web Site Forum.

[+TrailGators]

I understand that TG believes the thread has progressed. My point is that a more constructive thread needs to be posted to accomplish that end.... If that could ever be accomplished.

Actually, traildad has started a thread in the Geocaching.com forums to discuss his idea for adding a "reason placed" or "location type" to the cache submission page. People could then filter out urban (or non-urban) hides that were placed in locations they don't like to look in. I don't hold much hope that we could agree on the "location type" or "reasons for placing caches", but it certainly could help with those who simply want to skip what they consider spew without missing out on all 1/1 urban hides.

Traildad might have something there if it gets ironed out a bit. Hopefully that thread helps do that.

 

CR also suggested using tags. I thought this was a very cool idea. He should start a thread on that since it is his idea!

 

Anyhow sometimes a Phoenix rises up from the ashes!

Edited September 11, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Too Tall John]

Can you guys please show me how violating the guidelines is equivalent to violating some cache hunter's minimum-required level of entertainment or creativity?

One example right off the top of my head:

 

Cache is placed without permission in front of a restaurant. Cache seeker, while hunting for said cache, is confronted and detained by the restaurant owner until police arrive. If it had been me, I'd say my "minimum-required level of entertainment" threshold would have been broken.

You're STILL talking about a practical issue, not an aesthetic issue.

 

I have found some caches that I thought were VERY cool except for the fact that there was an obvious guideline violation involved. If a cache is placed so as to raise unnecessary suspicion and alarm among reasonable-minded muggles every time some cacher arrives at the coords, then you've got an excellent point to suggest that the cache in question is detrimental to the game, but ... you're talking about practicality, not creativity.

 

The OP's post was about uninspired caches, not guideline abuses. They are two completely different issues.

 

Your point is irrelevant and off topic for this thread.

No, it isn't, if you read the rest of my post:

The caches that I would consider "spew" would be those that were tossed out there with little or no thought. It would follow that a cache that was placed without thought was placed without permission, as getting permission would require thought.

 

Thus, "spew" = not thought through = likely against guidelines

(Like I said. The claim gets made ... I ask for proof ... but then instead of proof or supporting arguments, along comes the obfuscation.)

Before you go accusing me of confusing the issue, make sure you don't go ignoring the crux of my argument. Talk about obfuscation!

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

are there any local cachers anywhere making sure the urbans are legal?

 

Yes, altho trying to get a missing and abandoned cache archived seems to be quite difficult in my area.

 

I understand. but I asked about legal urbans. Is there anyone in the caching community up there ( I'm guessing Phoenix) complaining & policing about illegal urbans. ( I really don't care about size)

 

Yes regarding policing of illegal caches. I know of several cachers, including myself, who have done so. Illegal caches are not limited to urban caches.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

 

Actually, traildad has started a thread in the Geocaching.com forums to discuss his idea for adding a "reason placed" or "location type" to the cache submission page. People could then filter out urban (or non-urban) hides that were placed in locations they don't like to look in. I don't hold much hope that we could agree on the "location type" or "reasons for placing caches", but it certainly could help with those who simply want to skip what they consider spew without missing out on all 1/1 urban hides.

 

Link? Ive got a cache that is a good one, yet doesnt fit any location type of reason for placement that Ive seen listed so far.

[+TrailGators]

 

Actually, traildad has started a thread in the Geocaching.com forums to discuss his idea for adding a "reason placed" or "location type" to the cache submission page. People could then filter out urban (or non-urban) hides that were placed in locations they don't like to look in. I don't hold much hope that we could agree on the "location type" or "reasons for placing caches", but it certainly could help with those who simply want to skip what they consider spew without missing out on all 1/1 urban hides.

 

Link? Ive got a cache that is a good one, yet doesnt fit any location type of reason for placement that Ive seen listed so far.

Here is a link.

[+TeamBarstool]

are there any local cachers anywhere making sure the urbans are legal?

 

Yes, altho trying to get a missing and abandoned cache archived seems to be quite difficult in my area.

 

I understand. but I asked about legal urbans. Is there anyone in the caching community up there ( I'm guessing Phoenix) complaining & policing about illegal urbans. ( I really don't care about size)

 

Yes regarding policing of illegal caches. I know of several cachers, including myself, who have done so. Illegal caches are not limited to urban caches.

 

Your right about illegal being not limited to urban. I just only see anyone being called out on the wilderness or BLM caches. Its like the urban ones get a pass when its a pretty good chance they are not cool

[+mtn-man]

My understanding was that the NPS didn't like the idea of the possibility of caches being buried all over the place. That's when that guideline came along, a little too late.

Actually, I think their concern was caches leading to social trails and people off-trail in areas that are sensitive (plants, soil compaction, etc.) or dangerous. The lack of permission was also a huge issue.

[+KBI]

Before you go accusing me of confusing the issue, make sure you don't go ignoring the crux of my argument. Talk about obfuscation!

Fair enough. Let’s have another look, then, at the portion of your post I chose not to quote:

 

The caches that I would consider "spew" would be those that were tossed out there with little or no thought. It would follow that a cache that was placed without thought was placed without permission, as getting permission would require thought.

 

Thus, "spew" = not thought through = likely against guidelines

(1) I disagree with the logic of your conclusion that such a cache can be automatically assumed to have been placed without permission. Can you explain what makes that conclusion valid? Lack of permission does NOT automatically follow from lameness. I have found very COOL caches that might well have been placed without permission. I have also found very LAME caches for which the description clearly explained that permission was obtained. The OP complained only about uninspired caches, and he used terms like “microspew” and “garbage.” Nowhere in his post does he say ANYTHING about permission.

 

(2) Continuing to stretch the permission issue while ignoring the topic (and my question) is nothing but pure obfuscation:

 

kd4crs:

"I think the overabundance of

micro caches

is detrimental to the sport."

 

KBI:

"Please support that claim with something convincing."

 

Kit Fox:

(speculating) "Since the majority of micros are hidden in urban settings (sans

permission

), the increased chance of confrontation with Law Enforcement, Security, and property owners is detrimental to our hobby."

 

KBI:

"Please clarify: Are you attempting to explain how the overabundance of

lame micros

is detrimental to the sport, or are you attempting to explain how the overabundance of micros that

violate the existing guidelines

is detrimental to the sport?"

 

Too Tall John:

"Caches placed without permission are detrimental to our sport."

 

KBI:

"The issue here is asthetics, not practicality. The OP did not express a concern about guideline abuses -- he just doesn't like uninspired hides. Your comment is off topic."

 

Too Tall John:

"Like I said: Caches placed without permission are detrimental to our sport."

I still say that sounds like pure obfuscation, so please explain to me how your permission-related comments are relevent to the topic of asthetically lacking cache hides.

Edited September 11, 2007 by KBI

[+Anonymous']

I just want to voice my opinion on this whole thing. I recently (2 months ago) started caching regularly again after a break of 2 years. I quit because I wasn't happy with the way the sport was turning with all of the not so fun caches I was finding. Now a lot of the caches I'm doing are the same way as back then but I guess I'm getting used to it. I don't get the same thrill of the hunt that I used to.

 

The quality of caches around where I live is degrading. There are still a few good hiders that I will always hunt their cache because they're quality. However there are more and more people who will just come in with only a few finds and start spewing out micros in every possible location, (typically not the best ones either or places that could have a regular size cache) and then just quit a few months later, this leaves geotrash. A lot of caches I go out to find will have coordinates several hundred feet off and just aren't planned out very well.

 

I really wish this sport would turn around, but with the exponential growth I really doubt it will. I'm having a hard time placing my own caches with all the micro spew.

[Dinoprophet]

I understand that TG believes the thread has progressed. My point is that a more constructive thread needs to be posted to accomplish that end.... If that could ever be accomplished.

Actually, traildad has started a thread in the Geocaching.com forums to discuss his idea for adding a "reason placed" or "location type" to the cache submission page. People could then filter out urban (or non-urban) hides that were placed in locations they don't like to look in. I don't hold much hope that we could agree on the "location type" or "reasons for placing caches", but it certainly could help with those who simply want to skip what they consider spew without missing out on all 1/1 urban hides.

It would also help those who enjoy every single cache but are interested in finding a particular type at some given time. I understand spew is where this thread started, but some people seem to be intentionally ignoring the fact that everybody would find this feature useful at least once in a while.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[Mushtang]

I understand that TG believes the thread has progressed. My point is that a more constructive thread needs to be posted to accomplish that end.... If that could ever be accomplished.

Actually, traildad has started a thread in the Geocaching.com forums to discuss his idea for adding a "reason placed" or "location type" to the cache submission page. People could then filter out urban (or non-urban) hides that were placed in locations they don't like to look in. I don't hold much hope that we could agree on the "location type" or "reasons for placing caches", but it certainly could help with those who simply want to skip what they consider spew without missing out on all 1/1 urban hides.

It would also help those who enjoy every single cache but are interested in finding a particular type at some given time. I understand spew is where this thread started, but some people seem to be intentionally ignoring the fact that everybody would find this feature useful at least once in a while.

I don't think "everybody" would find the feature useful - ever. I don't even think "most" will find it useful sometimes. In my opinion the feature wouldn't work as expected and would be less useful than the already often suggested ways to eliminate caches that folks don't like.

 

I'd rather see the developers work on new features that are more likely to add a benefit to the site.

[+Too Tall John]

Before you go accusing me of confusing the issue, make sure you don't go ignoring the crux of my argument. Talk about obfuscation!

Fair enough. Let’s have another look, then, at the portion of your post I chose not to quote:

The caches that I would consider "spew" would be those that were tossed out there with little or no thought. It would follow that a cache that was placed without thought was placed without permission, as getting permission would require thought.

 

Thus, "spew" = not thought through = likely against guidelines

(1) I disagree with the logic of your conclusion that such a cache can be automatically assumed to have been placed without permission.

I highlighted in blue the two words that conflict. You are telling me (and anyone who cares to read this) that I am automatically making a hard and fast judgement, when I, in fact, am simply making a correlation.

Can you explain what makes that conclusion valid?

Tell me which of these points you disagree with:

• One definition of "Spew" can be caches that were tossed out there with little or no thought.
  
• A cache that was placed without thought was likely placed without permission, as getting permission would require thought.
  

Lack of permission does NOT automatically follow from lameness. I have found very COOL caches that might well have been placed without permission. I have also found very LAME caches for which the description clearly explained that permission was obtained.

The fact that you seemingly remember these caches for these features makes me think they are the exception, not the rule. One can always find an exception. So what?

The OP complained only about uninspired caches, and he used terms like “microspew” and “garbage.” Nowhere in his post does he say ANYTHING about permission.

 

(2) Continuing to stretch the permission issue while ignoring the topic (and my question) is nothing but pure obfuscation:

 

kd4crs:

"I think the overabundance of

micro caches

is detrimental to the sport."

 

KBI:

"Please support that claim with something convincing."

 

Kit Fox:

(speculating) "Since the majority of micros are hidden in urban settings (sans

permission

), the increased chance of confrontation with Law Enforcement, Security, and property owners is detrimental to our hobby."

 

KBI:

"Please clarify: Are you attempting to explain how the overabundance of

lame micros

is detrimental to the sport, or are you attempting to explain how the overabundance of micros that

violate the existing guidelines

is detrimental to the sport?"

 

Too Tall John:

"Caches placed without permission are detrimental to our sport."

 

KBI:

"The issue here is asthetics, not practicality. The OP did not express a concern about guideline abuses -- he just doesn't like uninspired hides. Your comment is off topic."

 

Too Tall John:

"Like I said: Caches placed without permission are detrimental to our sport."

I still say that sounds like pure obfuscation, so please explain to me how your permission-related comments are relevent to the topic of asthetically lacking cache hides.

I take issue whit the part I highlighted in red. When asked how "spew" was detrimental to the sport, I gave my definition for "spew," which you quoted for me above, so I'm simply going to underline it. That was not a simplistic repetition of "Caches placed without permission are detrimental to our sport." To suggest that it was is obfuscation and a misrepresentation of what I am saying.

 

As to your telling me I am off topic:

• The topic title is "Spew Be Gone!" If nobody else out there agrees with my definition of "spew," then maybe I am. I don't think that's the case, though.
  
• It isn't your job to decide what is or isn't off topic.
  
• If I find myself going off topic, I will do my best to take it to PMs, like the discussion with Mushtang about SDOEL.
  

Edited September 11, 2007 by Too Tall John

[Dinoprophet]

I understand that TG believes the thread has progressed. My point is that a more constructive thread needs to be posted to accomplish that end.... If that could ever be accomplished.

Actually, traildad has started a thread in the Geocaching.com forums to discuss his idea for adding a "reason placed" or "location type" to the cache submission page. People could then filter out urban (or non-urban) hides that were placed in locations they don't like to look in. I don't hold much hope that we could agree on the "location type" or "reasons for placing caches", but it certainly could help with those who simply want to skip what they consider spew without missing out on all 1/1 urban hides.

It would also help those who enjoy every single cache but are interested in finding a particular type at some given time. I understand spew is where this thread started, but some people seem to be intentionally ignoring the fact that everybody would find this feature useful at least once in a while.

I don't think "everybody" would find the feature useful - ever. I don't even think "most" will find it useful sometimes. In my opinion the feature wouldn't work as expected and would be less useful than the already often suggested ways to eliminate caches that folks don't like.

 

I'd rather see the developers work on new features that are more likely to add a benefit to the site.

Can you honestly tell me you have never said, "I feel like a long hike today, I wonder what caches would fit the bill", or "I have a half hour at lunch and I'm wearing a business suit. I wonder what caches I could hit without risk of muddying my shoes", or something like that? I certainly have, pretty much every time I cache, and I think what we're talking about would be a big improvement over what's available for that kind of filtering. If I want a long hike, even if only one person in the area has marked their cache as a long hike, it's succeeded in helping find a suitable cache.

 

Still you're focusing on "eliminat(ing) caches that folks don't like". The original spew topic has got that idea entrenched in people's minds now (yes, anything else may be off-topic, but as long as the discussion is rolling here, people are going to respond here). You can love every last cache on the geosphere but still have a taste for a particular kind at a particular time.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[Mushtang]

I understand that TG believes the thread has progressed. My point is that a more constructive thread needs to be posted to accomplish that end.... If that could ever be accomplished.

Actually, traildad has started a thread in the Geocaching.com forums to discuss his idea for adding a "reason placed" or "location type" to the cache submission page. People could then filter out urban (or non-urban) hides that were placed in locations they don't like to look in. I don't hold much hope that we could agree on the "location type" or "reasons for placing caches", but it certainly could help with those who simply want to skip what they consider spew without missing out on all 1/1 urban hides.

It would also help those who enjoy every single cache but are interested in finding a particular type at some given time. I understand spew is where this thread started, but some people seem to be intentionally ignoring the fact that everybody would find this feature useful at least once in a while.

I don't think "everybody" would find the feature useful - ever. I don't even think "most" will find it useful sometimes. In my opinion the feature wouldn't work as expected and would be less useful than the already often suggested ways to eliminate caches that folks don't like.

 

I'd rather see the developers work on new features that are more likely to add a benefit to the site.

Can you honestly tell me you have never said, "I feel like a long hike today, I wonder what caches would fit the bill", or "I have a half hour at lunch and I'm wearing a business suit. I wonder what caches I could hit without risk of muddying my shoes", or something like that? I certainly have, pretty much every time I cache, and I think what we're talking about would be a big improvement over what's available for that kind of filtering. If I want a long hike, even if only one person in the area has marked their cache as a long hike, it's succeeded in helping find a suitable cache.

 

Still you're focusing on "eliminat(ing) caches that folks don't like". The original spew topic has got that idea entrenched in people's minds now (yes, anything else may be off-topic, but as long as the discussion is rolling here, people are going to respond here). You can love every last cache on the geosphere but still have a taste for a particular kind at a particular time.

I've often decided that I wanted a particular sort of cache. Indeed. I'm not saying that it's wrong to want to find, or to avoid, anything. All I'm saying is that if you do want to avoid caches you don't like, the proposed filtering methods will not work well, and will certainly not work as well as the already suggested method that we've called the SBell111 method.

[+sbell111]

Removing or relocating any type of cache (good or bad) is just plain wrong. I think the overabundance of micro caches is detrimental to the sport. Many of them seem to be placed in unremarkable, disinteresting places which are not really rewarding to travel to in order to find them. I suppose if the property owner or conditions prohibit other types of caches a micro is better than a virtual cache. The more micros I find, the less interested I become in putting forth the effort. Am I missing something about micros or am I just being cynical?

 

Welcome to the "cachers tired of lame caches crowd." Many of us feel the same way as you do, and have actively tried different methods to make them "disappear" before we go geocaching. Creative pocket queries, actively studying the locations of placed caches, and a careful review of past logs is what many of us need to do, in order to keep geocaching fun. Of course, your opinion will be questioned by the Staunch Defenders of Everything Lame "SDEL." Be prepared to be called an elitist.

... or just rude if you insist on placing insulting labels on anyone who disagrees with you.

[CoyoteRed]

In my opinion the feature wouldn't work as expected...

I agree. I see far too many obstacles to overcome before it remotely becomes useful, some of which include:

• It relies on Groundspeak creating useful reason categories. When attributes where created I think they missed a very import one--"reading the cache page is required" or at least the opposite "reading the cache page not required."
  
• Enough cache owners actually using the feature. If a certain critical mass don't then the feature would be ignored. It would be hard work for some folks to go back and actually use the feature. What's the percentage of caches that don't have attributes? (~raises hand~ Guilty as charged.) Some folks tend to be lazy.
  
• Getting the cache owners to properly understand the feature and properly categorize the cache. Remember the SCUBA fiasco in attributes? (Caches marked as SCUBA yet not remotely SCUBA caches.)
  
• Besides simply understanding and properly categorizing the cache an owner might deliberately mis-categorize it as some are doing with size now.
  
• The finders have no input.
  

[+sbell111]

This is hogwash. DOETL was what I meant to say. It means Defenders Of Everything Totally Lame and Brian also used the acronym earlier. The DOETL are people that never ask people what they think. Instead they constantly assume people are attacking. When in fact if they actually read the ENTIRE thread they would find that people are actually looking for better ways to filter caches that they don't enjoy. They enter any and every thread where people are discussing how to filter caches and try to needle/provoke people into fights. I'm not falling for it this time. Like I said when I wrote DOETL earlier the OP is gone, and the discussion has been beneficial since the mod stepped in. If the DOETL are just going to cause trouble I'd like to ask them to leave this thread and let us discuss things in peace.

By making up rude acronyms about those that disagree with you, are you really taking the high road and trying not to cause trouble? I don't think so.

[+Too Tall John]

My understanding was that the NPS didn't like the idea of the possibility of caches being buried all over the place. That's when that guideline came along, a little too late.

Actually, I think their concern was caches leading to social trails and people off-trail in areas that are sensitive (plants, soil compaction, etc.) or dangerous. The lack of permission was also a huge issue.

Thank you for the clarification.

[Dinoprophet]

I've often decided that I wanted a particular sort of cache. Indeed. I'm not saying that it's wrong to want to find, or to avoid, anything. All I'm saying is that if you do want to avoid caches you don't like, the proposed filtering methods will not work well, and will certainly not work as well as the already suggested method that we've called the SBell111 method.

As my caching time has recently picked up to more-than-rarely, I plan to renew my PMness next time I do the bills, and I may find I agree with that. I really look forward to trying it. For now, I mainly wanted to make the point that filtering doesn't necessarily mean dislike of any type, and I'd like to see improvements in what can be done (increasing the number of attributes you can select would be great. I maxed them out on my last hides).

[+sbell111]

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

Apparently the name callers have not stopped, and have once again changed the name they're using to insult us.

Wait... which is it again? A beloved term, or an insult?

 

You can't call foul for a name you wear as a badge.

I don't accept any term that was flung as an insult to be a badge.

[+Kit Fox]

 

An overabundance of non-compliant caches IS detrimental to the sport, but: that is not in dispute, that is not what's being discussed here, and that is not at all what the OP was talking about.

 

An overabundance of uninspired caches is NOT detrimental to the sport. It is only detrimental to those who can't figure out how to tolerate their existence, or who are somehow convinced that their own preferences are somehow more acceptable, proper or important than other people's preferences.

 

Combining the "new numbers game", with "micro spew" has created a large group of nice caches that are actively skipped. A good portion of cachers are more interested in park and grabs, rather than park and hikes. Those cachers who hide nice caches (myself included) question why we should hide nice caches in nice locations, if they aren't going to be found. As a result less nice caches are placed.

[+sbell111]

The only cache a cop has ever stopped me at was a rural cache in the desert. The area was known for a place to abandon stolen cars.

The only time that I was ever approached by the police while caching, I was looking for a virt. Of course, by approached, I mean that he yelled at me from a moving car.

[+Too Tall John]

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

Apparently the name callers have not stopped, and have once again changed the name they're using to insult us.

Wait... which is it again? A beloved term, or an insult?

 

You can't call foul for a name you wear as a badge.

I don't accept any term that was flung as an insult to be a badge.

Ok, then I wasn't talking to you. At the time, it seemed like Mushtang was trying to say differently. As it was completely off topic, we took it to PMs, resolved (most) of our differences, and are now best buds. Right, Mushtang?

 

So, sbell111, how would you define "spew"? In relation to caches, of course, as I think your first answer would be something to the effect of "People throwing labels around on other people!"

 

Edited to clarify: The italicized portion is key to understanding what I just said. Mushtang and I worked out that, while it seemed to me that was what was said, it was, in fact not what was meant.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Too Tall John

[Mushtang]

In my opinion the feature wouldn't work as expected...

I agree. I see far too many obstacles to overcome before it remotely becomes useful, some of which include:

• It relies on Groundspeak creating useful reason categories. When attributes where created I think they missed a very import one--"reading the cache page is required" or at least the opposite "reading the cache page not required."
  
• Enough cache owners actually using the feature. If a certain critical mass don't then the feature would be ignored. It would be hard work for some folks to go back and actually use the feature. What's the percentage of caches that don't have attributes? (~raises hand~ Guilty as charged.) Some folks tend to be lazy.
  
• Getting the cache owners to properly understand the feature and properly categorize the cache. Remember the SCUBA fiasco in attributes? (Caches marked as SCUBA yet not remotely SCUBA caches.)
  
• Besides simply understanding and properly categorizing the cache an owner might deliberately mis-categorize it as some are doing with size now.
  
• The finders have no input.
  

Agreed. Wow, this is only the second time this has happened I think.

 

A FAR more useful feature, and one that would be easier to provide, is to improve the search engine. If we had the ability to do a keyword search in the descriptions instead of just in the cache name, folks would be able to return (or eliminate) caches based on words like "hike", "drive by", "scenic", etc. These keywords are already in most cache descriptions.

 

This wouldn't eliminate 100% of caches someone doesn't like, and wouldn't keep 100% of caches that someone would like, so for some people this wouldn't work either. I'd even say that this would be less useful than the SBell111 method, but better than the "Reasons for cache hide" method.

[+sbell111]

Can you honestly tell me you have never said, "I feel like a long hike today, I wonder what caches would fit the bill", or "I have a half hour at lunch and I'm wearing a business suit. I wonder what caches I could hit without risk of muddying my shoes", or something like that? I certainly have, pretty much every time I cache, and I think what we're talking about would be a big improvement over what's available for that kind of filtering. If I want a long hike, even if only one person in the area has marked their cache as a long hike, it's succeeded in helping find a suitable cache. ...

I've asked myself those questions, on occasion. I've found that PQs can be easily run to give me the answers (within acceptable tolerances).

 

Combining the "new numbers game", with "micro spew" has created a large group of nice caches that are actively skipped. A good portion of cachers are more interested in park and grabs, rather than park and hikes. Those cachers who hide nice caches (myself included) question why we should hide nice caches in nice locations, if they aren't going to be found. As a result less nice caches are placed.

I believe that you are assuming that everyone likes that sme types of caches that you do. On one hand, you admit that a 'good portion of cachers are more interested in park and grabs, rather than park and hikes.' On the other hand, you state that this results in 'nice caches' being skipped and, therefore, fewer 'nice caches' being placed. The thing is, whether a cache is 'nice' is in the eye of the finder. If, as you've stated, that finders prefer 'park and grabs' over 'park and hikes', then it must follow that they believe that 'park and grabs' are 'nice caches'.

 

I'm all for the promotion of sorting techniques that would allow a particular cacher to have a greater chance of enjoying the caches that they look for, but I am completely against the idea that caches that some people don't like must, in some way, go away (which is what I'm getting from your post, since your thesis appears to be that their existence causes less 'nice' caches to be hidden).

[+sbell111]

...So, sbell111, how would you define "spew"? In relation to caches, of course, as I think your first answer would be something to the effect of "People throwing labels around on other people!"

 

Edited to clarify: The italicized portion is key to understanding what I just said. Mushtang and I worked out that, while it seemed to me that was what was said, it was, in fact not what was meant.

I wouldn't.

 

You see, I believe that people place caches that they would like to find. The caches are further legitimized when other people find and enjoy them. Just because some people don't like them is no reason to rail against them. Therefore, there is no such thing as 'spew', in my opinion.

[+Kit Fox]

 

Combining the "new numbers game", with "micro spew" has created a large group of nice caches that are actively skipped. A good portion of cachers are more interested in park and grabs, rather than park and hikes. Those cachers who hide nice caches (myself included) question why we should hide nice caches in nice locations, if they aren't going to be found. As a result less nice caches are placed.

 

I'm all for the promotion of sorting techniques that would allow a particular cacher to have a greater chance of enjoying the caches that they look for, but I am completely against the idea that caches that some people don't like must, in some way, go away (which is what I'm getting from your post, since your thesis appears to be that their existence causes less 'nice' caches to be hidden).

 

I've never advocated a ban on caches, but I do support a better filtering system.

[+Too Tall John]

If we had the ability to do a keyword search in the descriptions instead of just in the cache name, folks would be able to return (or eliminate) caches based on words like "hike", "drive by", "scenic", etc.

Hmm...

 

I like it. Nice and simple. That could be useful for other reasons, too. There was a thread in the New England area recently where someone was asking for Harry Potter themed caches. To search by title, you'd have to enter every character's name or you'd miss caches with titles like "Hagrid's Walking Stick." This proposal would reduce that issue.

 

Even more useful, if you could perform such a search within a state or from a point. Do a keyword search & frequently 99% of the caches that'll pop up are out of your traveling radius. Maybe add a keyword search to PQ's.

 

As a general search option, what would any of these suggestions do to server load? In the "Harry Potter" scenario, it would reduce overall searches if one were to have to enter all the possible keywords that would cover the topic...

[Dinoprophet]

A FAR more useful feature, and one that would be easier to provide, is to improve the search engine. If we had the ability to do a keyword search in the descriptions instead of just in the cache name, folks would be able to return (or eliminate) caches based on words like "hike", "drive by", "scenic", etc. These keywords are already in most cache descriptions.

 

This wouldn't eliminate 100% of caches someone doesn't like, and wouldn't keep 100% of caches that someone would like, so for some people this wouldn't work either. I'd even say that this would be less useful than the SBell111 method, but better than the "Reasons for cache hide" method.

That would be awesome indeed. It also ties in to CR's idea for tags.

[+Too Tall John]

...So, sbell111, how would you define "spew"? In relation to caches, of course, as I think your first answer would be something to the effect of "People throwing labels around on other people!"

I wouldn't.

 

You see, I believe that people place caches that they would like to find. The caches are further legitimized when other people find and enjoy them. Just because some people don't like them is no reason to rail against them. Therefore, there is no such thing as 'spew', in my opinion.

Good answer. I think I agree with it on some level, as I continue to put the word "spew" in quotes. Edited September 11, 2007 by Too Tall John

[+Team GeoBlast]

I understand that TG believes the thread has progressed. My point is that a more constructive thread needs to be posted to accomplish that end.... If that could ever be accomplished.

Actually, traildad has started a thread in the Geocaching.com forums to discuss his idea for adding a "reason placed" or "location type" to the cache submission page. People could then filter out urban (or non-urban) hides that were placed in locations they don't like to look in. I don't hold much hope that we could agree on the "location type" or "reasons for placing caches", but it certainly could help with those who simply want to skip what they consider spew without missing out on all 1/1 urban hides.

 

I think this is what people have been asking for.

[+tozainamboku]

Combining the "new numbers game", with "micro spew" has created a large group of nice caches that are actively skipped. A good portion of cachers are more interested in park and grabs, rather than park and hikes. Those cachers who hide nice caches (myself included) question why we should hide nice caches in nice locations, if they aren't going to be found. As a result less nice caches are placed.

When I began hiding caches back in 2003, I made a decision to hide only higher terrain hiking caches. Why? First of all because this was the type of hide I liked doing. Second, even in 2003 you could already see that more people were hiding and finding urban caches. It seem clear to me that plenty of people were hiding the kinds of caches they liked to find and that meant there were going to be mostly urban caches. So I decided to hide only hiking caches - the kind of caches I prefered finding. When my first cache was not found for three week after being published, I also realized that fewer people were going to after a high terrain hiking cache. I've even hiden a few caches out close to Kit Fox's area. He hasn't found them yet - maybe I shouldn't hide any more . I don't expect a lot of finds when the temperature is triple digits.

 

One may argue that the difference between then and now is that urban locations are less inspiring now and that there are many more urban caches. I disagree with the first part. One of the first urban caches I found was a micro in a newsrack hidden around the corner from my house. And I found many caches in guardrails and in parking lots. The second part is true. There are many more urban caches. But there are also many more hiking caches than when I started. There are even many more urban caches in "nice" locations like parks.

 

It may be that some numbers cachers actively skip some caches when they do their "power caching" run. This is because they enjoy puting together a plan to find as many caches as possible by eliminating caches that have had a few DNFs or that require walking more that .1 mile from parking and then executing that plan. This is what they like to do. Other cachers like to find every cache within a certain radius. Some only look for hiking caches and skip urbans altogether. The only people who have a problem are the people who want to find every "above average" cache and skip all the "below average" caches. Since each individual is going to rate caches differently there is no way to filter only the cache an individual thinks are above average. By doing a lot of reasearch, one can improve the ratio of above average to below average. Perhaps an affinity rating system could help recommend the above average caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

My understanding was that the NPS didn't like the idea of the possibility of caches being buried all over the place. That's when that guideline came along, a little too late.

Actually, I think their concern was caches leading to social trails and people off-trail in areas that are sensitive (plants, soil compaction, etc.) or dangerous. The lack of permission was also a huge issue.

The NPS tends to manage some of the most heavily visited lands in the country. The act of inviting all those people, creates a need to manage them to limit the impact so the parks remain viable in the long run. While I don't like the NPS stand on caches, I do understand the problem they face.

[+Kit Fox]

 

When I began hiding caches back in 2003, I made a decision to hide only higher terrain hiking caches. Why? First of all because this was the type of hide I liked doing. Second, even in 2003 you could already see that more people were hiding and finding urban caches. It seem clear to me that plenty of people were hiding the kinds of caches they liked to find and that meant there were going to be mostly urban caches. So I decided to hide only hiking caches - the kind of caches I prefered finding. When my first cache was not found for three week after being published, I also realized that fewer people were going to after a high terrain hiking cache. I've even hiden a few caches out close to Kit Fox's area. He hasn't found them yet - maybe I shouldn't hide any more . I don't expect a lot of finds when the temperature is triple digits.

 

I haven't figured out your puzzle yet, and i'll be hunting "lame cache" when I make "Ross Mountain" my 1100th find

[+TrailGators]

A FAR more useful feature, and one that would be easier to provide, is to improve the search engine. If we had the ability to do a keyword search in the descriptions instead of just in the cache name, folks would be able to return (or eliminate) caches based on words like "hike", "drive by", "scenic", etc. These keywords are already in most cache descriptions.

 

This wouldn't eliminate 100% of caches someone doesn't like, and wouldn't keep 100% of caches that someone would like, so for some people this wouldn't work either. I'd even say that this would be less useful than the SBell111 method, but better than the "Reasons for cache hide" method.

That would be awesome indeed. It also ties in to CR's idea for tags.

I agree this is a good idea. It's nice to see that we are starting to work together to improve the fun for everyone.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Combining the "new numbers game", with "micro spew" has created a large group of nice caches that are actively skipped. A good portion of cachers are more interested in park and grabs, rather than park and hikes.

 

Not so. You assume all those who look for what you call "micro-spew" are interested in numbers. You assume they deliberately bypass hikes in favor of racking up numbers. Ive looked for spew, and enjoyed it, without wanting to get numbers. Ive bypassed hikes because of my handicap and not because I wanted to rack up numbers.

 

Those cachers who hide nice caches (myself included) question why we should hide nice caches in nice locations, if they aren't going to be found. As a result less nice caches are placed.

 

The assumption in geocaching has always been that long hike caches wouldnt get the same traffic as urban caches. Just like multicaches get fewer visits than traditional caches. That was not an issue before "micro-spew" so why is it an issue now? If you hide it, someone will come.

 

Cachers should place caches because they want to, not because they want large numbers of finders going to their caches. I would rather have people show up at my caches who appreciate them, rather than those who only cache for the numbers. They leave better log entries.

[+Moose Mob]

Closed on OP's request.