Urban Micro Lovers

[+sbell111]

I will spell out my point. The randomness theory (equal distribution of cache types) is only true for types of caches that take the same amount of effort to hide. There is another theory which states that things tend to go to the lowest energy state (easier to hide). Therefore, if you truly want more variety then it will take more effort to achieve that.

Your theory assumes that all cachers would enjoy finding (and therefore hiding) these 'low energy state' caches. Let's test this theory.

 

How many caches do you own?

Do you primarily enjoy finding 'low energy caches'?

How many of the caches that you own are 'low energy state' caches.

Edited October 16, 2007 by sbell111

[+Moose Mob]

This thread is sooooo predictable. Even the standard "cool it" warning and the standard threat of time off and thread closings.

 

That said, you guys know the drill, so settle down.

 

Please.

 

Thanks.

[+sbell111]

This thread is sooooo predictable. Even the standard "cool it" warning and the standard threat of time off and thread closings.

 

That said, you guys know the drill, so settle down.

 

Please.

 

Thanks.

I'm sorry, I guess.

 

My post prior to your's was not an attack. I was merely trying to politely show the reason that I don't believe that the given theory was correct.

[+TrailGators]

I will spell out my point. The randomness theory (equal distribution of cache types) is only true for types of caches that take the same amount of effort to hide. There is another theory which states that things tend to go to the lowest energy state (easier to hide). Therefore, if you truly want more variety then it will take more effort to achieve that.

Your theory assumes that all cachers would enjoy finding (and therefore hiding) these 'low energy state' caches.

All I said was that it is a key factor. So if the enjoyment level meets a certain "threshold" then the low energy state cache would have a higher likelihood of being placed over a high energy state cache. This is another way of stating that most people tend to take the path of least resistance. It is human nature. So the urban cache distribution is not random. It is skewed by the ease of placing lower energy caches. One could plot the difficulty ratings of an urban area to see this distribution. Where is Markwell when we need him?

[+sbell111]

I will spell out my point. The randomness theory (equal distribution of cache types) is only true for types of caches that take the same amount of effort to hide. There is another theory which states that things tend to go to the lowest energy state (easier to hide). Therefore, if you truly want more variety then it will take more effort to achieve that.

Your theory assumes that all cachers would enjoy finding (and therefore hiding) these 'low energy state' caches.

All I said was that it is a key factor. So if the enjoyment level meets a certain "threshold" then the low energy state cache would have a higher likelihood of being placed over a high energy state cache. This is another way of stating that most people tend to take the path of least resistance. It is human nature. So the urban cache distribution is not random. It is skewed by the ease of placing lower energy caches. One could plot the difficulty ratings of an urban area to see this distribution. Where is Markwell when we need him?

I didn't realize that you were using difficulty as your determining factor, but I think that you are making my case.

 

People that prefer easy caches hide easy caches. Those that prefer hard caches hide hard caches. This allows us to get a good mix of caches for everyone.

 

Either way, it doesn't speak to the OP, which was that urban caches are good. I agree.

[+Moose Mob]

This thread is sooooo predictable. Even the standard "cool it" warning and the standard threat of time off and thread closings.

 

That said, you guys know the drill, so settle down.

 

Please.

 

Thanks.

I'm sorry, I guess.

 

My post prior to your's was not an attack. I was merely trying to politely show the reason that I don't believe that the given theory was correct.

Sorry sbell111, I wasn't refering to your post. That was coincidental. I was refering to the fact that this entire thread, topic and participants is very predictable. As you are aware, this thread will continue without resolution until the conversation gets out of hand and then gets closed.

 

[+TrailGators]

I will spell out my point. The randomness theory (equal distribution of cache types) is only true for types of caches that take the same amount of effort to hide. There is another theory which states that things tend to go to the lowest energy state (easier to hide). Therefore, if you truly want more variety then it will take more effort to achieve that.

Your theory assumes that all cachers would enjoy finding (and therefore hiding) these 'low energy state' caches.

All I said was that it is a key factor. So if the enjoyment level meets a certain "threshold" then the low energy state cache would have a higher likelihood of being placed over a high energy state cache. This is another way of stating that most people tend to take the path of least resistance. It is human nature. So the urban cache distribution is not random. It is skewed by the ease of placing lower energy caches. One could plot the difficulty ratings of an urban area to see this distribution. Where is Markwell when we need him?

I didn't realize that you were using difficulty as your determining factor, but I think that you are making my case.

Difficulty level is one indicator. If someone makes a clever cammoed cache (which is harder to make) then that raises the difficulty level. So we can use difficulty level to get an idea as to how many of these types of urban caches may exist. So if you plotted the percentage of urban caches with difficulty less than two, what percentage should that be IF cache placing was truly random once a certain enjoyment threshold was met as you state?

[+TrailGators]

This thread is sooooo predictable. Even the standard "cool it" warning and the standard threat of time off and thread closings.

 

That said, you guys know the drill, so settle down.

 

Please.

 

Thanks.

 

Moose Mob, I didn't think this thread was heated at all. Maybe it's the way people read the threads without hearing our tone of voice. My tone of voice is calm. I actually thought it was interesting to discuss the dynamics of how/why caches are placed. It has a lot to do with the topic. Edited October 16, 2007 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

I will spell out my point. The randomness theory (equal distribution of cache types) is only true for types of caches that take the same amount of effort to hide. There is another theory which states that things tend to go to the lowest energy state (easier to hide). Therefore, if you truly want more variety then it will take more effort to achieve that.

No one is claiming an equal distribution of caches. It may be true that some people will hide the cache that takes less effort to hide. In particular, people who are overly concerned about the number of caches they have hidden may hide many without putting the effort that TrailGators wants into selecting the location, container, or style of hide. Fortunately for TrailGators, these caches often go missing relatively quickly and since the cache owner has already shown a propensity to avoid work they don't get maintained. Of course LPCs are an exception since most muggles don't look under lamppost skirts (even if they see a cacher doing this) so they can last a long time. I think most cache hiders do try to hide the kinds of caches that are fun for them to find. Some newbies in an area where a lot of one style of cache has been hidden may start out by copying the caches they have found and have had fun finding. But I've begun to notice that as these hiders gain experience and see different styles they tend to stop hiding the kinds that they no longer enjoy - or else they quit caching. I'll start to worry when they are no more fun caches to find and just hold my nose and grumble when I find some that I don't enjoy, knowing the next cache will be more fun.

[+TrailGators]

I will spell out my point. The randomness theory (equal distribution of cache types) is only true for types of caches that take the same amount of effort to hide. There is another theory which states that things tend to go to the lowest energy state (easier to hide). Therefore, if you truly want more variety then it will take more effort to achieve that.

No one is claiming an equal distribution of caches. It may be true that some people will hide the cache that takes less effort to hide. In particular, people who are overly concerned about the number of caches they have hidden may hide many without putting the effort that TrailGators wants into selecting the location, container, or style of hide. Fortunately for TrailGators, these caches often go missing relatively quickly and since the cache owner has already shown a propensity to avoid work they don't get maintained. Of course LPCs are an exception since most muggles don't look under lamppost skirts (even if they see a cacher doing this) so they can last a long time. I think most cache hiders do try to hide the kinds of caches that are fun for them to find. Some newbies in an area where a lot of one style of cache has been hidden may start out by copying the caches they have found and have had fun finding. But I've begun to notice that as these hiders gain experience and see different styles they tend to stop hiding the kinds that they no longer enjoy - or else they quit caching. I'll start to worry when they are no more fun caches to find and just hold my nose and grumble when I find some that I don't enjoy, knowing the next cache will be more fun.

I really do think the pressure to maintain a certain find/hide ratio is another big factor as you state because may cause people to hide quickie caches to get their hide count up. I also agree that newbies are another factor as you also state. A lot of them move on to hiding/finding other types once they get bored with the common urban micro or they quit as you also state. Numbers mania is another major factor. I won't go there. Anyhow, when you start stacking all the factors, it becomes pretty obvious as to what types of caches will dominate. So achieving a balanced distribution (variety) is an uphill battle.

[+sbell111]

... I was refering to the fact that this entire thread, topic and participants is very predictable. ...

agreed.

 

What's the definition for insanity, again? Doing the same thing repeatedly, yet expecting different results?

[+TrailGators]

What's the definition for insanity, again? Doing the same thing repeatedly, yet expecting different results?

Ha! That's why I don't cache near parking lots anymore....

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I will spell out my point. The randomness theory (equal distribution of cache types) is only true for types of caches that take the same amount of effort to hide. There is another theory which states that things tend to go to the lowest energy state (easier to hide). Therefore, if you truly want more variety then it will take more effort to achieve that.

Your theory assumes that all cachers would enjoy finding (and therefore hiding) these 'low energy state' caches. Let's test this theory.

 

How many caches do you own?

Do you primarily enjoy finding 'low energy caches'?

How many of the caches that you own are 'low energy state' caches.

 

I own 27, 12 are active and 4 minimum in the works. I prefer finding mostly low energy caches since I am handicapped. My caches tend to be more high energy since I view cache hides as a form of performance art. I want a certain reaction/ entertainment value for those who find my caches, so I try to make caches that will produce that reaction. I think I disproved your theory though.

[CoyoteRed]

I will spell out my point. The randomness theory (equal distribution of cache types) is only true for types of caches that take the same amount of effort to hide. There is another theory which states that things tend to go to the lowest energy state (easier to hide). Therefore, if you truly want more variety then it will take more effort to achieve that.

Your theory assumes that all cachers would enjoy finding (and therefore hiding) these 'low energy state' caches. Let's test this theory.

 

How many caches do you own?

Do you primarily enjoy finding 'low energy caches'?

How many of the caches that you own are 'low energy state' caches.

I own 27, 12 are active and 4 minimum in the works. I prefer finding mostly low energy caches since I am handicapped. My caches tend to be more high energy since I view cache hides as a form of performance art. I want a certain reaction/ entertainment value for those who find my caches, so I try to make caches that will produce that reaction. I think I disproved your theory though.

Let's not forget that D/T rating does not always coincide with "convenience." Convenience is a factor on many urban caches, all caches actually. "Convenience" comes into play when, for instance, the cache is very remote. It could be a 1/1 traditional PnG, but very inconvenient to visit. This cache could be hit far less often than a much harder cache at a tourist destination.

 

Also, ratings are always for the finding part, not the placing part. A PnG traditional make be a place that is extremely hard to get permission or hide in such a way that it is not muggled. Additionally, the other way around works in this discussion as well. It's fairly easy to hide a very hard cache--needle-in-a-haystack hides comes to mind.

 

Hopefully, this illustrates why I think "energy" or "convenience" doesn't not equate directly to D/T rating.

[+sbell111]

I will spell out my point. The randomness theory (equal distribution of cache types) is only true for types of caches that take the same amount of effort to hide. There is another theory which states that things tend to go to the lowest energy state (easier to hide). Therefore, if you truly want more variety then it will take more effort to achieve that.

Your theory assumes that all cachers would enjoy finding (and therefore hiding) these 'low energy state' caches. Let's test this theory.

 

How many caches do you own?

Do you primarily enjoy finding 'low energy caches'?

How many of the caches that you own are 'low energy state' caches.

I own 27, 12 are active and 4 minimum in the works. I prefer finding mostly low energy caches since I am handicapped. My caches tend to be more high energy since I view cache hides as a form of performance art. I want a certain reaction/ entertainment value for those who find my caches, so I try to make caches that will produce that reaction. I think I disproved your theory though.

Thanks for your input.

 

You kind of disproved both my theory and TrailBlazers'. I opined that 'people hide what they like to find', while TrailBlazers opined that people would tend to hide caches that are somewhat less worthy than the caches that they would like to find. (Truthfully, I don't actually know what he means by 'low energy caches. I assumed that he was just creating a new pithy insult for those caches that he doesn't like.)

 

As I understand your post, you work a bit harder when you hide caches so finders hopefully get a higher enjoyment response than you require for yourself in the caches that you find. (I reallize that I still didn't nail down your position as well as I should have, but I think that I'm close.)

 

As I understand your response, you certainly should be commended. I suspect that many cache hiders are just like you, although certainly all are not. Some probably hide what they like to find and others are like those suggested by TrailBlazers and often hide caches that are smoewhat of lower 'quality' than they typically enjoy finding.

 

In the end, we still get to the same place. A nice variety of caches are being hidden.

Edited October 17, 2007 by sbell111

[WhatUpDog]

Personally, I like geocaches. I have no preference. They are all fun.

[+sbell111]

Personally, I like geocaches. I have no preference. They are all fun.

The ones that I can't find sometimes bug me, but basically I like them all.

[+Zop]

I actually enjoy the "Urban" micro's! I do have to question the safety factor though. Some urban areas can get more dangerous than a rock pile in snake country during certain parts of the day/night. How urban do you mean? Down town NY? SF? Chicago? I'm out here in the west and did a numbers run thru the SF Financial district a while back and came across a few hides I would NEVER attempt after sun-down or alone due to the native (human) wildlife. True though, if you trip and snap a femur, you are more likely to be noticed and even have cell signal than if 20 miles into BLM land. I do like the creativity I come across in the urban setings too. Yup.. #5 can be a royal pain or even very costly in the truely urban areas. #8 is mostly true but there is a much higher risk of other dangers. Broken glass, razor blades, human waste and Hypo's.

[+TrailGators]

You kind of disproved both my theory and TrailBlazers'. I opined that 'people hide what they like to find', while TrailBlazers opined that people would tend to hide caches that are somewhat less worthy than the caches that they would like to find. (Truthfully, I don't actually know what he means by 'low energy caches. I assumed that he was just creating a new pithy insult for those caches that he doesn't like.)

My name isn't "Trailblazers." What you just said wasn't my opinion at all. So please don't paraphrase me anymore.

[+sbell111]

You kind of disproved both my theory and TrailBlazers'. I opined that 'people hide what they like to find', while TrailBlazers opined that people would tend to hide caches that are somewhat less worthy than the caches that they would like to find. (Truthfully, I don't actually know what he means by 'low energy caches. I assumed that he was just creating a new pithy insult for those caches that he doesn't like.)

My name isn't "Trailblazers."

oops.

What you just said wasn't my opinion at all. So please don't paraphrase me anymore.

It would be helpful to me if you could explain how my paraphrase of the position that you gave in post 50 was off the mark. Edited October 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

You kind of disproved both my theory and TrailBlazers'. I opined that 'people hide what they like to find', while TrailBlazers opined that people would tend to hide caches that are somewhat less worthy than the caches that they would like to find. (Truthfully, I don't actually know what he means by 'low energy caches. I assumed that he was just creating a new pithy insult for those caches that he doesn't like.)

My name isn't "Trailblazers."

oops.

You need to read the forum guidelines about personal attacks.

[+sbell111]

You kind of disproved both my theory and TrailBlazers'. I opined that 'people hide what they like to find', while TrailBlazers opined that people would tend to hide caches that are somewhat less worthy than the caches that they would like to find. (Truthfully, I don't actually know what he means by 'low energy caches. I assumed that he was just creating a new pithy insult for those caches that he doesn't like.)

My name isn't "Trailblazers."

oops.

You need to read the forum guidelines about personal attacks.

Huh??? I haven't attacked anyone.

[Mushtang]

You kind of disproved both my theory and TrailBlazers'. I opined that 'people hide what they like to find', while TrailBlazers opined that people would tend to hide caches that are somewhat less worthy than the caches that they would like to find. (Truthfully, I don't actually know what he means by 'low energy caches. I assumed that he was just creating a new pithy insult for those caches that he doesn't like.)

My name isn't "Trailblazers."

oops.

You need to read the forum guidelines about personal attacks.

Can you just drop it, and get back on topic?

[+TrailGators]

That reminds me.....there were two people that I needed to add back to my "Manage your ignored users" list!

Edited October 18, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

In an effort to return to the original topic:

 

I like geocaches.

I like big caches.

I like tiny caches.

I like urban caches.

I like rural caches.

I like geocaching.

I like girls.

I love my wife.

Baby goats, kittens, puppies, and rabbits are cute.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

As I understand your post, you work a bit harder when you hide caches so finders hopefully get a higher enjoyment response than you require for yourself in the caches that you find. (I reallize that I still didn't nail down your position as well as I should have, but I think that I'm close.)

 

You said it better than I did. Im easier to please when it comes to finding, since my main enjoyment comes from having time with hubby. Whether we find a cache or not Im still enjoying that quality family time. As for my hides, I get a kick out of trying to devise a quality cache. And the thrill of knowing that Ive succeeded as I read the log entries. I guess its a mental challenge for me. A process of creation.

 

Now if I can just figure out how to make a unique puzzle cache, I would be happy.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

sbell111:

In an effort to return to the original topic:

 

I like geocaches.

 

Me too!

 

I like big caches.

 

Me too!

 

I like tiny caches.

 

Me too!

 

I like urban caches.

 

Me too!

 

I like rural caches.

 

Me too!

 

I like geocaching.

 

Me too!

 

I love my wife.

 

I love my hubby!

 

Baby goats, kittens, puppies, and rabbits are cute.

 

And my geodoglet too!

[+J10fly]

I definately like nanos but I also like the long hike! I like the real difficuly nanos (really really small ones). I like when they get me to interesting places in the middle of a big city and when they seem to always be in the last place i look! I actually make some really really small ones, smaller than a dime that do really well. Check out some of my cache creations: Jayman Designs

 

Jayman11

[+The Jester]

So achieving a balanced distribution (variety) is an uphill battle.

I'm curious why variety equals balanced distribution (which I see you defining as equal amounts of cache types/diff/terrian - if I'm wrong, sorry, please correct me.). To me, variety means does not mean an equal distribution. If I want a high terrain cache, I'll do one in a day; but if I want a series of PnG caches I may do 10+ in a day. If it were equal (using 10 as an example), then there would be 10 days of high terrain, but only one day of PnG. Now, if all I ever want is high terrain, that sounds good. But if I want variety, I'd want 10 times as many PnG as high terrain - so I can spend as much time with PnG as with high terrain.

[+TrailGators]

So achieving a balanced distribution (variety) is an uphill battle.

I'm curious why variety equals balanced distribution (which I see you defining as equal amounts of cache types/diff/terrian - if I'm wrong, sorry, please correct me.). To me, variety means does not mean an equal distribution. If I want a high terrain cache, I'll do one in a day; but if I want a series of PnG caches I may do 10+ in a day. If it were equal (using 10 as an example), then there would be 10 days of high terrain, but only one day of PnG. Now, if all I ever want is high terrain, that sounds good. But if I want variety, I'd want 10 times as many PnG as high terrain - so I can spend as much time with PnG as with high terrain.

I was only talking about the "difficulty" of urban caches. 90% of urbans are low difficulty. More variety would mix in more higher difficulty/better cammo caches. Even handicapped people would appreciate that.

 

Terrain doesn't apply to urbans since they pretty much have to be low terrain....

Edited October 18, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I disagree. From what I can see, urbans tend to have higher difficulty than rural caches in my area. Most rurals have only a 1-2 star difficulty whereas many urbans are just evil 4-5 stars. Most urbans do have lower terrain, unless you live someplace like Phoenix, where you can have 4-5 star terrain caches easily within city limits. Within the center of the city. We have several mountains/ mountain ranges within the city limits. Several others right on the boundaries of the metro area.

[+Scaber]

To be honest I love all types of caches. I enjoy running around in the woods to find ammo cans. I also enjoy finding a whole bunch of urban caches. Skirt lifter light poles are not my favorite but they give me something to do while running errends around town. When ever I visit a new town I always hit as many caches as I have time for. If my time is limited, most of the time that means finding urban caches. Many micros can also be challanging to find. Love em in the wood, love em in the nbr'hood. It's all good for me (except bush hunts, I loathe those). [] Happy caching, no matter what type of cache you enjoy finding.

[+TrailGators]

I disagree. From what I can see, urbans tend to have higher difficulty than rural caches in my area. Most rurals have only a 1-2 star difficulty whereas many urbans are just evil 4-5 stars. Most urbans do have lower terrain, unless you live someplace like Phoenix, where you can have 4-5 star terrain caches easily within city limits. Within the center of the city. We have several mountains/ mountain ranges within the city limits. Several others right on the boundaries of the metro area.

I wasn't comparing urbans and rurals. Most hiking caches are easy because the hard part is the hike and people don't want to waste time looking when it is the hike they enjoy. Anyhow, I was talking about the distribution of difficulty ratings for urbans. I can only speak for the cities I've been to, but most traditional urbans (non-puzzles) in those cities are 2 or less for difficulty.

[+The Jester]

So achieving a balanced distribution (variety) is an uphill battle.

I'm curious why variety equals balanced distribution (which I see you defining as equal amounts of cache types/diff/terrian - if I'm wrong, sorry, please correct me.). To me, variety means does not mean an equal distribution. If I want a high terrain cache, I'll do one in a day; but if I want a series of PnG caches I may do 10+ in a day. If it were equal (using 10 as an example), then there would be 10 days of high terrain, but only one day of PnG. Now, if all I ever want is high terrain, that sounds good. But if I want variety, I'd want 10 times as many PnG as high terrain - so I can spend as much time with PnG as with high terrain.

I was only talking about the "difficulty" of urban caches. 90% of urbans are low difficulty. More variety would mix in more higher difficulty/better cammo caches. Even handicapped people would appreciate that.

 

Terrain doesn't apply to urbans since they pretty much have to be low terrain....

I was just using those for examples, but if you don't want to answer the question...

 

Why does variety equal balanced distribution (which, since you didn't correct me, you equate to equal numbers of all difficulties). So for every 1* difficult micro, there has to be one of every other grade? So there has to be as many 5* as 1*? A 4* could take multiple days/trips to complete (clayjar system definition), so switch high terrain for 4/5* difficult caches in my example above. It still comes out that there needs to be more lower diff caches than high diff.

[+ventura_kids]

I love Urban caches too.

 

AND.... I once found a very clever LPH (lamp post hide).

 

I lifted the skirt and saw nothing.

As I lowered my face to look up under the skirt (placing my face within a foot of the skirt), a giant rubbery spider was up under there, wiggling its legs!

Now, logic would have me believe it was a big fake spider, but my screaming, jumping and running would have you believe otherwise.

Just as I decided it was fake, it fell out and bounced off the lamp post base, wiggling, and rolling onto my shoe.

 

My point - Even a lampost hide can be clever

[+TrailGators]

So achieving a balanced distribution (variety) is an uphill battle.

I'm curious why variety equals balanced distribution (which I see you defining as equal amounts of cache types/diff/terrian - if I'm wrong, sorry, please correct me.). To me, variety means does not mean an equal distribution. If I want a high terrain cache, I'll do one in a day; but if I want a series of PnG caches I may do 10+ in a day. If it were equal (using 10 as an example), then there would be 10 days of high terrain, but only one day of PnG. Now, if all I ever want is high terrain, that sounds good. But if I want variety, I'd want 10 times as many PnG as high terrain - so I can spend as much time with PnG as with high terrain.

I was only talking about the "difficulty" of urban caches. 90% of urbans are low difficulty. More variety would mix in more higher difficulty/better cammo caches. Even handicapped people would appreciate that.

 

Terrain doesn't apply to urbans since they pretty much have to be low terrain....

I was just using those for examples, but if you don't want to answer the question...

 

Why does variety equal balanced distribution (which, since you didn't correct me, you equate to equal numbers of all difficulties). So for every 1* difficult micro, there has to be one of every other grade? So there has to be as many 5* as 1*? A 4* could take multiple days/trips to complete (clayjar system definition), so switch high terrain for 4/5* difficult caches in my example above. It still comes out that there needs to be more lower diff caches than high diff.

Let's look at a simple example. There is a Town A with 9 caches. All nine of them are 1.0 difficulty. There is Town B also with 9 caches. There are is one of each: 1,1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0. Which town has more variety? These towns are extremes. IMO most towns tend to have far more caches in the lower difficulty range more like Town A.

 

Another way to look at it would be a bag of Jelly beans. If you opened the bag and saw that half of the jellybeans were white ones then you would know that you got a bag with a poor selection/variety. The ideal bag would have more equal amounts of each color. They don't have to be equal just more balanced. By the way, I'll take the red and black jelly beans!

[+TrailGators]

My point - Even a lampost hide can be clever

I agree that any cache can be made to be clever. Edited October 19, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

So achieving a balanced distribution (variety) is an uphill battle.

I'm curious why variety equals balanced distribution (which I see you defining as equal amounts of cache types/diff/terrian - if I'm wrong, sorry, please correct me.). To me, variety means does not mean an equal distribution. If I want a high terrain cache, I'll do one in a day; but if I want a series of PnG caches I may do 10+ in a day. If it were equal (using 10 as an example), then there would be 10 days of high terrain, but only one day of PnG. Now, if all I ever want is high terrain, that sounds good. But if I want variety, I'd want 10 times as many PnG as high terrain - so I can spend as much time with PnG as with high terrain.

I was only talking about the "difficulty" of urban caches. 90% of urbans are low difficulty. More variety would mix in more higher difficulty/better cammo caches. Even handicapped people would appreciate that.

 

Terrain doesn't apply to urbans since they pretty much have to be low terrain....

I was just using those for examples, but if you don't want to answer the question...

 

Why does variety equal balanced distribution (which, since you didn't correct me, you equate to equal numbers of all difficulties). So for every 1* difficult micro, there has to be one of every other grade? So there has to be as many 5* as 1*? A 4* could take multiple days/trips to complete (clayjar system definition), so switch high terrain for 4/5* difficult caches in my example above. It still comes out that there needs to be more lower diff caches than high diff.

Let's look at a simple example. There is a Town A with 9 caches. All nine of them are 1.0 difficulty. There is Town B also with 9 caches. There are is one of each: 1,1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0. Which town has more variety? These towns are extremes. IMO most towns tend to have far more caches in the lower difficulty range more like Town A.

 

Another way to look at it would be a bag of Jelly beans. If you opened the bag and saw that half of the jellybeans were white ones then you would know that you got a bag with a poor selection/variety. The ideal bag would have more equal amounts of each color. They don't have to be equal just more balanced. By the way, I'll take the red and black jelly beans!

A couple of thoughts:

• Town A doesn't exist, but if it did, I would argue that the people who live there must enjoy easy-peasy caches.
  
• You also don't really address Jester's original point. Given that some people prefer easy ones and some prefer hard ones and that easy ones tend to be found quickly while hard ones tend to take a long time to find, why would you expect there to be a normal distribution of caches? I would expect easy caches to outnumber hard caches by something like ten to one (or more!). This would still allow those people who like either kind to obtain an equal number of days' happiness out of the caches that they enjoy.
  

Either way, this thread isn't about the 'fair' distribution of caches. It is actually about the reasons that people enjoy urban micros.

Edited October 19, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team Cotati]

Urban micros are an embarrassment to the game and its players.

 

I do not like them.

[+The Jester]

<snip out the part that is about what I was going to write - thanks!>

 

Either way, this thread isn't about the 'fair' distribution of caches. It is actually about the reasons that people enjoy urban micros.

I thought it might be a quick question, but...

 

I suppose any discussion about why something is enjoyed, will bring up the opposite - why something isn't enjoyed.

[+tozainamboku]

Let's look at a simple example. There is a Town A with 9 caches. All nine of them are 1.0 difficulty. There is Town B also with 9 caches. There are is one of each: 1,1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0. Which town has more variety? These towns are extremes. IMO most towns tend to have far more caches in the lower difficulty range more like Town A.

 

Another way to look at it would be a bag of Jelly beans. If you opened the bag and saw that half of the jellybeans were white ones then you would know that you got a bag with a poor selection/variety. The ideal bag would have more equal amounts of each color. They don't have to be equal just more balanced. By the way, I'll take the red and black jelly beans!

Huh?

As far as I know there is no town with all 1 star difficulty caches. There probably are places with mostly 1 star caches. But some of these will be magnetic hide-a-keys under park bences, some will be LPCs, and some will be small containers hidden in a knot hole in a tree. There will be mostly traditional hides, but there will be one or two multis and perhaps a puzzle cache. If you're lucky there may be a grandfathered virtual. You seem to think that everybody needs to find every cache or eat every jelly bean. Sure if I didn't like white jelly beans I would be disappointed that half the bag was white. But I would sit and pick out the red ones that I really like and after that would find the green ones and yellow ones and pink ones. And if I ate a few white ones by mistake I wouldn't be so disappointed. sbell111 may argue that if there are too many of one type of cache its because there are people who like that type of cache and therefore are hiding them. From my experience there are more of these easy cache because more people find them. Easy caches tend to have lots of logs. Make a cache a multi or a puzzle or even a devious hide and the number logs go down quickly. Somebody is eating the white jelly beans.

[+TrailGators]

Let's look at a simple example. There is a Town A with 9 caches. All nine of them are 1.0 difficulty. There is Town B also with 9 caches. There are is one of each: 1,1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0. Which town has more variety? These towns are extremes. IMO most towns tend to have far more caches in the lower difficulty range more like Town A.

 

Another way to look at it would be a bag of Jelly beans. If you opened the bag and saw that half of the jellybeans were white ones then you would know that you got a bag with a poor selection/variety. The ideal bag would have more equal amounts of each color. They don't have to be equal just more balanced. By the way, I'll take the red and black jelly beans!

Huh?

As far as I know there is no town with all 1 star difficulty caches. There probably are places with mostly 1 star caches. But some of these will be magnetic hide-a-keys under park bences, some will be LPCs, and some will be small containers hidden in a knot hole in a tree. There will be mostly traditional hides, but there will be one or two multis and perhaps a puzzle cache. If you're lucky there may be a grandfathered virtual. You seem to think that everybody needs to find every cache or eat every jelly bean. Sure if I didn't like white jelly beans I would be disappointed that half the bag was white. But I would sit and pick out the red ones that I really like and after that would find the green ones and yellow ones and pink ones. And if I ate a few white ones by mistake I wouldn't be so disappointed. sbell111 may argue that if there are too many of one type of cache its because there are people who like that type of cache and therefore are hiding them. From my experience there are more of these easy cache because more people find them. Easy caches tend to have lots of logs. Make a cache a multi or a puzzle or even a devious hide and the number logs go down quickly. Somebody is eating the white jelly beans.

I didn't say that the extremes existed and that wasn't the point. The point was that there is a range that exist between those two extremes. Most urbans are the easy type for a variety of reasons besides "enjoyment." You said it's because people like to read a lot of logs. I agree that this could be part of it. I said is also because easy urbans take very little effort to hide. People can easily hide 10 of those in one afternoon driving from one parking lot to the next. They can crank up their hide count really fast doing that. If it took no extra effort to hide great clever urban cammo caches the population of those would increase. The enjoyment thing is relative. There are types of urbans that many more people enjoy and ones that many do not enjoy (reference OP). It is my experience that types that most people enjoy take more time and effort to place or they have a special location that "wows" people. Edited October 19, 2007 by TrailGators