What's the problem with micros?

[+GrateBear]

Why don't cachers like micros? I have found so many that were really clever, not all of them found on the first search. There are some really clever people out there who hide them in plain sight, and it takes some time to figure out where they are.

Most of the "ammo cans" I've found have been really easy to locate. I have yet to find more than a couple that would be classified as "clever", although I know there are many out there.

I'd much rather search for a micro in an urban location, instead of walking through hot, humid, bug-ridden locations.

[mrbeachroach]

I totaly understand. I like them all. What I don't like is the kind of micros that you know where they are, that are in moldy film conisters under lamp skirts,. I love all creative caches, we need more of them.

[+meralgia]

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=178682#

[+briansnat]

Short answer, because most micros are hidden with little thought.

[+StarBrand]

Many micros are tossed out because they are cheap or free in nature with little forethought and little intention of maintenance. I cache to discover places I did not know about and have passed my whole life. I generally do not cache to find cleverly hidden objects. I actually don't like spending an hour or two looking for some tiny bump diferent from the others on some group of signs on a street corner. I'd like to see the bar raised above that.

 

Not all micros are that way - but many of them are. I've been to some very memorable ones.

[+Kabuthunk]

As the above two mentioned... around these parts, about 75% of all micros is:

 

micro = film canister hidden in foresty area.

 

Thanks, but stuffing a film canister under a log doesn't exactly fill me with joy. I don't like searching 3.7 trillion spots that you could have crammed a film canister.

 

The other 25% though are friggin' awesome, and some of the most memorable I've done. But unfortunately... the majority tends to overshadow the minority when the term 'micro' is mentioned.

[+msrubble]

They are easy to hide, but hard to find.

 

No swag.

 

No room for travel bugs or geocoins.

[+fairyhoney]

I really don't mind micros !

[+robert]

The only problem I have with micros is all the threads about them, including the one with 231 posts in it started a week or so ago. meralgia linked to it above, there's plenty in there to keep you busy and answer your question.

[+Snoogans]

Short answer, because most micros are hidden with little thought.

 

WOW. I suppose most blonds are dumb too, or any other specious statement one could make.

[+sbell111]

The only problem I have with micros is all the threads about them, including the one with 231 posts in it started a week or so ago. meralgia linked to it above, there's plenty in there to keep you busy and answer your question.

Sadly, quite a bit of what's 'in there' was trolling by someone who was found to be disingenuous.

 

To the topic, I like micros very much. In fact, I like all caches.

 

Some people state that they don't care for micros because they are often not hidden in a great location. It turns out that I've found loads of non-micros that were also not hidden in awe inspiring spots. In my opinion, a micro in a Wal-Mart parking lot is better than a larger cache hidden 40 feet down a litter-strewn trail that turns out to be a mosquito and chigger feeding ground. Many others will disagree with me.

 

Some people don't care for micros because they typically don't have any tradeables. Strangely, we've all read tons of threads lamenting that caches are always full of carp and explaining that many cachers don't even trade anymore.

 

Some people have complained that there are more micros being listed than larger caches and that they fear that micros will somehow 'take over'. The simple fact is that there are still lots of other caches to find. If someone who hated micros simply had them sorted out of their PQs, one would expect them to play on blissfully. Also, it should be mentioned that since micros tend to be more likely to be placed in muggle-rich areas, they go missing faster. The fact that more micros are listed does not necessarily mean that there will be more active micros.

 

Some people complain that micros are placed because they are cheaper and require less thought. I suppose that these people have never found a cache created from a piece of gladware (or other freebie container that the cacher found around his house), filled with stuff from the junk drawer, and placed at some random location. (I know that the description sounds like the very first cache, but that's not what I was thinking of.)

 

One of the best things about this game is that we can each get whatever we want out of it. All you have to do is have the right attitude and take steps to sort in only the ones that you are pretty darn sure that you'll enjoy (if you won't be happy going after them all).

 

Hide what you like; search for what you like.

Edited December 11, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

It's certainly true that all sizes of caches can be trache, but my experience tells me that the majority are micros. I'm wondering if that's the experiences of other's as well. Perhaps that's the reason folks are down on micros?

[+sbell111]

It's certainly true that all sizes of caches can be trache, but my experience tells me that the majority are micros. I'm wondering if that's the experiences of other's as well. Perhaps that's the reason folks are down on micros?

There are certainly a number of cachers in the forums who agree with you. I think that it's awesome that you have been able to identify those caches that you are less likely to enjoy and super cool that it's so easy for you to avoid them.

 

I don't know why you felt the need to throw out the 'trache' comment. I feel that comments like this one that are only meant to disparage what others enjoy tend to ratchet up forum arguments, rather than to help find middle ground, but whatever.

Edited December 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team Cotati]

It's certainly true that all sizes of caches can be trache, but my experience tells me that the majority are micros. I'm wondering if that's the experiences of other's as well. Perhaps that's the reason folks are down on micros?

 

Right-on!

[CoyoteRed]

I think that it's awesome that you have been able to identify those caches that you are less likely to enjoy and super cool that it's so easy for you to avoid them.

Huh! That's news to me.

 

Considering I like a well placed cache and dislike trache, regardless of size, I can't filter on size as you are implying. I've taken to using GSAK to count the average number of words in a find logs to establish a general feeling of how well any single cache is liked. It's based on how much folks have to say about it.

 

Also, considering I'm still refining it I'm not so sure I'd call it "easy."

[+sbell111]

I think that it's awesome that you have been able to identify those caches that you are less likely to enjoy and super cool that it's so easy for you to avoid them.

Huh! That's news to me.

 

Considering I like a well placed cache and dislike trache, regardless of size, I can't filter on size as you are implying. I've taken to using GSAK to count the average number of words in a find logs to establish a general feeling of how well any single cache is liked. It's based on how much folks have to say about it.

 

Also, considering I'm still refining it I'm not so sure I'd call it "easy."

I guess that it isn't your experience that the majority of these are micros, then. If it were, you would simply sort out the micros and get rid of the majority of caches that you don't like. Edited December 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

It's certainly true that all sizes of caches can be trache, but my experience tells me that the majority are micros. I'm wondering if that's the experiences of other's as well. Perhaps that's the reason folks are down on micros?

Right-on!

That reminds me. There should be a micro hidden here.

 

Edited to add that there is a micro there. This is it.

 

How's that for irony?

Edited December 11, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

I don't know why you felt the need to throw out the 'trache' comment. I feel that comments like this one that are only meant to disparage what others enjoy tend to ratchet up forum arguments, rather than to help find middle ground, but whatever.

I've offered to change my term to something more suitable on at least two occasions, maybe more. The offer was for someone to come up with an adequate term for a cache that is not well liked because of its general less-than-satisfying experience offered. Folks took exception to "lame." "Less-than-satisfying-because-the-owner-gave-absolutely-no-thought-to-the-placement cache" was simply too long. There's been no taker to date.

 

Until there's a new term that conveys the same feeling I'll stick with "trache."

 

Oh, and thanks for editing your post to add a cheap shot at me because of a term I used.

[+sbell111]

I don't know why you felt the need to throw out the 'trache' comment. I feel that comments like this one that are only meant to disparage what others enjoy tend to ratchet up forum arguments, rather than to help find middle ground, but whatever.

I've offered to change my term to something more suitable on at least two occasions, maybe more. The offer was for someone to come up with an adequate term for a cache that is not well liked because of its general less-than-satisfying experience offered. Folks took exception to "lame." "Less-than-satisfying-because-the-owner-gave-absolutely-no-thought-to-the-placement cache" was simply too long. There's been no taker to date.

 

Until there's a new term that conveys the same feeling I'll stick with "trache."

How about 'Caches that Coyote Red doesn't like'?

Oh, and thanks for editing your post to add a cheap shot at me because of a term I used.

My mentioning that you are taking a cheap shot is not, in itself, a cheap shot.

[+robert]

It's certainly true that all sizes of caches can be trache, but my experience tells me that the majority are micros. I'm wondering if that's the experiences of other's as well. Perhaps that's the reason folks are down on micros?

"Real geocachers" hate micros*, so it's a pile-on effect. If so many people are down on micros, why are so many others hiding them? (And more importantly, why do those that hate them so much spend so much time talking about them and participating in threads about them? )

 

Thanks to gc.com for PQs and filtering ...

 

*referring to the attitude expressed by some when they provide reasoning for disliking them, not stating that as fact.

Edited December 11, 2007 by robert

[+Snoogans]

It's certainly true that all sizes of caches can be trache, but my experience tells me that the majority are micros. I'm wondering if that's the experiences of other's as well. Perhaps that's the reason folks are down on micros?

 

Good post.

 

Proof that it's not WHAT you say so much as HOW you say it.

 

My answer is that it depends on the attitude of your approach toward your cachin' activity and I'll leave it at that.

 

My personal attitude varies on the day I'm out cachin. I view all caching as hide and seek and once those needs are met, I'm easy to please.

 

I see no distinction in sizes versus my satisfaction in a hunt.... But that's just me.

[+Too Tall John]

Short answer, because most micros are hidden with little thought.

WOW. I suppose most blonds are dumb too, or any other specious statement one could make.

In my personal experience, most blonds are actually quite intelligent, but most micros (not all, i did some nicely placed ones yesterday) are tossed into a spot "just because."

 

Your analogy falls apart when you try to bring other generalizations that just aren't true into the equation.

I think that it's awesome that you have been able to identify those caches that you are less likely to enjoy and super cool that it's so easy for you to avoid them.

Huh! That's news to me.

 

Considering I like a well placed cache and dislike trache, regardless of size, I can't filter on size as you are implying. I've taken to using GSAK to count the average number of words in a find logs to establish a general feeling of how well any single cache is liked. It's based on how much folks have to say about it.

 

Also, considering I'm still refining it I'm not so sure I'd call it "easy."

I guess that it isn't your experience that the majority of these are micros, then. If it were, you would simply sort out the micros and get rid of the majority of caches that you don't like.

...and then not be able to find the 25% (using someone else's number there...) that are actually cool? Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A bad idea.

[+Royalott]

Why don't cachers like micros? I have found so many that were really clever, not all of them found on the first search. There are some really clever people out there who hide them in plain sight, and it takes some time to figure out where they are.

Most of the "ammo cans" I've found have been really easy to locate. I have yet to find more than a couple that would be classified as "clever", although I know there are many out there.

I'd much rather search for a micro in an urban location, instead of walking through hot, humid, bug-ridden locations.

 

My problem with Micros it that I am never sure if they are really there. Since I rarely swap anything and only sign the book is that I am just never sure that they are even there. I have hunted and hunted and never found squat and then go to the web site and see that three or four others have had the same experience. That makes me wonder if it is even there, which brings me to another pet peeve.

 

I realize I am a newbie complaied to most enjoying this hobby but just why the heck don't some people maintain their cashes?? I hunted a cashe recently that I had already located. I was trying out my new Garmin Map60 and wanted to see how close I could get to it. It took me right to it so the numbers were great. I looked and it was not there. I spent 20 minutes hunting to make sure. I thought it had been moved a little bit but no luck.

 

I went to the web page and saw that the previous poster had found it scattered all over the place. It was reported and nobody tended it. Does this show respect for the hunter? Does the person that hides them and posts the locations responsibility end at that moment?

 

By far the most take care of them but this is just one of my pet peeves

[+sbell111]

Short answer, because most micros are hidden with little thought.

WOW. I suppose most blonds are dumb too, or any other specious statement one could make.

In my personal experience, most blonds are actually quite intelligent, but most micros (not all, i did some nicely placed ones yesterday) are tossed into a spot "just because."

 

Your analogy falls apart when you try to bring other generalizations that just aren't true into the equation.

I think that it's awesome that you have been able to identify those caches that you are less likely to enjoy and super cool that it's so easy for you to avoid them.

Huh! That's news to me.

 

Considering I like a well placed cache and dislike trache, regardless of size, I can't filter on size as you are implying. I've taken to using GSAK to count the average number of words in a find logs to establish a general feeling of how well any single cache is liked. It's based on how much folks have to say about it.

 

Also, considering I'm still refining it I'm not so sure I'd call it "easy."

I guess that it isn't your experience that the majority of these are micros, then. If it were, you would simply sort out the micros and get rid of the majority of caches that you don't like.

...and then not be able to find the 25% (using someone else's number there...) that are actually cool? Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A bad idea.

I disagree.

 

In almost all areas there are more caches available to be found than we actually have time to find. If one is to ignore all micros, he will still have plenty of caches left to find that have a better than 25% chance (using your numbers) of making the cacher happy. Only after the cacher has found all of those caches that are more likely to make him happy should he bother trying to figure out which, of the remainder, to spend his valuable time trying to find.

[+Team Cotati]

It's certainly true that all sizes of caches can be trache, but my experience tells me that the majority are micros. I'm wondering if that's the experiences of other's as well. Perhaps that's the reason folks are down on micros?

 

Good post.

 

Proof that it's not WHAT you say so much as HOW you say it.

 

My answer is that it depends on the attitude of your approach toward your cachin' activity and I'll leave it at that.

 

My personal attitude varies on the day I'm out cachin. I view all caching as hide and seek and once those needs are met, I'm easy to please.

 

I see no distinction in sizes versus my satisfaction in a hunt.... But that's just me.

 

True, we once 'found' an ammo can hidden behind a bronze dedication plaque on the wall of a branch library. Never did figure out how they did that, great hide though.

 

It was eerily similar to one that we 'found' crammed behind a memorial to the fallen soldiers in a small town. That one wasn't an ammo can though.

 

We must have had a really terrible attitude.

[+sbell111]

My problem with Micros it that I am never sure if they are really there. Since I rarely swap anything and only sign the book is that I am just never sure that they are even there. I have hunted and hunted and never found squat and then go to the web site and see that three or four others have had the same experience. That makes me wonder if it is even there, which brings me to another pet peeve. ...

It can certainly get frustrating to search and search for a cache that has actually been missing for some time. As you mentioned, this is a problem with caches of all sizes.

 

What I have taken to doing is using GSAK to not send those caches that have multiple recent DNFS to my GPSr and pda. This way, I won't waste my time on caches that are likely not to be there. Gas is just too expensive to waste a trip on these caches, in my opinion. If later PQs show a find or an owner's visit, I'll then go after those caches.

[CoyoteRed]

I guess that it isn't your experience that the majority of these are micros, then. If it were, you would simply sort out the micros and get rid of the majority of caches that you don't like.

Obvious selective reading and/or memory. I like well-placed caches regardless of size. <--(That's means I like a well-placed micro, too.) I don't want to ignore the good micros, but do want to ignore the bad non-micros.

 

There's a massive difference in getting rid of only part of the problem while also getting rid of the worthwhile caches and attempting to focus only on the problem which are caches that waste my time. The solutions you have offered in the past for eliminating trache in our cache lists, and apparently still do, fail miserably for many of us. Basing it on size or difficulty simply will not do. Period. It's been explained time and time again.

 

Additionally, a ranking of well-liked caches if you consider the number of words written in a find log you will find the caches with the fewest words are micros with a goodly mix of "not chosen" and smalls. Sure, there are a few regulars in there, too, but very few. On the opposite end, the caches with the most words the vast majority are regulars with only a sprinkling of non-regulars.

 

So, unless you're going to refute the long-held notion that length of log is a good indication of how well a cache is liked, then yeah, I think the assertion that most trache being micros* is accurate.

 

*Never mind the notion that many hiders are now trying to hide the fact their caches are micros with mis-identifying the size or simply choosing to not disclose it.

[Dinoprophet]

I don't mind micros, but I have a few things against them:

 

1) I don't like them in the woods because there are too many hiding places, and I don't want to tear the place up looking. I don't care how careful people say they are, you can't lift a rock or a log to look underneath without causing some damage. Micros result in looking under a lot more rocks and logs than a larger cache would.

 

2) I don't like having to stealth. Just not my thing. So I don't like stealthy micros, which is generally what you have with urban caches.

 

While one could argue those two points are not micro-specific, this one is:

 

3) I absolutely detest rolled-up logs. Especially the ones that barely fit in the little button micro caches. They're a pain to write on, and they're a pain to replace properly. I've found two such caches, and it's likely I'll ignore them in the future.

 

That's what I find wrong with micros. If a micro doesn't have those characteristics, I'll probably enjoy it.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[+sbell111]

... My personal attitude varies on the day I'm out cachin. I view all caching as hide and seek and once those needs are met, I'm easy to please.

 

I see no distinction in sizes versus my satisfaction in a hunt.... But that's just me.

True, we once 'found' an ammo can hidden behind a bronze dedication plaque on the wall of a branch library. Never did figure out how they did that, great hide though.

 

It was eerily similar to one that we 'found' crammed behind a memorial to the fallen soldiers in a small town. That one wasn't an ammo can though.

 

We must have had a really terrible attitude.

I'm not sure what your post has to do with problems with micros.

[+sbell111]

I guess that it isn't your experience that the majority of these are micros, then. If it were, you would simply sort out the micros and get rid of the majority of caches that you don't like.

Obvious selective reading and/or memory. I like well-placed caches regardless of size. <--(That's means I like a well-placed micro, too.) I don't want to ignore the good micros, but do want to ignore the bad non-micros.

 

There's a massive difference in getting rid of only part of the problem while also getting rid of the worthwhile caches and attempting to focus only on the problem which are caches that waste my time. The solutions you have offered in the past for eliminating trache in our cache lists, and apparently still do, fail miserably for many of us. Basing it on size or difficulty simply will not do. Period. It's been explained time and time again. ...

It certainly has been explained time and time again. In fact, I tried to explain it just above.

 

It's not about sorting out what you don't like. It's about sorting in what you are more likely to enjoy. I think that those that refuse to try this technique are forgetting that the caches that are not initially returned with these likely liked caches are not lost forever. You are free to go through those at your leisure to locate any babies.

Edited December 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+Royalott]

My problem with Micros it that I am never sure if they are really there. Since I rarely swap anything and only sign the book is that I am just never sure that they are even there. I have hunted and hunted and never found squat and then go to the web site and see that three or four others have had the same experience. That makes me wonder if it is even there, which brings me to another pet peeve. ...

It can certainly get frustrating to search and search for a cache that has actually been missing for some time. As you mentioned, this is a problem with caches of all sizes.

 

What I have taken to doing is using GSAK to not send those caches that have multiple recent DNFS to my GPSr and pda. This way, I won't waste my time on caches that are likely not to be there. Gas is just too expensive to waste a trip on these caches, in my opinion. If later PQs show a find or an owner's visit, I'll then go after those caches.

 

That is a good idea! I use GSAK too. I have to figure out how to ignore those cashes. It will save me a bit of time I am sure. I am ignoring the micro's right now but that is mainly because of the snow cover, everything is just so much harder.

 

I don't get much of a kick out of a micro in a Walmart parking lot where everyone can see the dang old fool wandering around with his cell phone in his hand either. Figure they will be sending the man with the net out for me.

[CoyoteRed]

It certainly has been explained time and time again. In fact, I tried to explain it just above.

And missed, yet again, there are non-micros I want to skip, too.

 

Additionally, not nearly everywhere is as cache dense as where you live. I've been able to nearly clear my 50 mile radius a few times. That might not be possible other places, but it still is elsewhere. So, when I've exhausted all non-micros and attempt to find the micros, I'm left with... what... oh, yeah, trying to filter the trache.

[+sbell111]

It certainly has been explained time and time again. In fact, I tried to explain it just above.

And missed, yet again, there are non-micros I want to skip, too.

 

Additionally, not nearly everywhere is as cache dense as where you live. I've been able to nearly clear my 50 mile radius a few times. That might not be possible other places, but it still is elsewhere. So, when I've exhausted all non-micros and attempt to find the micros, I'm left with... what... oh, yeah, trying to filter the trache.

I feel like a Missouri license plate.

 

Given that there are less than 35 micros within 50 miles of you and that based on your post you have likely found most of them, I don't understand your angst.

Edited December 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+geowizerd]

double post from server error.

Edited December 11, 2007 by geowizerd

[+geowizerd]

I like trading cool and unusual swag, and picking up/dropping off bugs. Those things aren't possible in most micros. Unrolling a little scrap of paper to sign, isn't much of an "experience", to me at least. Give me a big 'ol ammo can full of fun stuff any day!

 

Some like 'em, some don't. As long as you like what you're doing, that's all that counts!

Edited December 11, 2007 by geowizerd

[CoyoteRed]

I feel like a Missouri license plate.

What? No charts to mis-interpret as a comeback? Only a vague "prove it" statement? Sorry, I don't know how to make a chart to show you the figures, but the data is there for anyone to see for themselves.

 

But, suppose I did. What then?

[+sbell111]

I feel like a Missouri license plate.

What? No charts to mis-interpret as a comeback? Only a vague "prove it" statement? Sorry, I don't know how to make a chart to show you the figures, but the data is there for anyone to see for themselves.

 

But, suppose I did. What then?

Read the rest of the post.

[CoyoteRed]

BTW, given that there are less than 50 micros within 50 miles of you and that based on your post you have likely found most of them, I don't understand your angst.

Oh, nice try. Won't work on me as you think it did with someone else.

 

Never mind the fact we no longer log all of our finds or the fact a lot of our caching is well beyond the 50 mile radius. I'm wondering how you're going to determine how many of those micros are on our ignore list. How many are on our ignore list before versus after we found them?

 

Perhaps we get back to the core of the issue and not try to get personal? I mean, after all, I am presenting solid theories, if not hard numbers. You're trying to deflect by questioning my caching habits.

[CoyoteRed]

I feel like a Missouri license plate.

What? No charts to mis-interpret as a comeback? Only a vague "prove it" statement? Sorry, I don't know how to make a chart to show you the figures, but the data is there for anyone to see for themselves.

 

But, suppose I did. What then?

Read the rest of the post.

You mean the part you added after I hit the "reply" button? Just did.

 

EDIT: I should proofread better before sending.

Edited December 11, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+joranda]

Short answer, because most micros are hidden with little thought.

That's not always true. There is as many regular caches put out with as little thought. What I don't like is when they hide micros in the woods when it's in the middle of a downed tree. "Huh, where should I look?" Like a needle in a hay stack. All caches can be fun, but let's put some thought into it.

[+sbell111]

BTW, given that there are less than 35 micros within 50 miles of you and that based on your post you have likely found most of them, I don't understand your angst.

Oh, nice try. Won't work on me as you think it did with someone else.

 

Never mind the fact we no longer log all of our finds or the fact a lot of our caching is well beyond the 50 mile radius. I'm wondering how you're going to determine how many of those micros are on our ignore list. How many are on our ignore list before versus after we found them?

 

Perhaps we get back to the core of the issue and not try to get personal? I mean, after all, I am presenting solid theories, if not hard numbers. You're trying to deflect by questioning my caching habits.

You are the one that brought up your personal issues and the '50 miles'. Edited December 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+elmuyloco5]

 

My problem with Micros it that I am never sure if they are really there. Since I rarely swap anything and only sign the book is that I am just never sure that they are even there. I have hunted and hunted and never found squat and then go to the web site and see that three or four others have had the same experience. That makes me wonder if it is even there, which brings me to another pet peeve.

 

 

It's easy to remedy a good chunk of the ones that are missing by reading the logs ahead of time. You don't need to read all the logs, just a few. Now, it won't help if it hasn't been found in awhile, and honestly any cache can go missing at any time. Really regular sized caches are just as likely to be missing when you search for them. Preparation is the only thing you can do to limit the "wasted" looking you don't like.

 

I don't mind micros, but I have a few things against them:

 

1) I don't like them in the woods because there are too many hiding places, and I don't want to tear the place up looking. I don't care how careful people say they are, you can't lift a rock or a log to look underneath without causing some damage. Micros result in looking under a lot more rocks and logs than a larger cache would.

 

 

I can understand how you feel about having to tear up an area to look for a small cache, but would like to point out that a regular sized cache can cause the same amount of destruction in hiding. You said that moving "one" rock causes damage. How about all the rocks it takes to "hide" the big ammo can, or for that matter any other item needed to camo the hide? I think it's a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" type situation.

[+StumpWater]

One of them is a micro:

 

http://www.wral.com/news/strange/image/215...?ref_id=2152706

 

StumpWater

[+KBI]

"Real geocachers" hate micros...

Then I sincerely hope I never become a "Real Geocacher."

[+robert]

"Real geocachers" hate micros...

Then I sincerely hope I never become a "Real Geocacher."

I was referring to the attitude expressed by some when they provide reasoning for disliking them, not stating that as fact.

[+KBI]

"Real geocachers" hate micros...

Then I sincerely hope I never become a "Real Geocacher."

I was referring to the attitude expressed by some when they provide reasoning for disliking them, not stating that as fact.

So was I.

[+Team Cotati]

Short answer, because most micros are hidden with little thought.

That's not always true. There is as many regular caches put out with as little thought. What I don't like is when they hide micros in the woods when it's in the middle of a downed tree. "Huh, where should I look?" Like a needle in a hay stack. All caches can be fun, but let's put some thought into it.

 

And because it is not 'always true', you are wrong and must be silent.

[+briansnat]

Short answer, because most micros are hidden with little thought.

 

WOW. I suppose most blonds are dumb too, or any other specious statement one could make.

 

Specious? Its a conclusion that I have arrived at empirically.

 

I've met enough blondes in my life to conclude assumptions regarding intelligence based on their hair color is likely to be wrong.

 

I've found enough micros in my life to conclude that most are hidden with little thought.

[+sbell111]

Short answer, because most micros are hidden with little thought.

WOW. I suppose most blonds are dumb too, or any other specious statement one could make.

Specious? Its a conclusion that I have arrived at empirically.

 

I've met enough blondes in my life to conclude assumptions regarding intelligence based on their hair color is likely to be wrong.

 

I've found enough micros in my life to conclude that most are hidden with little thought.

in your opinion. Edited December 11, 2007 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

Short answer, because most micros are hidden with little thought.

That's not always true.....

 

Hence the word most.