Micros in the woods

24.7k · January 21, 2008

At the end of the day a good rule of thumb is to use the largest container the area can reasonably support.

Micro's are seldom that container in the woods.

There just are not all that many people who walk away in disappointment over an ammo can regardless of their other preferences.

January 21, 2008

At the end of the day a good rule of thumb is to use the largest container the area can reasonably support.

Boy, I'm sure some of you folks are gonna hammer the newbie on this, but (I ask respectfully) ... why on Earth is that a reasonable rule of thumb?

If there is, in fact, a reason ... please educate me. But I just don't see it.

I am beginning to think that the underlying question driving this disagreement is: Is geocaching about finding, or trading? If you believe it's about trading, then I can easily see where micros would bug you. For me --- and, I believe, many others --- it's more about finding.

Happy caching,

StumpWater

8k · January 21, 2008

I'll just quote briansnat to respond to a few posts here.....

The added impact of these things on the area is why I don't like them. If I filter them out it doesn't change that.

I understand that this may be partially a regional issue.

Where I cache in southern California many "micros in the woods" are hidden along the trailside in our coastal mountains and foothills. Often they are in parks that restrict off trail hiking. Ammo cans and other regular sized containers are generally hidden some distance off trail and usually placed under a bush of some kind. To find the regular cache, cachers go off trail, often have to bushwhack to get to the cache area, and then wander about, bending and breaking branches till the find the bush the cache is hidden under. To find the micro they turn over a few rocks or examine a bush or tree from the trail to see the film can or bison tube hanging there. Or maybe they look in an old metal gate post to find a magnetic micro. So my experience is that micros have less impact than regulars.

Of course we have woodlands and forests higher up in the mountains and here off trail travel is generally allowed and has less impact (except along certain creeks that are home to an endanger species). There an ammo can under rocks or a pile of sticks might be an easy find, while a poorly thought out micro might have a person wandering around a bit more, perhaps turning over rocks or damaging plants. A responsible geocacher however can still find these micros by thinking about where it might be hidden and carefully searching, making sure to put back rocks or other items they moved while searching. Even many needle in the haystack type hides can be found if the searcher doesn't become impatient. Micros like these should have a good hint the searcher can decrypt before they become impatient and start to act stupid. Even if the cache is missing, a spoiler type hint may help a person decide this is the likely case and accept a DNF.

Both micros and regular sized caches can be placed in areas that are inappropriate because of the environmental impact they have. Most micros in the woods are entirely appropriate so long at the hider has considered what impact the cache might have and has taken the proper steps to mitigate it. To me briansnats objection is nothing but a red herring from someone who simply does not like to search for micros while hiking.

January 21, 2008

If you don't like them, don't do them. If that's all there is to find, use your time to devise new caches (presumably larger ones) and hide them. I know from experience, once you find them all in your immediate area, you have to turn into a hider instead of a finder in order to keep playing the game.

If you are going to hide a micro in the woods, use the space on the cache page to request searchers to abstain from employing the scorched earth tatic. And encourage them to use there eyes more and not their hands and feet. The overriding goal being to minimize the impact on the environment. Hopefully, achieving this, will prevent the governmental bodies from enforcing more rules upon the game. Which I think we all can agree, it good for the game overall.

24.7k · January 21, 2008

At the end of the day a good rule of thumb is to use the largest container the area can reasonably support.

Boy, I'm sure some of you folks are gonna hammer the newbie on this, but (I ask respectfully) ... why on Earth is that a reasonable rule of thumb?

If there is, in fact, a reason ... please educate me. ...

Here is one reason.

Kids like swag. Even folks who don't trade like to check the swag JIC. Micro's are not swag friendly. Again you don't have to trade, but having swag just makes it that much nicer for most. The lack of swag though does turn people off.

Another reason.

The cache is more findable. Sounds Ironic no? But this isn't about DNF's. If all we ever had were DNF's there would be no caching.

Another reason:

Travel Bugs. Micro's are not TB friendly.

The only time a micro is the better container is when the choice is "hide a micro or not hid a cache at all".

Edited January 21, 2008 by Renegade Knight

24.7k · January 21, 2008

... The overriding goal being to minimize the impact on the environment. Hopefully, achieving this, will prevent the governmental bodies from enforcing more rules upon the game. Which I think we all can agree, it good for the game overall.

Reality is that you have to allow for the morons among the finders side of the equation. The doofie who just can't read the cache page and will employ scorched earth tactics anyway. As an owner you KNOW he's out there and going to mess up your cache.

If schorched earth tactics will be an issue a micro is NOT the way to go. Ever. That also gets back to the rule of thumb to use the largest container the area can reasonably support.

1.1k · January 21, 2008

I've never looked for a Micro in the woods, but I will say that I enjoy finding caches, not hunting caches.

A long search is not challenging to me, it's boring, and if I still DNF after the long search I do not enjoy the cache at all. That doesn't mean I won't enjoy the walk and the view but I'll enjoy them more if I find an Ammo can after five minutes of searching than I will if i find a micro after twenty minutes.

1.4k · January 21, 2008

I would venture to guess that people willing to use scorched earth tactics will do so regardless of container type or cache log notes.

January 21, 2008

You don't HAVE to allow for any morons. Each cacher is responsible or him/herself. You can't control how someone caches, but you CAN be a responsible hider and request the searchers for your caches don't practice the scorched earth tatic. Micro in the woods....just to keep on topic.

The dofie is going to use scorched earth regardless of what size the container is. That's if he really is a moron.

Hey, how come morons are always guys?

Edited January 21, 2008 by The NVG

5.3k · January 21, 2008

24.7k · January 21, 2008

You don't HAVE to allow for any morons. ...

Hey, how come morons are always guys?

You don't have to. But if you are going to be a responsible cache owner you should. It won't change that the moron is responsible for the scorched earth they do, but you can make it so that they do less harm.

As for the second, there is some statistical rule about guys. We have a flatter bell curve with wider 'fringes' than women do for most things. I forget the name for it. It means, more morons, but also more geniuses. More Black Kngihts and More White Knights. There are less Average Joe's than Average Janes. So there you go. More morons.

5.3k · January 21, 2008

You don't HAVE to allow for any morons. ...

Hey, how come morons are always guys?

You don't have to. But if you are going to be a responsible cache owner you should. It won't change that the moron is responsible for the scorched earth they do, but you can make it so that they do less harm.

As for the second, there is some statistical rule about guys. We have a flatter bell curve with wider 'fringes' than women do for most things. I forget the name for it. It means, more morons, but also more geniuses. More Black Kngihts and More White Knights. There are less Average Joe's than Average Janes. So there you go. More morons.

I think female morons are called Bimbos

38.2k · January 21, 2008

If you are going to hide a micro in the woods, use the space on the cache page to request searchers to abstain from employing the scorched earth tatic. And encourage them to use there eyes more and not their hands and feet. The overriding goal being to minimize the impact on the environment.

It's not only the scorched earth cachers that are the issue. In given 100 foot circle in the woods there are usually only so many places that you can hide an ammo box but sometimes thousands that can conceal a micro.

Because of this even the most careful cachers will often need to search longer and wider for a micro. Longer and wider searchers will increase impact no matter how careful the searchers are.

I would venture to guess that people willing to use scorched earth tactics will do so regardless of container type or cache log notes.

True that some will, but even in those cases it's more likely their scorching will end sooner if the cache is larger.

You don't HAVE to allow for any morons. Each cacher is responsible or him/herself. You can't control how someone caches, but you CAN be a responsible hider and request the searchers for your caches don't practice the scorched earth tatic. Micro in the woods....just to keep on topic.

A responsible cache owner will allow for morons and try to reduce their impact. A micro in the woods is an invitation to a certain segment to turn over every stone, pull bark from trees and pull apart birds nests and stumps. Granted none if this is exactly a Chernobyl-sized environmental disaster (in fact it's probably less destructive than a single bear looking for grubs) , but it adds up to things that just don't look good should a park official see it.

January 21, 2008

The point is you can't control how searchers search. With the logic just posted, the only safe move is to never hide a cache. Just like in Wargames, eveb the computer figures out the only safe move is not to play.

Scorched earth or no scorched earth...you only can do so much. Play how you want to play and politely request other AREA cachers to do likewise.

Back to the OP, there is a contigent that doesn't like looking for an ammo can in a stump. To them, those hides seem lazy and unimaginative.

In the end, my very first sentence is my final position. If you don't like the type of cache that is hid, don't go after it.

QYB!

24.7k · January 21, 2008

The point is you can't control how searchers search. ...

That's true. However you can factor it in to your hide so that how you know they will search won't cause problems you don't want to see happen.

It's like pinball. You can tilt the machine somewhat to get the result you want.

38.2k · January 21, 2008

The point is you can't control how searchers search. With the logic just posted, the only safe move is to never hide a cache. Just like in Wargames, eveb the computer figures out the only safe move is not to play.

Scorched earth or no scorched earth...you only can do so much.

That is true, which is why it's important to do as much as you can to reduce the possibility of poor practices and damage. Hiding a micro in the woods does the opposite.

24.7k · January 21, 2008

....Back to the OP, there is a contigent that doesn't like looking for an ammo can in a stump. To them, those hides seem lazy and unimaginative....

Lazy and unimaginative? Sort of like a micro in the woods? Or am I somehow missing the higher creative calling that the needle in the haystack approach leads to?

January 21, 2008

....Back to the OP, there is a contigent that doesn't like looking for an ammo can in a stump. To them, those hides seem lazy and unimaginative....

Lazy and unimaginative? Sort of like a micro in the woods? Or am I somehow missing the higher creative calling that the needle in the haystack approach leads to?

That's not the point. I didn't say anything about creativity. The point is too EACH his OWN. Both types of hides have their pros and cons.

January 21, 2008

The point is you can't control how searchers search. With the logic just posted, the only safe move is to never hide a cache. Just like in Wargames, eveb the computer figures out the only safe move is not to play.

Scorched earth or no scorched earth...you only can do so much.

That is true, which is why it's important to do as much as you can to reduce the possibility of poor practices and damage. Hiding a micro in the woods does the opposite.

You can't control morons or bimbos (thanks Vegas!) The overflowing prisons and jails are proof of this. And that's real life. This is just a stupid game I love to play. Do your best to reduce the impact your cache has on the environment and the rest is up to someone else. You CAN'T control how someone else caches.

5.7k · January 21, 2008

My wife and I took my kids caching today. We were going after 3 new caches in a public fishing and hunting area about 30 miles from the house. We took a friend and her child with us, and they had never cached before.

We had already looked for one the other night in the dark. DNF'd it.

We are all out there today in broad daylight. Scoured everything within a 30' circle of GZ. Skunked on all 3. I HATE MICROS IN THE WOODS. I wouldn't have even looked at these except they haven't been found yet.

The day wasn't a complete loss. We went to a nearby town and dropped off a cache I've been wanting to plant, snagged a local virtual, and got a really good small cache on the way home. But micros in the woods STILL suck.

You are quite accurate in your assessment. The best solution is to simply always filter out micros from your cache searches.

1.4k · January 21, 2008

With the proficiency, or lack thereof, that some cachers have you could make the case NO caches should be put in the woods for fear of scorched earth tactics.

5.7k · January 21, 2008

With the proficiency, or lack thereof, that some cachers have you could make the case NO caches should be put in the woods for fear of scorched earth tactics.

Wow! Thanks, I never had considered such a possibility. I never did care much for those scorched earth tactics anyway.

8k · January 22, 2008

The point is you can't control how searchers search. With the logic just posted, the only safe move is to never hide a cache. Just like in Wargames, eveb the computer figures out the only safe move is not to play.

Scorched earth or no scorched earth...you only can do so much.

That is true, which is why it's important to do as much as you can to reduce the possibility of poor practices and damage. Hiding a micro in the woods does the opposite.

Sometimes its better to hide a micro than a regular.

If I hid a micro here , only a moron would not look in the gate or fence post and instead tear up or down the hill. If I hid a regular, people would climb up or down the steep hillside looking for it and causing all kinds of erosion problems and probably create a geotrail. You should consider what searchers might do whatever kind of cache you hide. You shouldn't stop hiding caches because someone might be a moron but if you can vary your hide to reduce its impact than do that. In my experience a micro will often have less impact than a regular. Of course, in some circumstance, a bigger cache that can be easily found is a better choice. Anyone who is say a bigger cache is always better probably just doesn't like micros and is looking for an excuse to tell other people what kind of caches to hide.

January 22, 2008

As the proud owner of a nano in the woods cache, I have to disagree when I hear that this is a sign of a hider that is "lazy" or "cheap". Our hide is part of a series and is a nano glued to a pinecone hidden in a tree in the woods. It takes you on a beautiful hike, contains clues, and hasn't been a really hard find for most (unless there are a lot of unlogged DNFs). We make it clear on the cache page that it is a nano in the woods so that folks have the choice of searching for it or not searching for it. We took great pains to hide it and the feedback on it has been positive. It's been said before and I'll say it again...there is something in this sport for everyone. Hunt what you like to hunt, have fun, and leave the rest for someone else to find!

:unsure:

January 22, 2008

i like micros as long as thier not ''needle in the haystack'' caches....

3.2k · January 22, 2008

At the end of the day a good rule of thumb is to use the largest container the area can reasonably support.

Boy, I'm sure some of you folks are gonna hammer the newbie on this, but (I ask respectfully) ... why on Earth is that a reasonable rule of thumb?

If there is, in fact, a reason ... please educate me. But I just don't see it.

StumpWater

It's not. In fact, one of the great things about micros is they are an appropriate container almost anywhere. It is just a matter of hider preference.

2.5k · January 22, 2008

I would never say just because they hide a micro that that they are lazy. I've seen a lot of thought in some micro hides. :unsure:

3.3k · January 22, 2008

I would never say just because they hide a micro that that they are lazy. I've seen a lot of thought in some micro hides.

Everyone who makes blanket statements is lazy... :unsure:

1.1k · January 22, 2008

I would never say just because they hide a micro that that they are lazy. I've seen a lot of thought in some micro hides.

Everyone who makes blanket statements is lazy...

LOL :unsure:

January 22, 2008

As the proud owner of a nano in the woods cache, I have to disagree when I hear that this is a sign of a hider that is "lazy" or "cheap". Our hide is part of a series and is a nano glued to a pinecone hidden in a tree in the woods. It takes you on a beautiful hike, contains clues, and hasn't been a really hard find for most (unless there are a lot of unlogged DNFs). We make it clear on the cache page that it is a nano in the woods so that folks have the choice of searching for it or not searching for it. We took great pains to hide it and the feedback on it has been positive. It's been said before and I'll say it again...there is something in this sport for everyone. Hunt what you like to hunt, have fun, and leave the rest for someone else to find!

I agree 100%. We too have some micro and nano in the woods type caches. None of which were lazy hides. They took more effort to construct and hide than stuffing some items in a box. All of our caches are clearly labeled and explained so everyone knows what they are getting into. They take you to pretty places or teach you something about the area.

The feedback on our caches shows that they have been very well received. It's just so easy to ignore these caches if you don't like them, there's really no reason to argue about any of it. There are caches that we don't prefer, but understand that many others enjoy them. There is a place for all types of caches so all types of people can find something they enjoy.

24.7k · January 22, 2008

....Back to the OP, there is a contigent that doesn't like looking for an ammo can in a stump. To them, those hides seem lazy and unimaginative....

Lazy and unimaginative? Sort of like a micro in the woods? Or am I somehow missing the higher creative calling that the needle in the haystack approach leads to?

That's not the point. I didn't say anything about creativity. The point is too EACH his OWN. Both types of hides have their pros and cons.

You are right they do both have their pros and cons.

Micros.

Pros:

Can be placed where a larger cache may not work.

Pro/Con

Needle in the haystack hunt.

Cons.

Not TB Friendly.

Not Swag Friendly.

More wear and tear on the cache location.

Larger Caches.

Pros

TB Friendly

Swag Friendly

Less wear and tear on the cache location.

Cons:

Can't place them in some locations due to size.

Can't do a needle in the haystack type of hide as easily.

Overall I have to say that Larger is better. Les cons, more pros and still leaves room for micros.

January 22, 2008

The point is you can't control how searchers search. With the logic just posted, the only safe move is to never hide a cache. Just like in Wargames, eveb the computer figures out the only safe move is not to play.

Scorched earth or no scorched earth...you only can do so much.

That is true, which is why it's important to do as much as you can to reduce the possibility of poor practices and damage. Hiding a micro in the woods does the opposite.

Sometimes its better to hide a micro than a regular.

If I hid a micro here , only a moron would not look in the gate or fence post and instead tear up or down the hill. If I hid a regular, people would climb up or down the steep hillside looking for it and causing all kinds of erosion problems and probably create a geotrail. You should consider what searchers might do whatever kind of cache you hide. You shouldn't stop hiding caches because someone might be a moron but if you can vary your hide to reduce its impact than do that. In my experience a micro will often have less impact than a regular. Of course, in some circumstance, a bigger cache that can be easily found is a better choice. Anyone who is say a bigger cache is always better probably just doesn't like micros and is looking for an excuse to tell other people what kind of caches to hide.

This isn't in the woods, this is on a trail. What I'm talking about is nothing like this. It looked more like this...minus the scary bearded guy...

And for those of you who tell me to filter out micros, you OBVIOUSLY didn't read what I wrote. I often like micros. I plant a micro here and there. I even have a couple of nanocache hides. But they are NOT needle in a haystack hides. THAT is what I was unhappy about. These 3 caches are 10 miles or more away from any other caches. They would have been GREAT places for a small or regular.

My kids each have over 100 finds. My youngest finds most of the caches when we cache as a family. She was disappointed and frustrated after the 3rd DNF in a row. The goal (to her) was not a walk in the woods, it was to FIND caches.

It was a little frustrating to me that day, having taken along a guest and her child who had never geocached before. If we had found some caches, they probably would have been hooked. As it is, they likely will not go caching again, as they don't really see the point...and think MOST hides are like this.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Okiebryan

24.7k · January 22, 2008

... Do your best to reduce the impact your cache has on the environment...

Bingo. That's what we have been saying.

Even though you can't control the finders if you have half a brain you can think about your cache placement and tweak it so that where it's placed minimizes the impact.

Ever wonder why they don't like Rock Wall caches in the UK? Ever seen a keystone type retaining wall after cachers have lifted up all the top pieces? Ever seen an unstable embankment sluffed off into the creek, ever seen scorched earth?

When you have you will still be right that you can't control finders but you would realize why and what you can do to allow for them.

You don't lead a goat into someones garden and tell the owner "I'm sorry I can't control what the goat eats". They won't be impressed. If there is a problem with a cache they are not going to go to the finders, they are going to chew your butt as the owner. You don't have to like it, but that's reality.

24.7k · January 22, 2008

As the proud owner of a nano in the woods cache, I have to disagree when I hear that this is a sign of a hider that is "lazy" or "cheap". ...

Sorry about my post. I wasn't so much trying to bash micro's as counter someone else saying that an ammo can is unimaginative.

Micro vs. Regular for creativity is a non issue. However using size alone to up the difficulty is not all that creative. Anyone can drop a grain of salt on a marble floor and say "find the cache" Not just anyone can find the gap in the tile and custom make a matching container to hide a small log. The two things are very much different.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Renegade Knight

1.4k · January 22, 2008

And for those of you who tell me to filter out micros, you OBVIOUSLY didn't read what I wrote. I often like micros. I plant a micro here and there. I even have a couple of nanocache hides. But they are NOT needle in a haystack hides. THAT is what I was unhappy about. These 3 caches are 10 miles or more away from any other caches. They would have been GREAT places for a small or regular.

It's feasible to "field filter" micros in the woods. I don't think any of us really missed the point. In fact, that's what I found intriguing about StarBrand's first or second reply...what we are suggesting is almost exactly what he described he does, yet he seems critical of the suggestion.

You see on you GPSr it's a micro and you see there is densely wooded area....move to the next cache.

My kids each have over 100 finds. My youngest finds most of the caches when we cache as a family. She was disappointed and frustrated after the 3rd DNF in a row. The goal (to her) was not a walk in the woods, it was to FIND caches.

It was a little frustrating to me that day, having taken along a guest and her child who had never geocached before. If we had found some caches, they probably would have been hooked. As it is, they likely will not go caching again, as they don't really see the point...and think MOST hides are like this.

I can relate to the frustration. I cache with very young kids. And, certainly new cachers might get a bad taste, but nonetheless a real taste of what to expect.

We all can't have geocaching our own way...

January 22, 2008

And for those of you who tell me to filter out micros, you OBVIOUSLY didn't read what I wrote. I often like micros. I plant a micro here and there. I even have a couple of nanocache hides. But they are NOT needle in a haystack hides. THAT is what I was unhappy about. These 3 caches are 10 miles or more away from any other caches. They would have been GREAT places for a small or regular.

It's feasible to "field filter" micros in the woods. I don't think any of us really missed the point. In fact, that's what I found intriguing about StarBrand's first or second reply...what we are suggesting is almost exactly what he described he does, yet he seems critical of the suggestion.

You see on you GPSr it's a micro and you see there is densely wooded area....move to the next cache.

My kids each have over 100 finds. My youngest finds most of the caches when we cache as a family. She was disappointed and frustrated after the 3rd DNF in a row. The goal (to her) was not a walk in the woods, it was to FIND caches.

It was a little frustrating to me that day, having taken along a guest and her child who had never geocached before. If we had found some caches, they probably would have been hooked. As it is, they likely will not go caching again, as they don't really see the point...and think MOST hides are like this.

I can relate to the frustration. I cache with very young kids. And, certainly new cachers might get a bad taste, but nonetheless a real taste of what to expect.

We all can't have geocaching our own way...

Please remember that we drove 30 miles to seek these 3 caches. We knew they were micros, but had no idea they were needle in haystack hides.

Of course I HAVE seen good micro hides in the woods. The Mother Road series across Rt66 in Oklahoma has some matchboxes hanging in a tree here and there. However, a matchbox in a tree is something you can see-from the right vantage point. This is different than a needle in a haystack hide.

I never really got into where's waldo, either, for that matter.

BTW, my OP was not meant to start a great debate about micros vs regulars. It mostly was just a vent. But I still think micros in the woods that we can't find kinda suck. So there. :unsure:

Edited January 22, 2008 by Okiebryan

24.7k · January 22, 2008

...Of course I HAVe seen good micro hides in the woods. The Mother Road series across Rt66 in Oklahoma has some matchboxes hanging in a tree here and there. However, a matchbox in a tree is something you can

see-from the right vantage point. This is different than a needle in a haystack hide....

Ha! Try that at night. In the day you see those as you are walking up. At night...your flashlight is busy on the trail. They are a much harder find.

1.4k · January 22, 2008

Of course I HAVe seen good micro hides in the woods. The Mother Road series across Rt66 in Oklahoma has some matchboxes hanging in a tree here and there. However, a matchbox in a tree is something you can see-from the right vantage point. This is different than a needle in a haystack hide.

I never really got into where's waldo, either, for that matter.

BTW, my OP was not meant to start a great debate about micros vs regulars. It mostly was just a vent. But I still think micros in the woods that we can't find kinda suck. So there.

I don't disagree. In fact, I generally agree that micros in the woods, by and large, are a bad idea...I just find it funny when subsequent posters were getting bent out of shape about people suggesting to avoid them. Like I said before...it's just a preference thing, and it's not my favorite cache type to find or the type I'll hide, but it's just something we gotta deal with. <_<

Too bad you didn't have better luck with your new friends along...no doubt that is discouraging...

January 22, 2008

Last time I was looking for a micro in the woods, I didn't see a retaining wall, keystone, or a goat. I did see some scorched earth and some garbage. The garbage got CITO'd out. And all because there was a micro in the woods.

I imagine the garbage would have got CITO'd if had been an ammo can, too.

Responsible Cacher = CITO

DOOFIE Cacher = Scorched Earth = CAN'T be controlled no matter what the circumstance.

We all know we need to be responsible, but some people just don't care. You'll never change those people. If fact, you only fuel their fire (pun intended) when you bring it to their attention.

January 22, 2008

I personally hate the response "if you don't like micros don't look for them" for two reasons.

1) If I never complain about a situation, I can never expect it to improve/change.

2) I personally do not hate all micros in the woods. I have seen some where every hour spent looking was worth it since the cache was creative and well thought-out. Then there are those where the cache was not worth the spit it took for me to say "how lame". Unfortunately I can not tell ahead of time which kind I am going to find.

20.7k · January 22, 2008

I personally hate the response "if you don't like micros don't look for them" for two reasons.

1) If I never complain about a situation, I can never expect it to improve/change.

Since other people are perfectly happy with most micros in the woods, perhaps 'it' is not what needs to change.

2) I personally do not hate all micros in the woods. I have seen some where every hour spent looking was worth it since the cache was creative and well thought-out. Then there are those where the cache was not worth the spit it took for me to say "how lame". Unfortunately I can not tell ahead of time which kind I am going to find.

In that case, it doesn't appear that your problem is 'micros in the woods'. Perhaps your issue is with 'caches you don't like in the woods' or just plain 'caches you don't like'. Either way, I don't see how personal preferences should cause other people's behavior to change.

1.4k · January 22, 2008

I personally hate the response "if you don't like micros don't look for them" for two reasons.

1) If I never complain about a situation, I can never expect it to improve/change.

2) I personally do not hate all micros in the woods. I have seen some where every hour spent looking was worth it since the cache was creative and well thought-out. Then there are those where the cache was not worth the spit it took for me to say "how lame". Unfortunately I can not tell ahead of time which kind I am going to find.

Two points on this...

1. I can understand not liking that response, but from an Internet open forum perspective both sides are legit being it's a matter of personal preference.

I personally tried to avoid the head on approach of this statement, but I think it's fair to say that it's a valid point even if a bit brash.

2. You can expect it to change or improve without complaining. You can voice your opinion, and rightfully so, without "complaining" (this works both ways).

But, more importantly, you can assist with events and converse with local cachers to lobby for your opinion. Also, you can hide caches that are quality hides that encourage others to hide similar type hides. Even in my very limited caching experience I've noticed "lemming trends" to a small degree.

3.9k · January 22, 2008

2) I personally do not hate all micros in the woods. I have seen some where every hour spent looking was worth it since the cache was creative and well thought-out. Then there are those where the cache was not worth the spit it took for me to say "how lame". Unfortunately I can not tell ahead of time which kind I am going to find.

It can be the same for any type of hide.

I personally do not like all ammo cans under a pile of sticks in the woods. I have seen a few where every hour spent looking was worth it since the cache was creative and well thought-out. Then there are those where the cache location was visible from 75 feet away and there was nothing fun about the cache itself. Unfortunately I cannot tell ahead of time which kind I am going to find.

See what I mean?

On those that I don't like, I don't get upset about it, I realize it's part of the game and I can choose to not let it bother me. The gems are certainly out there. Finding them is part of the fun for me.

18.9k · January 22, 2008

It's feasible to "field filter" micros in the woods. I don't think any of us really missed the point. In fact, that's what I found intriguing about StarBrand's first or second reply...what we are suggesting is almost exactly what he described he does, yet he seems critical of the suggestion.

You mis-understand - it is not enough to simply filter these out on scene. Sure I can skip doing them after I arrive in the field but they still exist. They take up room where a larger cache could be hidden, they waste my time driving to them. They disappoint my young kids. They are often very mis-rated.

.....and most of all - they tend to produce a lot of damage from over excited searchers that want some kind of 7 minute rule for finding all caches. (apologies to v kids)

The filtering doesn't change any of that. They are mostly inappropriate for the setting.

1.4k · January 22, 2008

You mis-understand - it is not enough to simply filter these out on scene. Sure I can skip doing them after I arrive in the field but they still exist. They take up room where a larger cache could be hidden, they waste my time driving to them. They disappoint my young kids. They are often very mis-rated.

.....and most of all - they tend to produce a lot of damage from over excited searchers that want some kind of 7 minute rule for finding all caches. (apologies to v kids)

The filtering doesn't change any of that. They are mostly inappropriate for the setting.

No, I fully understand that entire reply...think you are maybe misunderstanding. The bottom line is it's still a personal preference issue and you can't make that case for every single instance of these types of micros.

Again, I agree with the general sentiment that they aren't generally the best choice, but it doesn't change the facts around the situation.

20.7k · January 22, 2008

I don't think that argument that kids prefer trinkets is compelling, in this situation. If you are geocaching with your children and your kids only like trading caches and you want to keep your kids happy, then you should avoid every micro.

I also am not swayed by the argument that some random micro is 'blocking' a location that could be used by a larger cache. If the location is so perfect for a larger cache, why wasn't a larger cache already sitting there? Laziness, I suppose.

January 22, 2008

It was a little frustrating to me that day, having taken along a guest and her child who had never geocached before. If we had found some caches, they probably would have been hooked. As it is, they likely will not go caching again, as they don't really see the point...and think MOST hides are like this.

I can see your frustration, but I would suggest the next time you take out someone new to caching that you look for a cache that is regular to large sized and with a fairly easy difficulty rating. Most people will tell a new person on here to do just that for the first 10 or so caches. It helps you really get the feel of the game/sport and finding hidden items. Then they would be ready for the harder and smaller type containers.

I can think of several caches that were a complete blast to us now that we've been caching awhile, but we probably never would have found at the beginning. We actually started caching back in '06 when we lived in Hawaii. We tried for one cache and couldn't find it the 4 times we went out. We didn't know much about caching (shoot, we didn't even know there was a website, we got the coords. off of another forum). We thought we stunk at caching and gave up. Turns out, the cache had been muggled. But, the idea of it still intrigued us so we tried again a year later. If you're friends like the idea behind it, I'm sure they will try again. If they don't, they weren't all that interested to begin with.

If you can get them out there again, take them to something easier and aim for the ammo can (lots of caches say that they are specifically ammo cans) so the kiddo can pick from some swag. Who knows, maybe your friend's kids will learn to love the cleverly hidden micro like my kids do.

18.9k · January 22, 2008

I don't think that argument that kids prefer trinkets is compelling, in this situation. If you are geocaching with your children and your kids only like trading caches and you want to keep your kids happy, then you should avoid every micro.

....

Who mentioned trinkets?? My kids just don't like the frustration of searching for a needle in a haystack or of the time wasted driving to cache only to find it is someting we would rather not do.

1.4k · January 22, 2008

Who mentioned trinkets?? My kids just don't like the frustration of searching for a needle in a haystack or of the time wasted driving to cache only to find it is someting we would rather not do.

But those issues aren't limited to these types of caches. At least not when considering the geocaching community preferences as a whole.

I like the example above...I am not overly found of an ammo box buried in a pile of sticks either. It's just part of caching and what you are describing isn't limited to these types of caches specifically.

8k · January 22, 2008

I personally hate the response "if you don't like micros don't look for them" for two reasons.

1) If I never complain about a situation, I can never expect it to improve/change.

2) I personally do not hate all micros in the woods. I have seen some where every hour spent looking was worth it since the cache was creative and well thought-out. Then there are those where the cache was not worth the spit it took for me to say "how lame". Unfortunately I can not tell ahead of time which kind I am going to find.

So you want all caches to be the kind you like to find. Remember that other people may like something else. You are in your rights to come here and tell use what kind of cache you do like. Or even tell us specifically what kinds of micros you find "lame". Perhaps these can be suggestion for people who are hiding caches and maybe some people will accept your suggestion. My suggestion is generally for people to hide the cache they like to find. Then when I find a cache that was "lame" I can at least think that someone would like this cache.

You are correct that there is no system in place to filter out the cache you don't like and leave only ones you do. Sometimes you can compromise. The "don't hunt them" suggestion is one of these compromises. Yes, you miss the micros you do like but since you didn't indicate that you dislike lame regular or small caches, the cache you do find will be fun. Asking other cacher who know you for recommendation may point out some "good" micro for you to search for. Maybe you will find that certain hiders, hide more creative well thought-out caches. Another suggestion that has been made would be for Geocaching.com to institute a Netflix type system where you rate the caches you find and the system finds other caches you might like.

.....and most of all - they tend to produce a lot of damage from over excited searchers that want some kind of 7 minute rule for finding all caches. (apologies to v kids)

The v kids never look for micros in the woods unless they can drive their Jeep right to the cache . If it is going to be a needle in the haystack, I've seen them simply decide to skip the cache and drive to the next one. The seven minute rule does not mean tear up the place to find the cache fast. It means to hunt smart. Observe the area, look in likely places, decrypt the hint early, move on if you don't find it. Damage is more likely caused by those that won't give up till the find the cache or have bulldozed the area to verify there is nowhere left for the cache to be. We need more people to follow the seven minute rule. Micros don't cause geo-damage - moronic cachers who don't use their brains when looking for a cache cause damage.

Edited January 22, 2008 by tozainamboku

Micros in the woods

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment