Anyone else have a problem with Micro's

[+Renegade Knight]

What's the reward for hiding a POC micro on a power transformer behind the China Palace restaurant?

Same as any other cache. The fun you had finding it.

[+KBI]

Let me know the date you plan to throw my pity party and I'll be there.

I never said scorch and burn all the micros. I was indicating that there are others who share the feeling that micros are annoying. I still sometimes find them. I still own one.

But, since I do not express myself properly or you choose not to view my posts as my personal opinions and rather as me making a a blanket statement that the whole sport sucks now and needs to eliminate micros or I'll just split the scene, I will bow out.

Sorry you spent so much time disecting my comments - that is all they are, my views and feelings on the state of the game as I currently (have for some time) see it. Glad you're still rolling in blissfull glee when you cache.

 

It is healthy for me to return to the forums occasionally - just takes a couple posts and I'm reminded why I usually stay away.

Thanks!

Hm. That still doesn't explain how the mere existence of caches you don't seek diminishes your enjoyment of the caches you do choose to seek. I still don't understand.

 

That was your point. You even clarified it for me. There is no reason to let my questions annoy you or run you off. No personal offence intended. If you don't feel like explaining the reasons for your persistent annoyance at undesired caches even after you have chosen not to hunt them, that's fine. I was just curious.

[+shuccrum]

I usually don't like them either. I like finding the cache and seeing what's in it. (Usually not much.) I like leaving something in it.

[+KBI]

I think you are making a risky assumption regarding the reasons people hide and/or seek the kinds of caches you dislike.

There was no assumption when I was told by someone the reason he placed a few caches. Nor is it an assumption when I'm reading the reason for a cache in the cache description. Where do you think I got the term "gift" and the association from? It wasn't from an discussion here in the forum.

You said: "Finding a cache is only the excuse to increment the find count." Your clear implication is that the finders of all those caches you happen to dislike, or at least a significant majority of them, log them for ONLY one reason: to increase their score. I still find this very hard to believe. Seriously, what would be the point?

 

Cachers find caches, in my observation, for many reasons not related to the beauty or interest of a cache location, including the ones I listed: playing with a GPS, being in on a secret, enjoying writing their logs and enjoying reading others' logs. I still say these things, as much as location, are the very essence of Geocaching. Otherwise why would anyone allow the mechanics of caching to get in the way of their sightseeing? What you describe does not square with my own direct observations. It’s going to take a lot more than a couple of undocumented anecdotal instances to convince me to believe your description over my own personal experience.

 

Besides, even if what you claim were true, how would that be a bad thing? What’s wrong with being a numbers hound? How does it harm you if someone else out there likes to find lots of easy caches while you're off hunting the ones you prefer??

 

Wouldn't that effectively be the same thing as bringing back virtual caches?

Pretty much, but with an important difference. The word or root of "cache" will not be attached so land stewards will be a lot less likely to confuse the physical and the non-physical.

 

Was the number of caches you dislike decreasing back when new virtual caches were still being listed?

No, you're confused on the time line. The percentages of caches I feel were not worth my time was still low when virts were being listed easily. These started to rise as virts submissions were limited and stopped.

Based on that, then, I would predict your proposal to create "virtual virtuals" out of Waymarks (include all Waymark logs in geocache find counts) would have the opposite effect from what you desire.

 

Either way, it sounds like you apparently accept my point: Your stated standard that a cache must justify its existence by satisfying your personal preference is only that – your standard and your preference. There are many other perfectly valid standards, preferences and reasons for placing and finding caches. Chasing numbers, for example, is a perfectly valid way to play, and there is no reason to let someone else’s differing definition of quality entertainment bother you. Unless you actually enjoy being annoyed, that is. If being annoyed by other people's harmless preferences falls within your own definition of quality entertainment, who am I to question your personal taste?

 

The problem, as I see it, comes from caches placed for the game of chasing the smilie.

If tolerance just isn't your bag, and if you still choose to view the fruits of others' preferences as a "problem," then I hope you can soon find peace in the very effective method you have been provided which should shield your sensitive and discerning palate from the bulk of that distasteful "problem."

[Rostropovich]

Not a single Micro when I started here, but now they are everywhere. Whats the deal? Gas stations, quicky marts, Starbucks, I hate them and refuse go after them. Lets get back to real geocaching and real cache containers! mad.gif

 

It seems to me that it is not the size of the container, but rather the types of caches that most micros are, i.e.

Urban spots that are exactly alike to the ones you see several times a day that have no difference from the others except that a cache is there. I can still enjoy them; however, I prefer the ones that bring you to unique spots that in themselves are worth visiting. The fact that a cache is there may be the extra incentive that brings you there. To me, unless trading swag or travel bugs is your thing, there is no difference in cache quality that can be judged just by the cache size.

[+sbell111]

... When the entitlement crowd, however, looks around and sees too few of the "correctly designed" caches to which they feel they are entitled, some go out and hide more of what they enjoy – while others go into the forums and complain. I have seen dozens and dozens of demand threads complaining about there being too many of the caches which tend to be enjoyed by the first group, and too few of the caches which comply with the entitlement crowd's more "proper" preferences.

I'm sorry, but I can't sit by and let the obvious inaccuracies in your post go unchallenged. From my experience, threads like this one are created not because a cacher discovers too few caches that he/she enjoys. Rather, the threads are started because the cachers percieves that there are too many of the caches that he/she doesn't like being hidden, regardless of how many caches there are that the person does like or the fact that others like these 'sub-standard' caches just fine.

I think you are making a risky assumption regarding the reasons people hide and/or seek the kinds of caches you dislike.

There was no assumption when I was told by someone the reason he placed a few caches. Nor is it an assumption when I'm reading the reason for a cache in the cache description.

Even if this is true, why are their reasons for placing or finding a cache any less valid than yours?

Where do you think I got the term "gift" and the association from? It wasn't from an discussion here in the forum.

Really?? You started using it after the thread about rude logging when I took the position that all cache hides were gifts.

[henrywilliams17]

hey let's all just chill! micro's are great but let's admit that there has to be some degree of respect involved in the placement of them.here in eastern ky they are far more a test to one's skill's as let's say a larger cache.but as some has said if we continue to invade into gray area's with them we will surely run into trouble.micro's should be treated as a cache just the same,out of sight-out of mind! let's keep this sport on the right side of the fence."USE COMMON SENSE".

[+geowizerd]

Maybe Geocache.com should add another logo sticker. Here's the original:

 

 

Maybe they need to create this one:

 

 

[+Snoogans]

Maybe Geocache.com should add another logo sticker. Here's the original:

 

 

Maybe they need to create this one:

 

 

 

I agree with both of those equally.

 

Plain and simple and without graphics:

 

GEOCACHING = HIDE & SEEK

 

Some folks lose sight of that behind their sense of entitlement and expectation.

[+geowizerd]

 

GEOCACHING = HIDE & SEEK

 

Hey, you're close... It's HIKE and seek!

Edited January 27, 2008 by geowizerd

[+briansnat]

Chasing numbers, for example, is a perfectly valid way to play, and there is no reason to let someone else’s differing definition of quality entertainment bother you.

 

Chasing numbers is a valid way to play. So was the way I enjoyed playing the game. I can no longer play the the game way I once enjoyed it thanks to the spew. If I complain here, I'm told that I have to change the way I play the game. That's my entire point.

[CoyoteRed]

Seriously, what would be the point?

That really is the 64 million dollar question.

• Why do folks read restrictions on the cache page and promptly ignore them to grab a find?
  
• Why do folks brag about grabbing a FTF after posted park hours, much less actually do it to begin with?
  
• Why do folks claim a find even if they didn't actually find the cache? Even claim the find and write they didn't.
  
• Why do folks log arm-chair caches?
  
• Why do folks trample ground zero until they find the cache?
  

I submit all of the above are different symptoms, though not exclusively, of the same drive that causes folks to place caches primarily so folks have an excuse to log it. Really, what is the point? So what if you forgot your pencil or otherwise can't sign the log? Either come back when you can, use an accepted alternate method, or post a note and place it on ignore if you'd rather not revisit.

 

Cachers find caches, in my observation, for many reasons not related to the beauty or interest of a cache location, including the ones I listed: playing with a GPS, being in on a secret, enjoying writing their logs and enjoying reading others' logs. I still say these things, as much as location, are the very essence of Geocaching.

...I suppose these all must be done in parking lots and with micros? Can't happen in nicer settings or on thoughtfully placed caches? This is what we're talking about. Besides, the above would get more pleasure, if that's all you're interested in, from Waymarking. But... Why is it not more popular, then?

 

Additionally, writing logs? That can't be it as there is a direct correlation between the word count of the log and amount of enjoyment one received from that particular cache. I'm sure you're not going to try to tell everyone that folks who chase the numbers are into writing verbose logs.

 

...I hope you can soon find peace in the very effective method you have been provided which should shield your sensitive and discerning palate from the bulk of that distasteful "problem."

I wouldn't say very effective. First, it eliminates the good micros. Second, it doesn't eliminate the small, regular, and large trache. "Better than nothing" is probably a better descriptor.

 

Also, eliminating the micros is not just a product of trying to get a higher percentage of quality caches. As the number of caches in our stomping increases I bump up against the maximum number of caches I reasonably download. Something has got to give. It's logical to me to eliminate the easier choice: micros. Suppose I could have gotten rid of all caches with a terrain of less than 2 and kept the micros, but that would have just moved the problem from one segment to another. Also, considering the majority of the caches I've not enjoyed happened to be micros and not caches with easy terrain, the choice was clear which to remove.

 

Actually, I'm finding that if I take an average number finds over a period and an average word count on the caches I have in my database I can better get a feel of the caches that I would enjoy over others. Unfortunately, even this is not the best solution as I have difficulty getting all of the data I need from Groundspeak. Also, because I'm eliminating all micros from out of state lists, I'm missing what might have been a good cache. I can only work with the tools that are given to me or I can cobble together.

[CoyoteRed]

I think you are making a risky assumption regarding the reasons people hide and/or seek the kinds of caches you dislike.

There was no assumption when I was told by someone the reason he placed a few caches. Nor is it an assumption when I'm reading the reason for a cache in the cache description.

Even if this is true, why are their reasons for placing or finding a cache any less valid than yours?

Valid? Is there a valid reason in placing a low quality, less-than-thoughtful cache other than not knowing any better? I.e. a child or a newbie. We're seeing experienced cachers placing these caches. "Here's another cache to log!" Not, "Wow, what a neat place!" or "Here's an interesting hunt for you."

 

Where do you think I got the term "gift" and the association from? It wasn't from an discussion here in the forum.

Really?? You started using it after the thread about rude logging when I took the position that all cache hides were gifts.

You got me. You coined the term and folks started writing that on their cache pages. You're legendary.

[+Cav Scout]

I thought about everyone's views on micros (in a good way) and did a few this weekend. Most of the micro's I found took me to a location that was a bussiness, home, or busy road. Of course I was on public display and part of everyone's enjoyment and I may of caused that old nosey woman to call the police and report some strange man oustide digging up her flowerbed I have to say I don't like them but then again thats all I can find around Lexington for the time being.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Cav Scout

[+KBI]

Chasing numbers, for example, is a perfectly valid way to play, and there is no reason to let someone else’s differing definition of quality entertainment bother you.

 

Chasing numbers is a valid way to play. So was the way I enjoyed playing the game. I can no longer play the the game way I once enjoyed it thanks to the spew. If I complain here, I'm told that I have to change the way I play the game. That's my entire point.

When have you been told you have to change the way you play the game?

[+Team Cotati]

Chasing numbers, for example, is a perfectly valid way to play, and there is no reason to let someone else’s differing definition of quality entertainment bother you.

 

Chasing numbers is a valid way to play. So was the way I enjoyed playing the game. I can no longer play the the game way I once enjoyed it thanks to the spew. If I complain here, I'm told that I have to change the way I play the game. That's my entire point.

 

Spew in New Jersey? Hard to imagine.

[+Team Cotati]

I thought about everyone's views on micros (in a good way) and did a few this weekend. Most of the micro's I found took me to a location that was a bussiness, home, or busy road. Of course I was on public display and part of everyone's enjoyment and I may of caused that old nosey woman to call the police and report some strange man oustide digging up her flowerbed I have to say I don't like them but then again thats all I can find around Lexington for the time being.

 

It's not the finding that is the root of the problem. It's the placing.

[+KBI]

Seriously, what would be the point?

That really is the 64 million dollar question.

• Why do folks read restrictions on the cache page and promptly ignore them to grab a find?
  
• Why do folks brag about grabbing a FTF after posted park hours, much less actually do it to begin with?
   
  
• Why do folks trample ground zero until they find the cache?
  

You are complaining here about the bad behaviors of cachers who use poor judgment when seeking caches. I’m sorry; I must be in the wrong thread. I thought the purpose of this thread was to debate the merits of micro-sized containers.

 

• Why do folks claim a find even if they didn't actually find the cache? Even claim the find and write they didn't.
  
• Why do folks log arm-chair caches?
  

Good questions, but those things don’t bother me. Do they bother you? If so, why?

 

I submit all of the above are different symptoms, though not exclusively, of the same drive that causes folks to place caches primarily so folks have an excuse to log it. Really, what is the point?

The point is to have fun. The people who hide and find those caches you dislike are having fun.

 

Again, the same risky assumption: That a player’s find count is the ONLY reason why caches-which-CoyoteRed-doesn’t-like EVER exist.

 

I do agree with you on one detail: If what you hypothesize were truly the case, I wouldn’t understand it either. However, just because you or I don’t understand the motivation behind someone else’s gameplay preference doesn’t make that person’s preference any less valid. That’s the real 64 million dollar question, the one folks keep asking you but you never answer: What makes someone else's aesthetic preference any less valid or acceptable than your aesthetic preference?

 

So what if some cacher gets a great deal of his entertainment value from watching his numbers rise? You still haven’t explained how that harms you. You have explained in some detail how cachers ignoring published park hours and trampling vegetation harms you, which makes sense, but of course that isn’t the topic here. What you haven’t explained how someone else’s enjoyment of running up their numbers harms you -- or how the mere existence of micro caches harms you.

 

So what if you forgot your pencil or otherwise can't sign the log? Either come back when you can, use an accepted alternate method, or post a note and place it on ignore if you'd rather not revisit.

Huh? Satisfactory logging standards are ultimately between the finder and the owner, and are nobody else’s business. What’s that got to do with container size?

 

Cachers find caches, in my observation, for many reasons not related to the beauty or interest of a cache location, including the ones I listed: playing with a GPS, being in on a secret, enjoying writing their logs and enjoying reading others' logs. I still say these things, as much as location, are the very essence of Geocaching.

...I suppose these all must be done in parking lots and with micros? Can't happen in nicer settings or on thoughtfully placed caches?

TWEEEEEET!! Strawman Fallacy! Illegal procedure! Five Yards!

 

Sorry CR. Either quote an actual post where someone has said ALL caching MUST be done in parking lots and with micros and that this game CAN’T happen in nicer settings or on thoughtfully placed caches ... or hand me the football and return to your bench.

[+KBI]

...I hope you can soon find peace in the very effective method you have been provided which should shield your sensitive and discerning palate from the bulk of that distasteful "problem."

I wouldn't say very effective. First, it eliminates the good micros. Second, it doesn't eliminate the small, regular, and large trache. "Better than nothing" is probably a better descriptor.

So then, your answer to Mushtang’s questions:

Hey CoyoteRed, I have two questions for you.

 

Now that you're filtering your PQs as you've mentioned above (and admittedly you're missing out on some caches you'd probably enjoy), have you found that the percentage of caches CoyoteRed and the Mrs. enjoys has gone way up in your PQs? And are you having a much better experience caching using those filters than without?

... would be "no" and "no." Is that correct?

 

 

Also, eliminating the micros is not just a product of trying to get a higher percentage of quality caches. As the number of caches in our stomping increases I bump up against the maximum number of caches I reasonably download. Something has got to give. It's logical to me to eliminate the easier choice: micros. Suppose I could have gotten rid of all caches with a terrain of less than 2 and kept the micros, but that would have just moved the problem from one segment to another. Also, considering the majority of the caches I've not enjoyed happened to be micros and not caches with easy terrain, the choice was clear which to remove.

 

Actually, I'm finding that if I take an average number finds over a period and an average word count on the caches I have in my database I can better get a feel of the caches that I would enjoy over others. Unfortunately, even this is not the best solution as I have difficulty getting all of the data I need from Groundspeak. Also, because I'm eliminating all micros from out of state lists, I'm missing what might have been a good cache. I can only work with the tools that are given to me or I can cobble together.

Okay then, if eliminating all micros from your caching plans does not cause you to have a MUCH better caching experience, then I have two questions:

 

(1) If cache size has so little to do with your complaint, then what, exactly, is it about this large number of caches you despise that causes you to despise them? What exactly IS your caching preference, CR?

 

(2) If cache size has so little to do with your complaint, then what the heck are you doing in this thread?

[+KBI]

I think you are making a risky assumption regarding the reasons people hide and/or seek the kinds of caches you dislike.

There was no assumption when I was told by someone the reason he placed a few caches. Nor is it an assumption when I'm reading the reason for a cache in the cache description.

Even if this is true, why are their reasons for placing or finding a cache any less valid than yours?

Valid? Is there a valid reason in placing a low quality, less-than-thoughtful cache other than not knowing any better? I.e. a child or a newbie. We're seeing experienced cachers placing these caches. "Here's another cache to log!" Not, "Wow, what a neat place!" or "Here's an interesting hunt for you."

Yes, valid.

 

Please explain how that cacher's preference is less valid than yours. Please explain how you justify calling the placer of that cache a "child." Please explain how you justify calling someone else’s cache "low quality" just because you don't share his taste. Please explain what makes your aesthetic preference "better."

[+briansnat]

Chasing numbers, for example, is a perfectly valid way to play, and there is no reason to let someone else’s differing definition of quality entertainment bother you.

 

Chasing numbers is a valid way to play. So was the way I enjoyed playing the game. I can no longer play the the game way I once enjoyed it thanks to the spew. If I complain here, I'm told that I have to change the way I play the game. That's my entire point.

 

Spew in New Jersey? Hard to imagine.

 

Team Cotati with a constructive comment in the forums, hard to imagine.

[+briansnat]

Chasing numbers, for example, is a perfectly valid way to play, and there is no reason to let someone else’s differing definition of quality entertainment bother you.

 

Chasing numbers is a valid way to play. So was the way I enjoyed playing the game. I can no longer play the the game way I once enjoyed it thanks to the spew. If I complain here, I'm told that I have to change the way I play the game. That's my entire point.

 

When have you been told you have to change the way you play the game?

 

Numerous times in these forums.

 

The thing I loved about geocaching and what drew me to the sport in the first place, was that when I traveled to a new area I could load my unit with cache waypoints and use it as a sort of tour guide to the area.

 

Most caches were placed in spots that offered something other than a smiley, so all I had to do was select a waypoint, press GOTO and enjoy the day. I loved the sense of adventure and discovery and all the offbeat, pretty, educational, or interesting places that geocaching would bring me. Sure there was a clunker every now and then, but 9 out of 10 caches were in the kinds of places that the locals liked to show off.

 

Today the ratio is nearly reverse in many areas. The last few times I tried this, I was taken on a tour of local strip malls, highway guardrails and big box store parking lots.

 

I can no longer play the game the way I enjoy it. Instead I'm told I need to do research, I need to check sat photos, I need to look at maps, I need to filter micros, I need to filter 1/1 caches, I need to lower my expectations, etc. None of these methods work for me, so instead I'm at the point where I often don't even bother geocaching when I travel. The spew has ruined the sport for me.

[+Radnord]

Boo hoo hoo! My goodness, I've never heard so many cry babies. As many of the more enlightened ones have stated, "if you don't like them, dont hunt them." Otherwise leave things alone for the rest of us. Sure, I prefer the traditional hunt in the woods and the exchange of swag or geocoins, but those settings are not always available. Some of the most challenging hides that I've found were in city centers, or where stealth was required. Different strokes for different folks, and so on, and so on...

 

BTW: Hey Mushtang - like the Rush avatar and quote from Witch Hunt - very appropriate for this thread.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Radnord

[+briansnat]

Boo hoo hoo! My goodness, I've never heard so many cry babies. As many of the more enlightened ones have stated, "if you don't like them, dont hunt them."

 

Maybe you can help me with this one. How do you know you aren't going to like the cache until you've actually

hunted it?

[+KBI]

Chasing numbers, for example, is a perfectly valid way to play, and there is no reason to let someone else’s differing definition of quality entertainment bother you.

Chasing numbers is a valid way to play. So was the way I enjoyed playing the game. I can no longer play the the game way I once enjoyed it thanks to the spew. If I complain here, I'm told that I have to change the way I play the game. That's my entire point.

When have you been told you have to change the way you play the game?

Numerous times in these forums.

 

The thing I loved about geocaching and what drew me to the sport in the first place, was that when I traveled to a new area I could load my unit with cache waypoints and use it as a sort of tour guide to the area.

I have asked you before, but you never answered: What, exactly, leads you to believe that playing tour guide for you should be an appropriate expectation from this game? What part of "finding hidden stashes with a GPS" leads you to that conclusion?

 

From the Getting Started FAQ:

What is Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is an entertaining adventure game for gps users. Participating in a cache hunt is a good way to take advantage of the wonderful features and capability of a gps unit. The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. Once found, a cache may provide the visitor with a wide variety of rewards. All the visitor is asked to do is if they get something they should try to leave something for the cache.

Nowhere in there do I see anything that leads me to believe that some kind of minimum beauty or minimum local interest is required for a cache location to be acceptable. The closest is the phrase "a cache may provide the visitor with a wide variety of rewards," but that clause doesn't even remotely suggest that all caches, some caches, or even ANY caches should be required to provide the function of tour guide. A cache at a pretty waterfall provides me with a reward, but so does a simple urban hide when I don’t have the time to get out to the waterfall.

 

Most caches were placed in spots that offered something other than a smiley, so all I had to do was select a waypoint, press GOTO and enjoy the day. I loved the sense of adventure and discovery and all the offbeat, pretty, educational, or interesting places that geocaching would bring me. Sure there was a clunker every now and then, but 9 out of 10 caches were in the kinds of places that the locals liked to show off.

 

Today the ratio is nearly reverse in many areas. The last few times I tried this, I was taken on a tour of local strip malls, highway guardrails and big box store parking lots.

People are enjoying hiding and finding caches that don’t comply with your personal minimum-acceptable requirements for entertainment. The nerve.

 

So what’s the solution? Round up all those who don’t share your taste and have them deported off the Internet? Sorry, but as far as I know everyone is allowed to play as long as they comply with the guidelines and follow common sense in practical matters. It’s an open game. Sorry if that inconveniences you. Honestly.

 

No personal offense intended here – I consider you a friend, which is why I’m so curious about your point of view – but your argument makes you sound like the crabby old man on the porch, rocking your chair and complaining that the cars drive way too fast and that you can't take a nice Sunday drive anymore because of all the dang kids and their HOTrods, always in a hurry to get there, never slowing down to enjoy the ride. It's like they don't even care that they've ruined the road for you!

 

Nevermind that it’s a public road.

 

I can no longer play the game the way I enjoy it. Instead I'm told I need to do research, I need to check sat photos, I need to look at maps, I need to filter micros, I need to filter 1/1 caches, I need to lower my expectations, etc. None of these methods work for me, so instead I'm at the point where I often don't even bother geocaching when I travel. The spew has ruined the sport for me.

Sbell has already worded the response to that argument much better than I ever could:

 

Frankly, I'm not moved to take action when someone pops in and states that he/she doesn't like finding certain caches and goes on to explain that he/she isn't willing to do anything to avoid them. The phrase 'boo hoo' comes to mind.

 

If someone didn't like a certain subset of caches and are making every effort to avoid them, but their fun is still being ruined, I might make a few suggestions to help them out.

 

"I hate these caches" combined with "I just dump all the caches to my GPSr and head out the door" does nothing to raise my sympathy level.

 

"Everyone should change to please me" is not a call to battle that I will ever support.

Expecting that the entire game should be substantially changed just to satisfy your unrealistic demand for convenience is simply unreasonable, in my opinion.

 

None of that addresses your claim, however. You claimed you were told that you have to change the way you play the game. Barring any assertion you might make that the game should be re-jiggered wholesale just to save you the hassle of spending a few seconds reading cache pages and watching where you’re going, who told you you have to change the way you play the game?

 

Again, no personal offense intended, and thanks for responding honestly to my question. You’ve always been one of my favorite forum regulars. I’m just having trouble seeing this thing from your point of view.

[+KBI]

Boo hoo hoo! My goodness, I've never heard so many cry babies. As many of the more enlightened ones have stated, "if you don't like them, dont hunt them."

Maybe you can help me with this one. How do you know you aren't going to like the cache until you've actually hunted it?

Maybe you can help the rest of us first: What leads you to believe that a guarantee of knowing whether you're going to like a cache before you hunt it is a reasonable expectation?

[Rostropovich]

I enjoy finding micros. They are an enjoyable way to experience Geocaching to me if you have a short amount of time. I would not of course want to search only micros if I had a whole day of Caching to do, but often I don't and only have an hour or two of my free time to spend caching. Yes, I prefer Regulars that take several hours to pick up five or six and require hikes or bike rides of 5 miles or greater, but micros are still an enjoyable experience.

[+KBI]

The thing I loved about geocaching and what drew me to the sport in the first place, was that when I traveled to a new area I could load my unit with cache waypoints and use it as a sort of tour guide to the area.

Come to think of it, maybe you should take a break from Geocaching for a while and try Waymarking instead.

 

I don't know much about Waymarking, but it sounds like it would be ideal for someone like you who mostly wants a tour guide. You can keyword-select categories over there and customize your experience however you like, right? You still get to use your GPS, you still get to log your comments – and, once you’ve hipped yourself to a sufficiently interesting place via a Waymark, maybe you could also look to see if there is a Geocache or two there!

 

Please note that nowhere in there did I say you have to change the way you Geocache. It’s just a suggestion. Ideally my suggestion will help you regain and enjoy the experience you say you miss from the old days and long to enjoy again, but – take it or leave it.

[+geowizerd]

What is Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is an entertaining adventure game for gps users. Participating in a cache hunt is a good way to take advantage of the wonderful features and capability of a gps unit. The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. Once found, a cache may provide the visitor with a wide variety of rewards. All the visitor is asked to do is if they get something they should try to leave something for the cache.

 

Wow, thanks for "sharing" that scenic guardrail in the K-Mart parking lot with me! That was one darned rewarding experience! I can't wait for the dumpster behind the KFC, or the newspaper dispenser in the strip mall!

[+briansnat]

Boo hoo hoo! My goodness, I've never heard so many cry babies. As many of the more enlightened ones have stated, "if you don't like them, dont hunt them."

Maybe you can help me with this one. How do you know you aren't going to like the cache until you've actually hunted it?

Maybe you can help the rest of us first: What leads you to believe that a guarantee of knowing whether you're going to like a cache before you hunt it is a reasonable expectation?

 

Who is asking for a guarantee? There have always been disappointing caches. Does it have to be 9 out of every 10?

[+KBI]

Boo hoo hoo! My goodness, I've never heard so many cry babies. As many of the more enlightened ones have stated, "if you don't like them, dont hunt them."

Maybe you can help me with this one. How do you know you aren't going to like the cache until you've actually hunted it?

Maybe you can help the rest of us first: What leads you to believe that a guarantee of knowing whether you're going to like a cache before you hunt it is a reasonable expectation?

Who is asking for a guarantee? There have always been disappointing caches. Does it have to be 9 out of every 10?

You're not listening. I give up.

[Mushtang]

BTW: Hey Mushtang - like the Rush avatar and quote from Witch Hunt - very appropriate for this thread.

Indeed. It's turned out to be appropriate for quite a lot of threads. I added it during a thread like this one where folks were saying that hides they considered lame shouldn't be hidden, and they should go out and let the caching world know what kinds of hides they should be enjoying instead.

 

Apparently those of us that enjoy finding a cache on a guardrail of a Kmart parking lot, for whatever reason, just aren't doing it right and don't know that we're not really having fun.

[Mushtang]

Wow, thanks for "sharing" that scenic guardrail in the K-Mart parking lot with me! That was one darned rewarding experience! I can't wait for the dumpster behind the KFC, or the newspaper dispenser in the strip mall!

At the risk of sounding like I'm going off topic, or sounding like I'm creating a Straw Man, to those that can't see the parallel...

 

Have you ever gone into a library and picked up a book that you wouldn't like, and maybe thought was lame? If so, did you:

1) Choose to skip it instead of reading it, and kept looking for books you would like,

2) Read it anyway, but then complained about all the lame books in the library,

3) Call for a book burning to make sure that other people visiting the library wouldn't have that book to choose from anymore, since it's obviously such a lame book and they should enjoy reading other books instead?

[+briansnat]

Expecting that the entire game should be substantially changed just to satisfy your unrealistic demand for convenience is simply unreasonable, in my opinion.

 

The game has substantially changed to convenience the numbers hounds. I have a perfect right to complain, since it has impacted my game.

 

So what’s the solution? Round up all those who don’t share your taste and have them deported off the Internet?

 

Encourage others to raise the bar a bit with their hides. The numbers hounds will still have their easy caches, my ilk will be happy campers and you probably will stop seeing this subject come up once a week in the forums.

[+elmuyloco5]

Apparently those of us that enjoy finding a cache on a guardrail of a Kmart parking lot, for whatever reason, just aren't doing it right and don't know that we're not really having fun.

 

While we are usually a hiking family and prefer for our caches to be in a beautiful or educational spot, one of our favorite caches was on a guardrail (not at Kmart...but none-the-less). It was not at a scenic area, but was cleverly contained in a nut and bolt that matched the others on the guardrail perfectly. I'm sure plenty of you have found similar ones, but it was the first we had seen like that......and it was cool to see the creativity. And for the record, our three young kids also really enjoyed this one....despite the lack of swag.

 

Your enjoyment level while caching is what you make of it. If your sure you're going to be unhappy, you will be. We don't like every cache we go to, but we don't let it ruin our experience overall. And maybe the majority aren't that great, but the one's that are make up for all the ones that aren't.

[CoyoteRed]

Wow, thanks for "sharing" that scenic guardrail in the K-Mart parking lot with me! That was one darned rewarding experience! I can't wait for the dumpster behind the KFC, or the newspaper dispenser in the strip mall!

At the risk of sounding like I'm going off topic, or sounding like I'm creating a Straw Man, to those that can't see the parallel...

 

Have you ever gone into a library and picked up a book that you wouldn't like, and maybe thought was lame? If so, did you:

1) Choose to skip it instead of reading it, and kept looking for books you would like,

2) Read it anyway, but then complained about all the lame books in the library,

3) Call for a book burning to make sure that other people visiting the library wouldn't have that book to choose from anymore, since it's obviously such a lame book and they should enjoy reading other books instead?

4) Break up all of the books in genres so we don't have to wade through the style we don't like.

5) Allow third parties to rate the books--and compile said titles without fear of litigation--so we can get to the books most likely favored by those who like the same kind of books we do.

 

Funny that libraries don't carry every single book, but only the one's most likely to be enjoyed. I was just in my library the other day and they didn't have a book I wanted. Go figure. It was published. Local book stores carry it, but the library doesn't. Sounds like they're being a bit selective.

 

Come to think of it, if libraries paralleled geocaching there would be a lot more book that were only 1/4 inch thick. Each short story would be a volume all on its own. Folks would be able to "keep score" of how many books they've read--or at least checked out.

 

Funny how it's not that way.

 

You're right. I don't see the parallel.

[Rostropovich]

Wow, thanks for "sharing" that scenic guardrail in the K-Mart parking lot with me! That was one darned rewarding experience! I can't wait for the dumpster behind the KFC, or the newspaper dispenser in the strip mall!

At the risk of sounding like I'm going off topic, or sounding like I'm creating a Straw Man, to those that can't see the parallel...

 

Have you ever gone into a library and picked up a book that you wouldn't like, and maybe thought was lame? If so, did you:

1) Choose to skip it instead of reading it, and kept looking for books you would like,

2) Read it anyway, but then complained about all the lame books in the library,

3) Call for a book burning to make sure that other people visiting the library wouldn't have that book to choose from anymore, since it's obviously such a lame book and they should enjoy reading other books instead?

 

Expecting that the entire game should be substantially changed just to satisfy your unrealistic demand for convenience is simply unreasonable, in my opinion.

 

The game has substantially changed to convenience the numbers hounds. I have a perfect right to complain, since it has impacted my game.

 

So what’s the solution? Round up all those who don’t share your taste and have them deported off the Internet?

 

Encourage others to raise the bar a bit with their hides. The numbers hounds will still have their easy caches, my ilk will be happy campers and you probably will stop seeing this subject come up once a week in the forums.

 

Nice metaphor, but, Maybe the "Writers" should write better, "Books"

[+TexasGringo]

***Have you ever gone into a library***

 

Well that is like Geocaching...You go to the catalog find a book that sounds really interesting. You write down the books Dewey Decimal number (The Coordinates) and then go on your hunt. Once you find the book...you are disappointed because it is small book (Micro) and then refuse to look at it....and then swear off libraries.

[Mushtang]

Wow, thanks for "sharing" that scenic guardrail in the K-Mart parking lot with me! That was one darned rewarding experience! I can't wait for the dumpster behind the KFC, or the newspaper dispenser in the strip mall!

At the risk of sounding like I'm going off topic, or sounding like I'm creating a Straw Man, to those that can't see the parallel...

 

Have you ever gone into a library and picked up a book that you wouldn't like, and maybe thought was lame? If so, did you:

1) Choose to skip it instead of reading it, and kept looking for books you would like,

2) Read it anyway, but then complained about all the lame books in the library,

3) Call for a book burning to make sure that other people visiting the library wouldn't have that book to choose from anymore, since it's obviously such a lame book and they should enjoy reading other books instead?

4) Break up all of the books in genres so we don't have to wade through the style we don't like.

5) Allow third parties to rate the books--and compile said titles without fear of litigation--so we can get to the books most likely favored by those who like the same kind of books we do.

You actually did these two things? Either you misunderstood the question, or you're answering it in a way that doesn't follow my original post.

 

You're saying that you did numbers 4 and 5. Well, if you're going to equate that to the caching world then you're suggesting that if CoyoteRed finds a cache he doesn't like he should break up all the caches into genres...

 

Or maybe you're suggesting that numbers 4 and 5 are things that libraries should do so you'll avoid books you don't like? I'm pretty sure this is the case, but I don't want to assume.

 

Funny that libraries don't carry every single book, but only the one's most likely to be enjoyed. I was just in my library the other day and they didn't have a book I wanted. Go figure. It was published. Local book stores carry it, but the library doesn't. Sounds like they're being a bit selective.

I was actually going to use a book store instead of a library when I started writing the post, but changed it because you pay for books in a book store, so you can demand stuff as a consumer. You borrow stuff at a library, so you're more at the mercy of whatever the libraries choose to carry. The fact that they don't carry every single book isn't funny at all, it actually makes sense. They can only do what they're capable of doing, but some people seem to be upset that a library doesn't have the book they want. Libraries are a bit selective for a reason. They can't afford every book that exists, they often run on donations, on books that people feel like sharing with the world.

 

Some libraries actually DO break up books into genres, and actually DO allow folks to rate the books. But again, they're lending you the books for free so if you don't get every little thing you want can you really complain about it? You could always go to one of the libraries that offer what you want, or maybe switch to a book store and pay for the things you want.

 

I know that other listing sites offer other features similar to what you're suggesting. And I'll guess that you can pay someone to hide caches for you if you tell them what you actually prefer. But if you're going to rely on the good graces of other people to hide caches that they want to hide, you'll have to be satisfied with what you get to choose from, and use your earlier explained method to increase the likelihood that you'll enjoy the cache.

 

Come to think of it, if libraries paralleled geocaching there would be a lot more book that were only 1/4 inch thick. Each short story would be a volume all on its own. Folks would be able to "keep score" of how many books they've read--or at least checked out.

Well I said it was a parallel, not an exact model.

 

Funny how it's not that way.

 

You're right. I don't see the parallel.

No surprise here.

[+sbell111]

Chasing numbers, for example, is a perfectly valid way to play, and there is no reason to let someone else’s differing definition of quality entertainment bother you.

Chasing numbers is a valid way to play. So was the way I enjoyed playing the game. I can no longer play the the game way I once enjoyed it thanks to the spew. If I complain here, I'm told that I have to change the way I play the game. That's my entire point.

No one has told you that you have to change the way you play. However, people have suggested ways that you could change to get greater enjoyment. Of course, if you choose not to try to get better enjoyment out of the game, don't expect people to feel bad when you complain.

[+Harry Dolphin]

While we are usually a hiking family and prefer for our caches to be in a beautiful or educational spot, one of our favorite caches was on a guardrail (not at Kmart...but none-the-less). It was not at a scenic area, but was cleverly contained in a nut and bolt that matched the others on the guardrail perfectly. I'm sure plenty of you have found similar ones, but it was the first we had seen like that......and it was cool to see the creativity. And for the record, our three young kids also really enjoyed this one....despite the lack of swag.

 

On the other fin, I found one of those on a pedestrian bridge over the Delaware River. I enjoyed both the hide, AND the scenery.

[+sbell111]

Boo hoo hoo! My goodness, I've never heard so many cry babies. As many of the more enlightened ones have stated, "if you don't like them, dont hunt them."

 

Maybe you can help me with this one. How do you know you aren't going to like the cache until you've actually hunted it?

I hope you don't mind if I answer that question.

 

Unfortunately, you phrased the question backwards, but I'll still take a stab at it.

 

I am nearly positive that I am going to enjoy every cache that I find. I run my PQs to give me a download of caches that I will likely be able to do and enjoy. When I am out playing the game, I realize that it isn't work. It's not work for me as a finder because it is my escape from work. It isn't work for the hiders, because they are hiding something for me to find (a gift, if you will). They certainly don't have to do it. They are all volunteers and fellow players of this silly little game. This understanding of my motivations and that of the hiders allows me to maintain a healthy attitude that allows for great big gobs of fun, even when I find those caches that Briansnat would not enjoy.

 

I know, without a doubt, that I am almost guaranteed to enjoy every cache I find and you know what? I do.

 

If someone is consistently not having fun playing this game, I would have to womder why they keep playing. Are they getting paid for caching, so they can't afford to give it up? How do I get on that gravy train?

[+sbell111]

Boo hoo hoo! My goodness, I've never heard so many cry babies. As many of the more enlightened ones have stated, "if you don't like them, dont hunt them."

Maybe you can help me with this one. How do you know you aren't going to like the cache until you've actually hunted it?

Maybe you can help the rest of us first: What leads you to believe that a guarantee of knowing whether you're going to like a cache before you hunt it is a reasonable expectation?

Who is asking for a guarantee? There have always been disappointing caches. Does it have to be 9 out of every 10?

For me, it's one out of ten. (Darn that old DNF! )

 

I wonder what's different between you and I that causes me to have tons of fun playing this game and you to get almost no enjoyment out of it.

[+sbell111]

Indeed. It's turned out to be appropriate for quite a lot of threads. I added it during a thread like this one where folks were saying that hides they considered lame shouldn't be hidden, and they should go out and let the caching world know what kinds of hides they should be enjoying instead.

I added mine because of the same thread (or one of it's retreds).

[+sbell111]

Expecting that the entire game should be substantially changed just to satisfy your unrealistic demand for convenience is simply unreasonable, in my opinion.

The game has substantially changed to convenience the numbers hounds. I have a perfect right to complain, since it has impacted my game.

I disagree. I've been playing just as long as you and I don't believe that the game has 'substantially changed'.

 

There's definitely more caches out there to be found, but I don't think that they are any better or worse than back in 2001, on the average. Back then, there were caches that took us on great hikes, and caches that took us to mundaneville.

 

We certainly have better tools to serve up a big old slice of the database and dump it into our pdas and GPSrs than we had. Back when we had few to choose from and had to print them all out on paper and hand enter them to our GPSrs, we read every word on the page. We studied maps and made plans to go find that new cache or two. Now days, we want to just dump the coords and hit the road, fully expecting to be taken to an awesome cache. Perhaps the convenience that is now built into the process has spoiled us. Perhaps it is allowing us to skip the reading and learning and planning that eliminated disappointment in the past.

 

Or perhaps we've just become snobs.

[Snarf93]

any micro thats not custom and is out in the woods just aint right.

micros are for urban areas. if theres a wooded area a small regular or large should be in order.

[+sbell111]

Have you ever gone into a library and picked up a book that you wouldn't like, and maybe thought was lame? If so, did you:

1) Choose to skip it instead of reading it, and kept looking for books you would like,

2) Read it anyway, but then complained about all the lame books in the library,

3) Call for a book burning to make sure that other people visiting the library wouldn't have that book to choose from anymore, since it's obviously such a lame book and they should enjoy reading other books instead?

4) Break up all of the books in genres so we don't have to wade through the style we don't like.

That sure would be a good idea. We could break out the caches by size, that way those that don't like micros, for instance, can avoid them. We could also include terrain ratings so those that wanted to hike to a cache would know which ones to go after (or avoid). We could further give them all difficulty ratings so people who liked to go after the hard ones would know which ones they would like. We could break out the puzzles and the earthcaches and the events and the multis and the traditionals and anything that didn't fit in those categories.

 

Wait a minute. We do all that already.

5) Allow third parties to rate the books--and compile said titles without fear of litigation--so we can get to the books most likely favored by those who like the same kind of books we do.

It would be great if TPTB allowed us to build watch lists of the caches that we thought were great and share them for all to see. The local geocaching organizations could even get involved and vote for the best caches in their areas.

 

Hold on. This stuff also already happens.

Funny that libraries don't carry every single book, but only the one's most likely to be enjoyed. I was just in my library the other day and they didn't have a book I wanted. Go figure. It was published. Local book stores carry it, but the library doesn't. Sounds like they're being a bit selective.

Maybe you need a better library. If we wanted a book that our library didn't have, they would search it out.

Come to think of it, if libraries paralleled geocaching there would be a lot more book that were only 1/4 inch thick. Each short story would be a volume all on its own. Folks would be able to "keep score" of how many books they've read--or at least checked out.

I'm sure those records are there. I can't help you with the size of the book thing. That suggestion made no sense to me.

[+The Jester]

What is Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is an entertaining adventure game for gps users. Participating in a cache hunt is a good way to take advantage of the wonderful features and capability of a gps unit. The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. Once found, a cache may provide the visitor with a wide variety of rewards. All the visitor is asked to do is if they get something they should try to leave something for the cache.

 

Wow, thanks for "sharing" that scenic guardrail in the K-Mart parking lot with me! That was one darned rewarding experience! I can't wait for the dumpster behind the KFC, or the newspaper dispenser in the strip mall!

You're miss-reading the words - it's "share the location of the cache" not "share the location at the cache".

 

 

Dnag it all! I got sucked in anyhow.

[+KBI]

What is Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is an entertaining adventure game for gps users. Participating in a cache hunt is a good way to take advantage of the wonderful features and capability of a gps unit. The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. Once found, a cache may provide the visitor with a wide variety of rewards. All the visitor is asked to do is if they get something they should try to leave something for the cache.

Wow, thanks for "sharing" that scenic guardrail in the K-Mart parking lot with me! That was one darned rewarding experience! I can't wait for the dumpster behind the KFC, or the newspaper dispenser in the strip mall!

You're miss-reading the words - it's "share the location of the cache" not "share the location at the cache".

The Jester is observant. The Jester sees all. The Jester speaks wise.

 

The "locations of these caches" as mentioned in the FAQ refers not to any postcard view or Kodak Moment – be it a waterfall, be it an historic wonder, be it a weird local oddity – be it a cool place to visit? You bet it be! Be that as it may, its coolness not be required, nay, not even be considered by, the FAQ.

 

The "locations of these caches" as mentioned in the FAQ merely refers to Latitude and Longitude. That is how we find Geocaches using GPS.

[Neos2]

Yah well, the problem with "the library doesn't carry all the books" analogy is that we have way too many people around here that want the library to throw out entire sections of children's literature, vampire love stories, murder mysteries, hobbiest books, and poetry because it ruins their ability to appreciate the dry musty classics if they have to walk past all those genre they deem "inferior" ---even though there is a wide aisle to the classics and the shelves are well marked!