Jump to content

Anyone else have a problem with Micro's


miuwu
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

If Geocaching's primary purpose is to play tour guide then why don't I see "tour guide," or any other words to that effect, anywhere in the Getting Started FAQ?

 

If Geocaches are only intended to be placed in substantially interesting locations then why don't I see "substantially interesting locations," or any other words to that effect, in the Guide to Hiding a Geocache ?

From the Getting Started FAQ:
The location of a cache can be very entertaining indeed. As many say, location, location, location! The location of a cache demonstrates the founder's skill and possibly even daring. A cache located on the side of a rocky cliff accessible only by rock climbing equipment may be hard to find. An underwater cache may only be accessed by scuba. Other caches may require long difficult hiking, orienteering, and special equipment to get to. Caches may be located in cities both above and below ground, inside and outside buildings.
...and from Guide to Hiding a Geocache:
Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way. The big reward for geocachers, other than finding the cache itself, is the location. A prime camping spot, great viewpoint, unusual location, etc. are all good places to hide a cache.
While they may not have specifically mentioned "Tour Guides," they both do talk about bringing people to interesting locations.

 

Oh, wait, isn't that what a Tour Guide does?

 

Huh... :laughing:

 

You don't see the phrases "Tour Guide" or "substantially interesting locations" because they aren't phrases they used. They still talked about them, as you see from the sections I quoted. If I were to assume that the page didn't address the question because a certain phrase was missing from that page, I could say that neither page talks about "hiding a geocache," "how to hide your geocache" or several other variations. Because those phrases are not included, is it true? No.

Link to comment
Every one of those micros have something in common. They were placed in locations that could support a cache and there was no cache already there. If you think that there needs to be more large caches hidden, go hide some.

 

 

So according to sbell111, if I want to find large caches I should hide them and then go find the ones I hid, this might be a good way to get a FTF. :laughing:

It will not get other cachers to hide better caches.

Link to comment
Johnny, I'm telling you, you'd get better results by urinating in the ocean. The simple fact is that these people see the detrimental activites for sure. The other simple fact is that they care more about their self-interest than the game.

 

Sadly my belief is that because of this, many more ABDSP's will have to occur to cause constructive change.

 

That is really too bad.

What detrimental activities? JV cited two issues, micros placed where larger caches could be placed and caches placed in unsatisfying locations. How are either of these issues 'detrimental'? How does this thread have anything to do with ABDSP?

 

The forums are better when people don't try to twist every thread to make a statement toward their favorite issue.

In my opinion, "Micro trash", not that you recognize it, is in fact detrimental. Obviously ABDSP has nothing directly to do with this thread. It does however very well serve as an EXAMPLE of what I believe that geocachers with your narrow self-serving view are doing to this game.
You may have hit on a major point of disagreement.

 

You believe that caches that you don't like are detrimental to the game. I disagree.

I think that the forums are better when opposing views are posted.
As do I, as long as posters are respectful.
Every one of those micros have something in common. They were placed in locations that could support a cache and there was no cache already there. If you think that there needs to be more large caches hidden, go hide some.
So according to sbell111, if I want to find large caches I should hide them and then go find the ones I hid, this might be a good way to get a FTF. :laughing:

It will not get other cachers to hide better caches.

I disagree. There is quite a bit of 'monkey see, monkey do' involved with hiding caches. If you hide better ones, others will likely follow your lead. Of course, in my post, I combined this idea with your having an event that actually challenged others to hide larger caches. For some reason, you failed to cite that part of my post. :)
Link to comment

Greetings,

Was interesting to come across this thread today as I have recently been considering placing a request for a new feature.

 

My wife and I have been caching since June of last year and just recently upgraded to the Premium Membership to show our support for the Groundspeak crew and, hopefully, gain some new searching tools.

 

More specifically, we too would like to be able to eliminate the micro from our search results lists as we have found enough of them now to have lost interest. Finding the cache is only part of the fun for us. Having interesting and creative containers to find is the real fun and, of course, topping it off is the SWAG! :-)

 

If the cache can't carry even a small amount of interesting booty/bounty, it won't be on our future runs.

 

Cheers.

 

BPs

Link to comment

Greetings,

Was interesting to come across this thread today as I have recently been considering placing a request for a new feature.

 

My wife and I have been caching since June of last year and just recently upgraded to the Premium Membership to show our support for the Groundspeak crew and, hopefully, gain some new searching tools.

 

More specifically, we too would like to be able to eliminate the micro from our search results lists as we have found enough of them now to have lost interest. Finding the cache is only part of the fun for us. Having interesting and creative containers to find is the real fun and, of course, topping it off is the SWAG! :-)

 

If the cache can't carry even a small amount of interesting booty/bounty, it won't be on our future runs.

 

Cheers.

 

BPs

Welcome to the fun.

 

Now that you are a premium member, you can build pocket queries that will allow you to have files of cache data emailed to you (as many as 500 caches each). When ordering these pocket queries, you can choose from many options including limiting the size of caches included in the query.

 

As a bonus, these queries can also be run online. Therefore, you can build PQs of your local area and never have to worry about micros, because they won't show up.

Link to comment

I'll admit, I didn't read through the whole thread, but filtering out micros in the PQ doesn't solve the problem completely, as there are some creative, well done, cleverly hidden micros that take you to a great spot :laughing:

 

Maybe a "Walmart" attribute? (or "parking lot")

 

or maybe an attribute for "takes less than a minute" similar to the "less than an hour" attribute...that one would probably also help those that specifically seek out that kind of a hide....

Link to comment

I'll admit, I didn't read through the whole thread, but filtering out micros in the PQ doesn't solve the problem completely, as there are some creative, well done, cleverly hidden micros that take you to a great spot :laughing:...

The OP's problem (along with BuffaloPennies')wasn't with micros that he didn't like. It was with all micros. Therefore, filtering out all micros is a perfect solution for him.

 

Of course, for a person who enjoys some micros, but finds that most of the caches that he doesn't enjoy are micros, filtering out all micros is still a very good solution. If the person ever finds all of the non-micros, he can go back and take a closer look at the micros to see if there are any that he want's to look for.

Link to comment
....and never have to worry about micros, because they won't show up.
With the exception of micro owners who deliberately leave the size out.
I have every reason to believe that you agree that filtering out a large percentage of the caches that you don't enjoy is a reasonable solution to their problem. Otherwise, I would have to believe that you, in fact, would not be happy unless caches that you didn't like ceased to exist, even though others like them.

 

You will never be able to sort out all of the caches that you don't love and sort in all of the caches that you do love. You never have been able to do it and you never will.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Greetings,

Was interesting to come across this thread today as I have recently been considering placing a request for a new feature.

 

My wife and I have been caching since June of last year and just recently upgraded to the Premium Membership to show our support for the Groundspeak crew and, hopefully, gain some new searching tools.

 

More specifically, we too would like to be able to eliminate the micro from our search results lists as we have found enough of them now to have lost interest. Finding the cache is only part of the fun for us. Having interesting and creative containers to find is the real fun and, of course, topping it off is the SWAG! :-)

 

If the cache can't carry even a small amount of interesting booty/bounty, it won't be on our future runs.

 

Cheers.

 

BPs

Welcome to the fun.

 

Now that you are a premium member, you can build pocket queries that will allow you to have files of cache data emailed to you (as many as 500 caches each). When ordering these pocket queries, you can choose from many options including limiting the size of caches included in the query.

 

As a bonus, these queries can also be run online. Therefore, you can build PQs of your local area and never have to worry about micros, because they won't show up.

 

Thanks for the tip! I had already created one of these PQs to get in on the FTF aspect of the game and did leave off the micro as the size, opting for Regular or Large. I hadn't tried to build a different PQ for general interest. I was thinking of how nice it would be to have a size checkbox option on the ad-hoc search screens when you just want to perform a quick search and hit the streets.

 

Cheers.

Link to comment

 

Thanks for the tip! I had already created one of these PQs to get in on the FTF aspect of the game and did leave off the micro as the size, opting for Regular or Large. I hadn't tried to build a different PQ for general interest. I was thinking of how nice it would be to have a size checkbox option on the ad-hoc search screens when you just want to perform a quick search and hit the streets.

 

Cheers.

Look into PQ preview. You set up the PQ as you like, then preview it - the pages are the same as other online search pages. If you set a PQ, say, with your home co-ords for caches you haven't found and everything but micro's you can bookmark the preview page and get anytime you want.

Link to comment

 

Thanks for the tip! I had already created one of these PQs to get in on the FTF aspect of the game and did leave off the micro as the size, opting for Regular or Large. I hadn't tried to build a different PQ for general interest. I was thinking of how nice it would be to have a size checkbox option on the ad-hoc search screens when you just want to perform a quick search and hit the streets.

 

Cheers.

Look into PQ preview. You set up the PQ as you like, then preview it - the pages are the same as other online search pages. If you set a PQ, say, with your home co-ords for caches you haven't found and everything but micro's you can bookmark the preview page and get anytime you want.

 

Nice!

Thanks!!

Link to comment

I have to agree with Brian on his earlier comments, whenever he, or anyone else, complains that Micros are ruining their game they are told that everyone gets to play the game te way they want to. But as he has tried to point out, he can no longer play the game the way he wants to and used to.

As a Staunch defender of the position that lame micros are great for some people who like them and thus must be preserved so everyone can play the game the way they want to, KBI is preventing Brian from playing the game the way HE wants to. IN short KBI, you have made the decision that it is more important for some people to find micros on dumpsters than it is for Brian to find large caches in interesting locations, and since both sides can't be happy then the people who want better caches should go to Waymarking and leave Geocaching to the Micro crowd.

I personally would rather find one cache in a great location than 100 in bad locations, but if I had to weed out the 100 before I could find the one I wouldn't bother.

Instead of telling everyone "If you don't like them don't hunt them", perhaps you might consider accepting the fact that Brian and other have just as much right to try and stop them as others have to keep them. Let Groundspeak make the call after the votes are in.

Link to comment

Do like me dont read what kind of cache or where it is or where to park or any other relevant info on the cache .

Hunt unsuccessful and go home angry that you couldnt find the silly thing.

Size wont matter at all after 4 or 5 times doing this method .

 

And you quickly be more interested in finding bottle caps with your new $400 metal detector .

Link to comment

Do like me dont read what kind of cache or where it is or where to park or any other relevant info on the cache .

Hunt unsuccessful and go home angry that you couldnt find the silly thing.

Size wont matter at all after 4 or 5 times doing this method .

 

And you quickly be more interested in finding bottle caps with your new $400 metal detector .

 

Now there's a take on good ole micros that I don't believe that I have ever seen before. :mad:

Link to comment

Here ya go, if you really care about the issue start rating caches here - http://www.ratethiscache.com/

CANNOT ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOUR GEOCACHE MIGHT GET A POOR RATING, PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS WEBSITE.

 

Pretty much rules out the lame caches getting rated as it sounds like the owners have to agree to it first. :mad::mad:

 

I don't think that's true. From their site when you list a cache:

 

Congratulations. Your geocache is now listed on the Geocache Rating System. Please take this time to make sure that you understand that there is no guarantee as to the outcome of the rating your geocache will receive from your fellow cachers.

 

To allow geocachers to rate your cache or see your cache rating, select the text below and paste it into your geocache listing located on the www.geocaching.com website.

 

I am interested in how it works, so let's find out!

 

My cache Holly Pond GCPV6D is missing again, instead of replacing it I am going to archive it, so before I do let's use it for a test - try rating it with the worst rating and let's see if I have any control!

 

I'm actually glad this came up, I should have archived it months ago and forgot!

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Here ya go, if you really care about the issue start rating caches here - http://www.ratethiscache.com/

CANNOT ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOUR GEOCACHE MIGHT GET A POOR RATING, PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS WEBSITE.

 

Pretty much rules out the lame caches getting rated as it sounds like the owners have to agree to it first. :mad::mad:

 

I don't think that's true. From their site when you list a cache:

 

Congratulations. Your geocache is now listed on the Geocache Rating System. Please take this time to make sure that you understand that there is no guarantee as to the outcome of the rating your geocache will receive from your fellow cachers.

 

To allow geocachers to rate your cache or see your cache rating, select the text below and paste it into your geocache listing located on the www.geocaching.com website.

 

I am interested in how it works, so let's find out!

 

My cache Holly Pond GCPV6D is missing again, instead of replacing it I am going to archive it, so before I do let's use it for a test - try rating it with the worst rating and let's see if I have any control!

 

Sure, I can do that.

My point though is that hte cache owner has to list it, so if you thought your cache would get a bas rating and you didn't want to, would you list it?

Link to comment

This is the email I got after it was rated - I do not get an opportunity to edit or respond to the rating

Greetings TheAlabamaRambler. This is a friendly note to let you know that one of your geocaches listed on the Geocache Rating System has recently been rated.

 

Geocache Name: Holly Pond

Waypoint: GCPV6D

Country: United States

State: AL

Total Weighted Rating: 1.00

Container Score: 1

Location Score: 1

Hide Score: 1

Overall Score: 1

So, at least for those owners willing to list their caches, this may be the start of a usable rating system.

 

The problem, of course, is that it is based on the honor system - the ratings are anonymous, and therefore I can see folks rating out of spite and evil nature, making a good idea useless.

 

Take the anonymity out so the cache owner can check to see if the rater actually visited and you might have something workable.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

I have to agree with Brian on his earlier comments, whenever he, or anyone else, complains that Micros are ruining their game they are told that everyone gets to play the game te way they want to. But as he has tried to point out, he can no longer play the game the way he wants to and used to.

As a Staunch defender of the position that lame micros are great for some people who like them and thus must be preserved so everyone can play the game the way they want to, KBI is preventing Brian from playing the game the way HE wants to. IN short KBI, you have made the decision that it is more important for some people to find micros on dumpsters than it is for Brian to find large caches in interesting locations, and since both sides can't be happy then the people who want better caches should go to Waymarking and leave Geocaching to the Micro crowd.

I personally would rather find one cache in a great location than 100 in bad locations, but if I had to weed out the 100 before I could find the one I wouldn't bother.

Instead of telling everyone "If you don't like them don't hunt them", perhaps you might consider accepting the fact that Brian and other have just as much right to try and stop them as others have to keep them. Let Groundspeak make the call after the votes are in.

 

This: "Let Groundspeak make the call after the votes are in." I can hardly wait to see in action.

 

What are the possible "calls" that we can look forward to?

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

I have to agree with Brian on his earlier comments, whenever he, or anyone else, complains that Micros are ruining their game they are told that everyone gets to play the game te way they want to. But as he has tried to point out, he can no longer play the game the way he wants to and used to.

As a Staunch defender of the position that lame micros are great for some people who like them and thus must be preserved so everyone can play the game the way they want to, KBI is preventing Brian from playing the game the way HE wants to. IN short KBI, you have made the decision that it is more important for some people to find micros on dumpsters than it is for Brian to find large caches in interesting locations, and since both sides can't be happy then the people who want better caches should go to Waymarking and leave Geocaching to the Micro crowd.

I personally would rather find one cache in a great location than 100 in bad locations, but if I had to weed out the 100 before I could find the one I wouldn't bother.

Instead of telling everyone "If you don't like them don't hunt them", perhaps you might consider accepting the fact that Brian and other have just as much right to try and stop them as others have to keep them. Let Groundspeak make the call after the votes are in.

 

This: "Let Groundspeak make the call after the votes are in." I can hardly wait to see in action.

 

It is their site, the decision to change or stay the course is theirs to make, either way they go some people won't like it. :mad:

Link to comment

I have to agree with Brian on his earlier comments, whenever he, or anyone else, complains that Micros are ruining their game they are told that everyone gets to play the game te way they want to. But as he has tried to point out, he can no longer play the game the way he wants to and used to.

As a Staunch defender of the position that lame micros are great for some people who like them and thus must be preserved so everyone can play the game the way they want to, KBI is preventing Brian from playing the game the way HE wants to. IN short KBI, you have made the decision that it is more important for some people to find micros on dumpsters than it is for Brian to find large caches in interesting locations, and since both sides can't be happy then the people who want better caches should go to Waymarking and leave Geocaching to the Micro crowd.

I personally would rather find one cache in a great location than 100 in bad locations, but if I had to weed out the 100 before I could find the one I wouldn't bother.

Instead of telling everyone "If you don't like them don't hunt them", perhaps you might consider accepting the fact that Brian and other have just as much right to try and stop them as others have to keep them. Let Groundspeak make the call after the votes are in.

 

This: "Let Groundspeak make the call after the votes are in." I can hardly wait to see in action.

 

It is their site, the decision to change or stay the course is theirs to make, either way they go some people won't like it. :mad:

 

Exactly the BS that I expected.

Link to comment

I have to agree with Brian on his earlier comments, whenever he, or anyone else, complains that Micros are ruining their game they are told that everyone gets to play the game te way they want to. But as he has tried to point out, he can no longer play the game the way he wants to and used to.

As a Staunch defender of the position that lame micros are great for some people who like them and thus must be preserved so everyone can play the game the way they want to, KBI is preventing Brian from playing the game the way HE wants to. IN short KBI, you have made the decision that it is more important for some people to find micros on dumpsters than it is for Brian to find large caches in interesting locations, and since both sides can't be happy then the people who want better caches should go to Waymarking and leave Geocaching to the Micro crowd.

I personally would rather find one cache in a great location than 100 in bad locations, but if I had to weed out the 100 before I could find the one I wouldn't bother.

Instead of telling everyone "If you don't like them don't hunt them", perhaps you might consider accepting the fact that Brian and other have just as much right to try and stop them as others have to keep them. Let Groundspeak make the call after the votes are in.

 

This: "Let Groundspeak make the call after the votes are in." I can hardly wait to see in action.

 

It is their site, the decision to change or stay the course is theirs to make, either way they go some people won't like it. :mad:

 

Exactly the BS that I expected.

 

Wow, the Team Cotati Seal of Approval, I can die a happy man now.

Link to comment

I have to agree with Brian on his earlier comments, whenever he, or anyone else, complains that Micros are ruining their game they are told that everyone gets to play the game te way they want to. But as he has tried to point out, he can no longer play the game the way he wants to and used to.

As a Staunch defender of the position that lame micros are great for some people who like them and thus must be preserved so everyone can play the game the way they want to, KBI is preventing Brian from playing the game the way HE wants to. IN short KBI, you have made the decision that it is more important for some people to find micros on dumpsters than it is for Brian to find large caches in interesting locations, and since both sides can't be happy then the people who want better caches should go to Waymarking and leave Geocaching to the Micro crowd.

I personally would rather find one cache in a great location than 100 in bad locations, but if I had to weed out the 100 before I could find the one I wouldn't bother.

Instead of telling everyone "If you don't like them don't hunt them", perhaps you might consider accepting the fact that Brian and other have just as much right to try and stop them as others have to keep them. Let Groundspeak make the call after the votes are in.

While I agree that KBI is being unfair to briansnat an others like him, those who simply complain about microSpew are fighting an uphill battle. They need to accept that the sport has changed.

 

The early adopters of geocaching were people who already had a GPS for some other reason. This means that many were hikers, hunters, fishermen, 4-wheelers, or mountain bikers. So a high percentage of early caches were placed in more remote areas. Many people found that geocaching was something to do while on a hike or out 4-wheeling. Soon they found that caching became a way for hikers and others to exchange their favorite trails and hiking destinations. They began to believe that the geocaching had a second purpose - to take to you to new places you hadn't been to before.

 

Of course there were urban caches hidden even back in those early days. Some were by people trying to take you to some interesting place. There seemed to be many that took you to someone's favorite restaurant back before the no commercial rule and even after it but before the interpretation was changed so you couldn't even mention the restaurant's name. Other caches were placed in small urban parks. People enjoyed going to YAPIDKA. Even those few hidden in a strip mall could be interesting as these let you know where the Circle K was in the neighboring town.

 

The popularity of geocaching grew and the demographics changed somewhat. Older people found it a good way to spend time while traveling around in their motorhomes. Families with younger children were told that this treasure hunting game was a great family activity. But some families didn't want to hike or just didn't have the time. They preferred hunting urban caches even if it sometimes meant there wasn't swag the kids could trade for. High school students found it a way to have an adventure after school - and of course the mall was a great place to hide caches. For the new cachers, caching was about finding the cache. If it took you someplace nice it was a bonus but almost any cache would be better than no cache. For some the best cache was one that was a secret that the muggles who passed it everyday did know about that you could share with other cachers. In a way, not much different than the early geocachers sharing a secret trail or spot in the woods.

 

The change in demographics meant that briansnat could no longer expect to find the mix of caches that he once did. He remembers that when he started most every cache was an adventure and only a few were "lame". He may begrudgingly accept that some cachers like finding micros in lampposts or maybe he feels that if they just took time to accept the old school idea that a cache should take you someplace interesting there would be fewer parking lot hides. Another old timer, sbell111, has embraced the changes. He finds with the new tools that Geocaching.com has offered he can select caches he might enjoy more. He doesn't worry too much if he misses a few good caches if he can avoid most of the ones he finds lame. There are now far more caches for him to find than there ever were in the past. He has even begun to enjoy some of the "lame" ones since he stopped expecting that every cache needs to take you to a interesting place.

Link to comment

Over the years I've read people complaining that the geocaching isn't like it was in the good old days. Looking back at some of my early finds, I don't see all that much difference than most caches today - except that hiding techniques have improved so much. 9 out of 10 great locations? Not from where I'm sitting. Here's a run down of my first 15 finds - from April 2001 to July 2001:

 

1. Near top of a small mountain, 2.5 mile hike with 1200 foot gain. Pretty decent view. I did it as it was a normal training hike for me (2-3 times a month).

 

2. Edge of small stand of trees surrounded by grass in a large park. Occasional, partial views from the park of Mt. Rainier.

 

3. State park, in a small forest grove by a small river just off the trail. There was a bit of a view of the lake (surrounded by suburban sprawl). Better views of lake across river at swim beach.

 

4. In forest green belt below low rent apartments. Lousy signal, wandered from stump to stump until found the right one. No view.

 

5. Multi cache on bike trail. Mixed business & residential area, with some views of river. Ended under highway bridge over river, with interstate freeway less than a 1/4 mile away.

 

6. In bushes next to bike path across "river" (really a slough) from small town (edge of Seattle, so fairly urban).

 

7. In forest across a pond from major road (noise constant). A few hundred away is a river, but better views from road.

 

8. Plastic easter egg at base of tree down a steep drop from dirt road in urban park. Views of city.

 

9. In stand of trees after crossing a wide field of grass. No views, river over that way somewhere. Mostly farming country.

 

10. In fair sized suburban park, multi cache thru play areas, ending in broken cement pipe. Views of woods.

 

11. Under a wood walkway over a swampy edge of a small lake, next to a shopping mall.

 

12. In a small suburban park, multi lead from info sign to rock wall along the road to a parking lot. No views, except trees.

 

13. Interesting little, steep hill in the midst of indutrial/retail area. No views exept buildings & parking lot (the long one to the east only speeds up in non-rush hour - about 2am).

 

14. Good sized park on Puget Sound, at edge of trail on a steep hillside, in forest. No view from cache.

 

15. My first FTF, but was in Mt. Rainier NP so cache box went away and was changed to a virt. Nice hike in to a couple of waterfalls. Views of Mt. Rainier from drive to TH.

 

How often I see the "same" hides today? Many of those hides are now discounted as common, even "lame" by some ("why did you bring me here?"). But did any of those seem mundane/common back then? Heck, no! It was all new and exciting. Would they be considered great/interesting locations today? Mostly not. But back then??? So what changed? Just our preceptions and memories.

 

It's an interesting thing, our memories. As a full time magician I see this quite a bit. As an example, in a show I produce a few oranges in a slightly mystifying way. A short time later people from the audience will discribe the trick as "a bushel of grapefruit produced before their eyes!" What is new, engaging and wonderful stays in our mind, while the mundane tends to disappear (I wish I could work magic like that!) leaving a memory of something bigger, brighter and better than what was/is real.

 

Look at micros. When micros first started showing up (film cans) they were very tough to find, seldom were they rated less than a 3* - now they are a "lame" 1*. What's changed? A film can is still the same, but everybody hates them. (I know, it's exaggeration to make a point.)

 

Before TB's, there were a few items that were followed around from cache to cache - some even tried to "catch" them (I remember an Age of Empire CD that I chased for a while before finally catching it). That little sub-game lead to TB's. Now I just put a watch on a TB and sit back and my computer tracks it for me. Is it the same? Nope. Different, yes. Better? In some/most ways, yes. But the excitement is less.

 

I also remember that it took as much work (or more - we have much better tools now) to plan a trip. I did a two and a half day cache trip to Vancouver WA in 2002. I did something like 26 caches and trying to work out the routes between them was work - they were spread quite a ways apart, paperless caching wasn't happening, and auto routing didn't exist.

 

Good old days? Hmm, I'm not sure I'd agree that "back then" was the best time of caching.

 

Micro's bad? No, I think the variety is good.

Link to comment

Here ya go, if you really care about the issue start rating caches here - http://www.ratethiscache.com/

CANNOT ACCEPT THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOUR GEOCACHE MIGHT GET A POOR RATING, PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS WEBSITE.

 

Pretty much rules out the lame caches getting rated as it sounds like the owners have to agree to it first. :mad::mad:

 

I don't think that's true. From their site when you list a cache:

 

Congratulations. Your geocache is now listed on the Geocache Rating System. Please take this time to make sure that you understand that there is no guarantee as to the outcome of the rating your geocache will receive from your fellow cachers.

 

To allow geocachers to rate your cache or see your cache rating, select the text below and paste it into your geocache listing located on the www.geocaching.com website.

 

I am interested in how it works, so let's find out!

 

My cache Holly Pond GCPV6D is missing again, instead of replacing it I am going to archive it, so before I do let's use it for a test - try rating it with the worst rating and let's see if I have any control!

 

I'm actually glad this came up, I should have archived it months ago and forgot!

 

Ya want a low rating ... you got it! ;-)

Link to comment

Thanks to all who rated it for the test!

 

Except for the lack of ability to edit bogus ratings it looks like that site will work as well as anything else I have seen.

 

It will work as well as any honor system will.

 

GCPV6D is now archived.

 

I won't list my caches there until they identify who left ratings and allow owners to delete bogus raters.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Here ya go, if you really care about the issue start rating caches here - http://www.ratethiscache.com/

 

Thanks TAR! I have already begun loading my caches into that database and posting the "rate me" link into my cache pages. So far I am the only Oklahoma cacher to list any. Maybe as other locals see my cache listings, they will in turn add thiers to the list.

 

I think it a great idea. Maybe could use a few tweeks, as mentioned above, but great overall I think. If I start seeing low numbers for any of my caches, I will know that I have not fully lived up to my end of the caching bargain. I can then re-evaluate the site/container and make changes or archiving as needed.

 

Has this been posted as it's own thread before? This is the first I've heard of the website. I think it could use some broadcasting to the masses.

 

SD

Link to comment

Here ya go, if you really care about the issue start rating caches here - http://www.ratethiscache.com/

 

Thanks TAR! I have already begun loading my caches into that database and posting the "rate me" link into my cache pages. So far I am the only Oklahoma cacher to list any. Maybe as other locals see my cache listings, they will in turn add thiers to the list.

 

I think it a great idea. Maybe could use a few tweeks, as mentioned above, but great overall I think. If I start seeing low numbers for any of my caches, I will know that I have not fully lived up to my end of the caching bargain. I can then re-evaluate the site/container and make changes or archiving as needed.

 

Has this been posted as it's own thread before? This is the first I've heard of the website. I think it could use some broadcasting to the masses.

 

SD

Good idea - I will start one now.

And I guess I will go ahead and list my caches as well, believing as I do that the vast majority of cachers are honest and well-meaning.

Link to comment

....How often I see the "same" hides today? Many of those hides are now discounted as common, even "lame" by some ("why did you bring me here?"). But did any of those seem mundane/common back then? Heck, no! It was all new and exciting. Would they be considered great/interesting locations today? Mostly not. But back then??? So what changed? Just our preceptions and memories....

 

There is a lot of truth to this. Back "then" caches were so scarce that any new cache was a thing of wonder.

 

Now the old timers are have developed refined tastes or they have become jaded depending. However I still see newbies who are just finding this activity for whom all caches are things of wonder. I like newbies.

Link to comment
....How often I see the "same" hides today? Many of those hides are now discounted as common, even "lame" by some ("why did you bring me here?"). But did any of those seem mundane/common back then? Heck, no! It was all new and exciting. Would they be considered great/interesting locations today? Mostly not. But back then??? So what changed? Just our preceptions and memories....
There is a lot of truth to this. Back "then" caches were so scarce that any new cache was a thing of wonder.

 

Now the old timers are have developed refined tastes or they have become jaded depending. However I still see newbies who are just finding this activity for whom all caches are things of wonder. I like newbies.

That's a good point. The coolest thing to me when I started playing was that somebody that I didn't know and would never meet hid something for me to find AND the rest of the world is clueless about it.
Link to comment

Here ya go, if you really care about the issue start rating caches here - http://www.ratethiscache.com/

 

Thanks TAR! I have already begun loading my caches into that database and posting the "rate me" link into my cache pages. So far I am the only Oklahoma cacher to list any. Maybe as other locals see my cache listings, they will in turn add thiers to the list.

 

I think it a great idea. Maybe could use a few tweeks, as mentioned above, but great overall I think. If I start seeing low numbers for any of my caches, I will know that I have not fully lived up to my end of the caching bargain. I can then re-evaluate the site/container and make changes or archiving as needed.

 

Has this been posted as it's own thread before? This is the first I've heard of the website. I think it could use some broadcasting to the masses.

 

SD

Good idea - I will start one now.

And I guess I will go ahead and list my caches as well, believing as I do that the vast majority of cachers are honest and well-meaning.

 

I was just thinking it would be nicer if the ratings were tied in with the finds. I rated yout test cache last night and I've never been to Alabama, let alone looked for the cache. If I was feeling vidictive I could trash all your caches in the ratings and who would even know I hadn't looked for them?

Still it is a start in the right direction, the Wright Brothers first plane barely left the ground but it was a start.

Link to comment

Here ya go, if you really care about the issue start rating caches here - http://www.ratethiscache.com/

 

Thanks TAR! I have already begun loading my caches into that database and posting the "rate me" link into my cache pages. So far I am the only Oklahoma cacher to list any. Maybe as other locals see my cache listings, they will in turn add thiers to the list.

 

I think it a great idea. Maybe could use a few tweeks, as mentioned above, but great overall I think. If I start seeing low numbers for any of my caches, I will know that I have not fully lived up to my end of the caching bargain. I can then re-evaluate the site/container and make changes or archiving as needed.

 

Has this been posted as it's own thread before? This is the first I've heard of the website. I think it could use some broadcasting to the masses.

 

SD

Good idea - I will start one now.

And I guess I will go ahead and list my caches as well, believing as I do that the vast majority of cachers are honest and well-meaning.

 

I was just thinking it would be nicer if the ratings were tied in with the finds. I rated yout test cache last night and I've never been to Alabama, let alone looked for the cache. If I was feeling vidictive I could trash all your caches in the ratings and who would even know I hadn't looked for them?

Still it is a start in the right direction, the Wright Brothers first plane barely left the ground but it was a start.

A new thread has been started for this cache rating discussion so as not to further distract this train wreck of a thread! ;)

Link to comment
I have to agree with Brian on his earlier comments, whenever he, or anyone else, complains that Micros are ruining their game they are told that everyone gets to play the game te way they want to. But as he has tried to point out, he can no longer play the game the way he wants to and used to.

As Briansnat has explained: The way he wants to play the game is to load up an all-inclusive mass of blind cache coordinates and head out the door while not watching where he is going … AND not being disappointed. That’s what he wants. Never mind that what he wants is apparently not possible. There are more people caching now than back when he started – more by a couple orders of magnitude – and most of them are either unable to continue inventing amazing new hides that Briansnat's experienced eyes haven't seen before, or are happy to place caches of the types they think are fun regardless of Briansnat’s needs.

 

What if I told you I wanted to be able to walk into any random restaurant, point randomly at the menu with my eyes closed, and receive exactly the specific meal I want ... every time? I’ve tried it, but 9 times out of 10 I am disappointed. My method used to work just fine in the old days when the only eating place in my town was a Taco Bell, but now whenever I try it I end up being served some yucky crap like sushi, pancakes, sugar-free pie, eggplant, or some other food I hate.

 

Restaurant variety is ruining my meals for me. I can’t eat out the way I want to, and used to. Doesn't that sound reasonable?

 

As a Staunch defender of the position that lame micros are great for some people who like them and thus must be preserved so everyone can play the game the way they want to, KBI is preventing Brian from playing the game the way HE wants to.

I am not preventing Briansnat from doing anything. I do not stand between him and his insistence on being disappointed at caches that he allows to be chosen for him by accident instead of doing a little research. I do not stand between him and his insistence on pining for the way things used to be. I am merely trying to understand his objection to helping himself by modifying his caching to-do list in a way that might leave him less frustrated.

 

IN short KBI, you have made the decision that it is more important for some people to find micros on dumpsters than it is for Brian to find large caches in interesting locations ...

I decided what?

 

As far as I can tell I am not in any policy-making position for Groundspeak. As far as I can tell, neither the micros nor Briansnat’s preferred caches are more "important" than the other.

 

and since both sides can't be happy ...

I am not unhappy. I enjoy the game just fine. I’m not the one who is complaining.

 

I’m just trying to understand.

 

...then the people who want better caches should go to Waymarking and leave Geocaching to the Micro crowd.

Nope.

 

I did not tell Briansnat to give up caching. I was addressing Briansnat’s specific lament that caching isn’t playing tour guide for him as well as he believes it should. I was simply pointing out that Waymarking might better satisfy his exacting requirement.

 

The tour guide thing is HIS requirement. I didn’t make it up. It’s what he posted.

 

Instead of telling everyone "If you don't like them don't hunt them", perhaps you might consider accepting the fact that Brian and other have just as much right to try and stop them as others have to keep them.

Stop them?

 

Each of us has a right to express our opinion. Each of us has a right to attempt to influence others’ cache hides by any means we see fit – as long as such means respect everyone’s rights, that is. One can lead by example when placing caches; one can describe one’s preference in the forums; one can whine in the forums about the types of caches one prefers NOT to find; one can even express an entitlement to a homework-free freedom from disappointment.

 

Nobody, however, has the right to actively stop a cache hider from following his own aesthetic free will as long as his cache is guideline-compliant.

 

Stop them? Are you suggesting that someone should support an official ban on certain guideline-compliant caches just because that person doesn't like them? If not, then what are you suggesting?

 

Let Groundspeak make the call after the votes are in.

Groundspeak is a private business. It is their sandbox; they can do whatever they like with their website.

 

People generally hide what the like to find, however, and Groundspeak knows that. They’re not about to run off a large number of their customers just to appease a few grumblers.

 

Creativity enforcement has already been tried at another caching site. We all know how successful that was. It was about as successful as communism has been in all the places IT has been tried. Any system which is based on a refusal to accept human nature is pretty much doomed to failure.

 

I favor tolerance and acceptance personally, and take responsibility for my own happiness, but some seem to prefer pushing their own artistic vision upon others.

 

To be fair, though, Briansnat doesn't really fall into the "Ban-The-Micros!" category ... he simply wants his non-micros served up to him without having to read the menu.

Link to comment
If Geocaching's primary purpose is to play tour guide then why don't I see "tour guide," or any other words to that effect, anywhere in the Getting Started FAQ?

 

If Geocaches are only intended to be placed in substantially interesting locations then why don't I see "substantially interesting locations," or any other words to that effect, in the Guide to Hiding a Geocache ?

From the Getting Started FAQ:
The location of a cache can be very entertaining indeed. As many say, location, location, location! The location of a cache demonstrates the founder's skill and possibly even daring. A cache located on the side of a rocky cliff accessible only by rock climbing equipment may be hard to find. An underwater cache may only be accessed by scuba. Other caches may require long difficult hiking, orienteering, and special equipment to get to. Caches may be located in cities both above and below ground, inside and outside buildings.
...and from Guide to Hiding a Geocache:
Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way. The big reward for geocachers, other than finding the cache itself, is the location. A prime camping spot, great viewpoint, unusual location, etc. are all good places to hide a cache.
While they may not have specifically mentioned "Tour Guides," they both do talk about bringing people to interesting locations.

 

Oh, wait, isn't that what a Tour Guide does?

 

Huh... :D

 

You don't see the phrases "Tour Guide" or "substantially interesting locations" because they aren't phrases they used. They still talked about them, as you see from the sections I quoted. If I were to assume that the page didn't address the question because a certain phrase was missing from that page, I could say that neither page talks about "hiding a geocache," "how to hide your geocache" or several other variations. Because those phrases are not included, is it true? No.

Good work. :P

 

Now show me where it says it is Geocaching's primary purpose to take people to interesting locations, or that all Geocaches are intended to be placed only in those settings. Read my post again, the part you quoted.

 

Interesting hides do not require interesting locations. Challenging hides do not require challenging locations. Mundane spots sometimes contain the coolest hides.

 

A great view, historical spot or other unique location is always welcome, but is not a requirement for me or folks like me to be able to enjoy a cache. As best I can determine, none of those things is a requirement for a cache to be listed on this site either. That was my point. That is why a random and blind reliance on geocaches makes for a poor tour guide.

Link to comment
Here's a run down of my first 15 finds - from April 2001 to July 2001:

 

1. Near top of a small mountain, 2.5 mile hike with 1200 foot gain. Pretty decent view. I did it as it was a normal training hike for me (2-3 times a month).

 

2. Edge of small stand of trees surrounded by grass in a large park. Occasional, partial views from the park of Mt. Rainier.

 

3. State park, in a small forest grove by a small river just off the trail. There was a bit of a view of the lake (surrounded by suburban sprawl). Better views of lake across river at swim beach.

 

4. In forest green belt below low rent apartments. Lousy signal, wandered from stump to stump until found the right one. No view.

 

5. Multi cache on bike trail. Mixed business & residential area, with some views of river. Ended under highway bridge over river, with interstate freeway less than a 1/4 mile away.

 

6. In bushes next to bike path across "river" (really a slough) from small town (edge of Seattle, so fairly urban).

 

7. In forest across a pond from major road (noise constant). A few hundred away is a river, but better views from road.

 

8. Plastic easter egg at base of tree down a steep drop from dirt road in urban park. Views of city.

 

9. In stand of trees after crossing a wide field of grass. No views, river over that way somewhere. Mostly farming country.

 

10. In fair sized suburban park, multi cache thru play areas, ending in broken cement pipe. Views of woods.

 

11. Under a wood walkway over a swampy edge of a small lake, next to a shopping mall.

 

12. In a small suburban park, multi lead from info sign to rock wall along the road to a parking lot. No views, except trees.

 

13. Interesting little, steep hill in the midst of indutrial/retail area. No views exept buildings & parking lot (the long one to the east only speeds up in non-rush hour - about 2am).

 

14. Good sized park on Puget Sound, at edge of trail on a steep hillside, in forest. No view from cache.

 

15. My first FTF, but was in Mt. Rainier NP so cache box went away and was changed to a virt. Nice hike in to a couple of waterfalls. Views of Mt. Rainier from drive to TH.

 

How often I see the "same" hides today? Many of those hides are now discounted as common, even "lame" by some ("why did you bring me here?"). But did any of those seem mundane/common back then? Heck, no! It was all new and exciting. Would they be considered great/interesting locations today? Mostly not. But back then??? So what changed? Just our preceptions and memories.

 

Those sound pretty good to me. That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for when I go geocaching. I don't think most of us are looking to be blown away by by every find. I don't see any caches behind strip malls, on residential streets, on guardrails with no POI, LPCs in big box store lots and caches in dumpster areas and in trash strewn lots among your first 15 finds. I think those are the ones that generate the complaints. At least those are the ones that just don't do it for me.

 

As Briansnat has explained: The way he wants to play the game is to load up an all-inclusive mass of blind cache coordinates and head out the door while not watching where he is going … AND not being disappointed. That’s what he wants

 

That is a misrepresentation of what I have been saying. Either you haven't understood my posts, or you are deliberately mis-stating my position. I never said I wanted to go caching blind and expect to never be disappointed. In fact I admit to an occasional clunker in the early days. They are to be expected when you have all kinds of people voluntarily hiding caches.

 

My point all along has been that at one time those clunkers were the exception, but they have become the rule in many areas.

 

To be fair, though, Briansnat doesn't really fall into the "Ban-The-Micros!" category ... he simply wants his non-micros served up to him without having to read the menu.

 

Again another mis-representation of my position. I want cache hiders to be encouraged to raise the bar a bit with their hides. Instead of putting the in the 7-Eleven lot, use the park across the street. Instead of hiding it in another Walmart lamp post, hide it next to the hidden stream that flows through the ravine alongside the parking lot. Instead of hiding it in the bushes in front of Burger King, put in it in the pocket park two doors down. Rather that sticking it on a random spot on a random guardraill, put it next to that historical marker a half mile down the road. That's all.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
As Briansnat has explained: The way he wants to play the game is to load up an all-inclusive mass of blind cache coordinates and head out the door while not watching where he is going … AND not being disappointed. That’s what he wants
That is a misrepresentation of what I have been saying. Either you haven't understood my posts, or you are deliberately mis-stating my position. I never said I wanted to go caching blind and expect to never be disappointed. In fact I admit to an occasional clunker in the early days. They are to be expected when you have all kinds of people voluntarily hiding caches.

 

My point all along has been that at one time those clunkers were the exception, but they have become the rule in many areas.

Could you please restate what you do want, because based on your previous posts in this thread, I felt that KBI nailed it.

 

Do you want these caches to go away?

Do you want better search alternatives so you can avoid the caches you don't like?

Do you want to be able simply up your GPSr with local caches (wherever 'local' may be) without utilizing advanced search techniques and end up loving most of the caches?

 

I thought that you were in the third camp, with a dash of the first. However, from your last post, it appears that you are all the way into the first camp.

 

Please further explain you position.

Link to comment
As Briansnat has explained: The way he wants to play the game is to load up an all-inclusive mass of blind cache coordinates and head out the door while not watching where he is going … AND not being disappointed. That’s what he wants
That is a misrepresentation of what I have been saying. Either you haven't understood my posts, or you are deliberately mis-stating my position. I never said I wanted to go caching blind and expect to never be disappointed. In fact I admit to an occasional clunker in the early days. They are to be expected when you have all kinds of people voluntarily hiding caches.

 

My point all along has been that at one time those clunkers were the exception, but they have become the rule in many areas.

Could you please restate what you do want, because based on your previous posts in this thread, I felt that KBI nailed it.

 

Do you want these caches to go away?

Do you want better search alternatives so you can avoid the caches you don't like?

Do you want to be able simply up your GPSr with local caches (wherever 'local' may be) without utilizing advanced search techniques and end up loving most of the caches?

 

I thought that you were in the third camp, with a dash of the first. However, from your last post, it appears that you are all the way into the first camp.

 

Please further explain you position.

 

I want cache hiders to be encouraged to raise the bar a bit with their hides. Instead of putting the in the 7-Eleven lot, use the park across the street. Instead of hiding it in another Walmart lamp post, hide it next to the hidden stream that flows through the ravine alongside the parking lot. Instead of hiding it in the bushes in front of Burger King, put in it in the pocket park two doors down. Rather that sticking it on a random spot on a random guardraill, put it next to that historical marker a half mile down the road. That's all.

Link to comment
I want cache hiders to be encouraged to raise the bar a bit with their hides. Instead of putting the in the 7-Eleven lot, use the park across the street.
What if there isn't a park across the street? What if the cacher wanted his cache in the 7-Eleven lot? Doesn't a cacher get to choose where to place his cache, as long as the guidelines are met?
Instead of hiding it in another Walmart lamp post, hide it next to the hidden stream that flows through the ravine alongside the parking lot.
What if there is no hidden stream, there is no access to the stream or the cacher is not aware of the stream? What if the cacher wants to make his cache a LPM at WalMart?
Instead of hiding it in the bushes in front of Burger King, put in it in the pocket park two doors down.
What if there is no pocket park two doors down? What if there is already a geocache in the pocket park? What if the geocacher doesn't know about the pocket park? What if the geocacher wants to hide his cache at BK?
Rather that sticking it on a random spot on a random guardraill, put it next to that historical marker a half mile down the road. That's all.
What if there is no historical marker half a mile down the road? What if the historical marker already has a micro stuck to it? What if the cacher wants to hide his cache on that guardrail at that location?

 

The simple truth to the matter is that cachers tend to hide caches that they would enjoy finding. They choose the size and location of their caches for their own reasons. As long as those caches meet the guidelines, they are listed.

 

As finders, we have choices. In most areas, we have thousands of choices. Based on our choices, we will either have fun or we will not. What will you choose?

Link to comment

The problem is it isn't just a plainly simple as us "choosing" to have fun. Other issues we have little or no control over factor into our ability to have fun.

 

When said "choices" that are "fun" run out and most new caches are the 7-Eleven, Wal-Mart and BK variety it'll detrimentally the ability for those cachers to have fun.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...