No thought involved!

[Mr.Yuck]

Hide caches that you would enjoy finding. Seek caches that sound appealing.

 

No one complains about the movies they don't watch, the music they don't listen to, food they don't eat or anything else they don't expose themselves to. But by doing them we learn what we do and don't like. Continuing afterwards to expose yourself to what you didn't like sounds like an odd choice to make.

 

It sounds like everyone already has an opinion that is unlikely to change. See line 1.

 

Find your own fun, there's plenty of room for everyone!

 

 

Incorrect CD. I don't have to spend hours per month studying Broccoli so I can ignore it.

 

It is true however, that it's mere existence offends me.

[+nicolo]

Hide caches that you would enjoy finding. Seek caches that sound appealing.

 

No one complains about the movies they don't watch, the music they don't listen to, food they don't eat or anything else they don't expose themselves to. But by doing them we learn what we do and don't like. Continuing afterwards to expose yourself to what you didn't like sounds like an odd choice to make.

 

It sounds like everyone already has an opinion that is unlikely to change. See line 1.

 

Find your own fun, there's plenty of room for everyone!

 

 

Incorrect CD. I don't have to spend hours per month studying Broccoli so I can ignore it.

 

It is true however, that it's mere existence offends me.

It' spinach for me, brrr!

[Barnie's Band of Gold]

Did 25 or so caches on Saturday and can honestly say that maybe 3 or 4 would be considered memorable. There did not seem to be any correlation between the page listing and the cache therefore making it difficult to "seek caches that sound appealing".

 

What can be said is that there is clearly a decline in the quality of cache placements with few exceptions.

[+willowbrookfarm]

When I started caching a few years ago, I figured I would put a cache near us. But then I started looking for a good spot and found all the ones I though worth doing already had a cache there. But then new ones keep popping up around all the time, so the quality has to go down. With the memorable locations taken, it comes down to the creativity of the hide, I guess.

[J.A.R.S.]

When I started caching a few years ago, I figured I would put a cache near us. But then I started looking for a good spot and found all the ones I though worth doing already had a cache there. But then new ones keep popping up around all the time, so the quality has to go down. With the memorable locations taken, it comes down to the creativity of the hide, I guess.

 

I agree. Finding cache-less WOW locations is getting difficult. I started in late 2001 when planting was an open field of possibilities. I still enjoy planting from time to time but the locations are not quite so scenic. Although I do my darndest to find something interesting about the area (a dog park, a local feature, a cache-less trail, a water feature (pond, brook, creek, etc)). I also plant letterboxes (the box contains a carved rubberstamp that stays with the cache, instead of trading trinkets finders trade and collect stamp images) - I'm hoping that this adds a bit of creativity even if the location is a little run-of-the-mill.

[+Canadavey]

Hmm... I haven't read this forum in a while because I thought it was dead.

 

Wow, what did I do?! I simply made a statement to be creative and *this* happens.

 

Just because "you" (you know who you are) happen to like simpleton caches with no meaning what-so-ever doesn't mean that I / we can't express my / our opinions about the amount of suckage those caches entail. This thread is in regards to caches that have little or no thought behind them. I respect that you also have an opinion (and by all means you're entitled to it) that you're okay with these caches but lets stick to the topic here folks... It's "No Thought Involved". Nothing in the title refers to flaming other users who are against thoughtless caches. So, while you could post your opinion, it's not necessary to keep coming back and telling us to suck it up, stop whining, complaining, whatever.

 

Time for the nay-sayers to move on to another thread and let the people who want to discuss crap caches discuss them without grief.

 

And honestly, I'm not trying to be an a**. It's just retarded that some people can't discuss what they don't like without being objected.

 

Thank you, Elvis has left the building.

[+XopherN71]

The soap box is going to need replacement after this week is over.

[+Plasma Boy]

First, let me say that I did not read this entire thread. I skimmed it.

 

My caching buddy and I came up with an acronym that we sometimes sign on logs when we feel that there is no point to a cache location other than "Simply For The Numbers (SFTN)". In my opinion this pertains to both the owner and the finder. Some owners like to place lots of caches regardless of quality or location. Some finders are just in it for the numbers. When we sign a cache like this we find it to boost our numbers. While we do enjoy the hunt, we are usually let down witjh the quality of the hide and quality of the cache. Maybe these poor quality caches would disappear if we as cachers refused to sign the log, but noted that it is a lame cache, but honestly, I cache for the numbers as well as for the enjoyment.

 

I have 6 caches. I cached for years before I set out my first. I like to believe that they are good quality and well thought out. JMHO.

 

While I will gladly ride my bike along a trail and collect a cache every 160 metres, I would be happier to collect fewer caches along the same trail, if they were placed in good hides, regardless of the distance (greater than the minimum). Sometimes, owners use the distance as the main criteria for placing a cache. It should be the hide location.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Plasma Boy

[Mr.Yuck]

Hmm... I haven't read this forum in a while because I thought it was dead.

 

Wow, what did I do?! I simply made a statement to be creative and *this* happens.

 

Just because "you" (you know who you are) happen to like simpleton caches with no meaning what-so-ever doesn't mean that I / we can't express my / our opinions about the amount of suckage those caches entail. This thread is in regards to caches that have little or no thought behind them. I respect that you also have an opinion (and by all means you're entitled to it) that you're okay with these caches but lets stick to the topic here folks... It's "No Thought Involved". Nothing in the title refers to flaming other users who are against thoughtless caches. So, while you could post your opinion, it's not necessary to keep coming back and telling us to suck it up, stop whining, complaining, whatever.

 

Time for the nay-sayers to move on to another thread and let the people who want to discuss crap caches discuss them without grief.

 

And honestly, I'm not trying to be an a**. It's just retarded that some people can't discuss what they don't like without being objected.

 

Thank you, Elvis has left the building.

 

Aw, those of us who regularly express our opinion on thoughtless (i.e. crap) caches are used to it. There's the same lines over and over; you don't like them, don't find them (I don't), we're all "micro haters" (according to itsnotaboutthenumbers.com, over 20% of my finds are micros), and the crap caches are compared to a different flavor of ice cream (sure, if every manufacturer of ice cream in the world got together and decided they were all going to make all vanilla out of crappy inferior ingredients).

 

Most of the later posts were regarding cache quality in an area decreasing as all the "good spots get taken". I suppose you could make light of the situation, like this cache.