Lame First Hides

[+KBI]

The one thing I can't understand -- the more I read the forums -- is that people don't seem to understand or don't want to accept that people play this game differently. Just because I don't play it the same way you do doesn't mean I'm not right or am doing it wrong. People jump to too many conclusions on this board, it seems. It's unfortunate, too, because this is a great hobby. But if too many "newbies" come on here and see discussions like this and think it's the norm, that type of stuff will chase more people away even moreso than too many LPCs.

 

Again, just my two cents, but every person is different. I'm just happy that there is something that gets me off my duff, away from the computer and outside, exercising and out on a hunt. In the end, I'm happy that I've spent several hours outside, even if it's a day of finding 10 micros or nanos.

Tread carefully, Softball. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest, easiest and simplest caches are just as enjoyable (to some) and therefore worthy of existence as any other hide are typically thrashed by the Complainers. It ain't pretty.

Nobody ever said anything about getting rid of any caches.

 

Care to provide a quote?

Sure!

 

How about the Original Post of this thread? The OP clearly believes that there are some caches which never should have been placed. Further, he/she clearly believes that such caches should NOT be placd in the future. That sure sounds like like "getting rid of caches" to me. Nevermind that those hides he/she describes are comfortably compliant with the guidelines. Nevermind that those hides he/she describes are regularly found and enjoyed by thousands of cachers who don't happen to share his/her aesthetic, or who are happy to hunt any cache. The OP believes they are less than worthy simply because he/she doesn't happen to like them, and therefore wants them gone.

 

There. I answered your question. Care to reconsider answering mine?

[Mushtang]

The one thing I can't understand -- the more I read the forums -- is that people don't seem to understand or don't want to accept that people play this game differently. Just because I don't play it the same way you do doesn't mean I'm not right or am doing it wrong. People jump to too many conclusions on this board, it seems. It's unfortunate, too, because this is a great hobby. But if too many "newbies" come on here and see discussions like this and think it's the norm, that type of stuff will chase more people away even moreso than too many LPCs.

 

Again, just my two cents, but every person is different. I'm just happy that there is something that gets me off my duff, away from the computer and outside, exercising and out on a hunt. In the end, I'm happy that I've spent several hours outside, even if it's a day of finding 10 micros or nanos.

Tread carefully, Softball. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest, easiest and simplest caches are just as enjoyable (to some) and therefore worthy of existence as any other hide are typically thrashed by the Complainers. It ain't pretty.

Nobody ever said anything about getting rid of any caches.

 

Care to provide a quote?

 

<sound of crickets>

[stomps on a cricket]

How about post number 8? He's calling for a new guideline so there will be a minimum allowable size, which is what he would like to use to eliminate nano caches.

 

He doesn't like them, and therefore wants them gone.

[+TrailGators]

The one thing I can't understand -- the more I read the forums -- is that people don't seem to understand or don't want to accept that people play this game differently. Just because I don't play it the same way you do doesn't mean I'm not right or am doing it wrong. People jump to too many conclusions on this board, it seems. It's unfortunate, too, because this is a great hobby. But if too many "newbies" come on here and see discussions like this and think it's the norm, that type of stuff will chase more people away even moreso than too many LPCs.

 

Again, just my two cents, but every person is different. I'm just happy that there is something that gets me off my duff, away from the computer and outside, exercising and out on a hunt. In the end, I'm happy that I've spent several hours outside, even if it's a day of finding 10 micros or nanos.

Tread carefully, Softball. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest, easiest and simplest caches are just as enjoyable (to some) and therefore worthy of existence as any other hide are typically thrashed by the Complainers. It ain't pretty.

Nobody ever said anything about getting rid of any caches.

 

Care to provide a quote?

Sure!

 

How about the Original Post of this thread? The OP clearly believes that there are some caches which never should have been placed. Further, he/she clearly believes that such caches should NOT be placd in the future. That sure sounds like like "getting rid of caches" to me. Nevermind that those hides he/she describes are comfortably compliant with the guidelines. Nevermind that those hides he/she describes are regularly found and enjoyed by thousands of cachers who don't happen to share his/her aesthetic, or who are happy to hunt any cache. The OP believes they are less than worthy simply because he/she doesn't happen to like them, and therefore wants them gone.

 

There. I answered your question. Care to reconsider answering mine?

So you would like the discussion to regress back to a point that none of us still discussing the issue are making? I thought all of us had gotten past that already since nobody seems to be agreeing with it. Edited April 15, 2008 by TrailGators

[+softball29]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

[+TrailGators]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

[Mushtang]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

[+tozainamboku]

The OP asked that people who are hiding their first cache hide ones that he might like and then gave a list of what things make a cache he likes. I didn't mind this too much. A person is certainly allowed to indicate that he prefers chocolate to vanilla. The poster in #8 does ask to ban nano caches - so I replied with the standard ice cream analogy. The fact that one dislikes raspberry ice cream doesn't mean that there aren't others who do like it. I think TrailGators understands the ice cream analogy now. He is not asking for any kind of ice cream to be banned. He is instead asking for a way to find the ice cream he likes. He wants better labeling on the ice cream so he can know what he's getting. But he is looking for short cuts as well. You don't always have to read the ingredients list to decide you might like to try the ice cream. If he wants to choose ice cream base on the length of ice cream reviews he can do this. Certainly it will not work as well as reading the review to see if it is a good or bad review, but maybe he feels that he likes the kinds of ice cream that tend to get long reviews. I think he should be encouragedto try this technique and report back as to how well it works. Eventually he may find a short cut to choosing ice cream that works for him.

 

Ice Cream works better for analogies than Country Clubs.

Edited April 15, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

[Mushtang]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

Dude, that was WAY back in post 206 you're quoting me from. I'm not still discussing banning players or caches.

 

Yeah, it's a fear tactic to mention something that has been mentioned as recently as this thread.

[+TrailGators]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

Dude, that was WAY back in post 206 you're quoting me from. I'm not still discussing banning players or caches.

Try reading your brother's recent post 198...

[Mushtang]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

Dude, that was WAY back in post 206 you're quoting me from. I'm not still discussing banning players or caches.

Try reading your brother's recent post 198...

If the only thing you read in my last reply was the part you quoted, no wonder you didn't get my point.

 

[+TrailGators]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

Dude, that was WAY back in post 206 you're quoting me from. I'm not still discussing banning players or caches.

Try reading your brother's recent post 198...

If the only thing you read in my last reply was the part you quoted, no wonder you didn't get my point.

 

I wanted to settle the point that nobody is talking about getting rid of anything, so we don't get random gloom and doom posts in the middle of the discussion anymore.

[+softball29]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

 

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

[+softball29]

 

Ice Cream works better for analogies than Country Clubs.

 

Says you.

[Mushtang]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

 

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

Even though this will work, you're going to get a lot of "but there's no Caches I Don't Like filter on a PQ" arguments.

[+TrailGators]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

 

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

Simple is good. Care to elaborate?

[Trinity's Crew]

The one thing I can't understand -- the more I read the forums -- is that people don't seem to understand or don't want to accept that people play this game differently. Just because I don't play it the same way you do doesn't mean I'm not right or am doing it wrong. People jump to too many conclusions on this board, it seems. It's unfortunate, too, because this is a great hobby. But if too many "newbies" come on here and see discussions like this and think it's the norm, that type of stuff will chase more people away even moreso than too many LPCs.

 

Again, just my two cents, but every person is different. I'm just happy that there is something that gets me off my duff, away from the computer and outside, exercising and out on a hunt. In the end, I'm happy that I've spent several hours outside, even if it's a day of finding 10 micros or nanos.

Tread carefully, Softball. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest, easiest and simplest caches are just as enjoyable (to some) and therefore worthy of existence as any other hide are typically thrashed by the Complainers. It ain't pretty.

I think KBI paraphrasing CR's post makes a good point. If you search the forums you can find dozens of quotes from people advocating a ban on micros, or nanos, or whatever they don't like. You can find quotes from some cachers advocating the mass removal of caches they deem unworthy. You can even find a quote or two from people who actually HAVE removed caches they didn't like. But I can't recall anyone advocating that we squelch imagination and creativity when hiding a cache.

[+softball29]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

 

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

Simple is good. Care to elaborate?

 

Yeah, set up the PQs to your liking and deal with everything else. Pretty simple.

[+TrailGators]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

 

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

Simple is good. Care to elaborate?

 

Yeah, set up the PQs to your liking and deal with everything else. Pretty simple.

So how would I filter 1/1 traditional micros to remove LPCs? Edited April 15, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

... But I can't recall anyone advocating that we squelch imagination and creativity when hiding a cache.

It's never direct, it's always indirect.

Anytime someone suggestes a rule to make things more fun (for them) or wants things to happen a certain way they are making a smaller box to contain the caching world. A smaller box leaves less room for creative cache thinking. Those same people would proclaim loudly that they fully support creative cache hides.

[Trinity's Crew]

... But I can't recall anyone advocating that we squelch imagination and creativity when hiding a cache.

It's never direct, it's always indirect.

Anytime someone suggestes a rule to make things more fun (for them) or wants things to happen a certain way they are making a smaller box to contain the caching world. A smaller box leaves less room for creative cache thinking. Those same people would proclaim loudly that they fully support creative cache hides.

 

Yeah, it's kind of funny when you think about it, but complaining about certain cache types is actually a call to restrict someone's creativity.

[+Renegade Knight]

...So how would I filter 1/1 traditional micros to remove LPCs?

 

Filter based on micro caches. Collateral damage is to be expected. However if it still leaves more than enough caches for you to find and enjoy, thats really not a problem. Yeah maybe the occasional 50 cal ammo can hidden under a lamp post may slip through, but that shouldn't happen to often.

[+TrailGators]

... But I can't recall anyone advocating that we squelch imagination and creativity when hiding a cache.

It's never direct, it's always indirect.

Anytime someone suggestes a rule to make things more fun (for them) or wants things to happen a certain way they are making a smaller box to contain the caching world. A smaller box leaves less room for creative cache thinking. Those same people would proclaim loudly that they fully support creative cache hides.

 

Nobody is suggesting a rule. I'm not sure I buy your point that freedom to let banality spread will promote creativity. In my view it only promotes freedom to have more banality, which if that's what people want then so be it. What I think is banal may be exciting to others. So the key is letting each person play the way they want to play by letting them better customize their own PQs. Edited April 15, 2008 by TrailGators

[+softball29]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

 

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

Simple is good. Care to elaborate?

 

Yeah, set up the PQs to your liking and deal with everything else. Pretty simple.

So how would I filter 1/1 traditional micros to remove LPCs?

 

Note the part where I said deal with everything else.

 

Set 'em up, it'll filter what it can, then deal with the rest.

[+TrailGators]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

 

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

Simple is good. Care to elaborate?

 

Yeah, set up the PQs to your liking and deal with everything else. Pretty simple.

So how would I filter 1/1 traditional micros to remove LPCs?

 

Note the part where I said deal with everything else.

 

Set 'em up, it'll filter what it can, then deal with the rest.

You can't filter them out and we are dealing with it.

[+sbell111]

... You are therefore correct, TG: The fact that you might find yourself squarely in one category does not provide any basis to conclude that those in the other category ar enjoying Geocaching any less than you.

 

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

Ummm, weren't you the person who was looking for ways to prove whether a cache was a success?

Have you read anything I've written? Caches that are more successful (wheat) are the ones that get the higher average praise.

Why yes, I have read your posts:

There is no need to measure it.

 

The only real measure of success would be if the cache owner is happy with it.

There is if you want to try to prove some level of success. The point of hiding caches is to please the finders. So I base success or failure on achieving that.

Edited April 15, 2008 by sbell111

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Are we done here??

[+TrailGators]

... You are therefore correct, TG: The fact that you might find yourself squarely in one category does not provide any basis to conclude that those in the other category ar enjoying Geocaching any less than you.

 

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

Ummm, weren't you the person who was looking for ways to prove whether a cache was a success?

Have you read anything I've written? Caches that are more successful (wheat) are the ones that get the higher average praise.

Why yes, I have read your posts:

There is no need to measure it.

 

The only real measure of success would be if the cache owner is happy with it.

There is if you want to try to prove some level of success. The point of hiding caches is to please the finders. So I base success or failure on achieving that.

I guess I'm missing your point. What's wrong with striving for success? That is my point.

[+sbell111]

...That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

 

Maybe reverse it. Longer logs may not indicate more people had fun, but the caches with the least long logs of all. can all vie for least fun overall?

 

People complicat the decision on fun. "Lame LPC's" with a car full of friends all laughing about how lame it is in in fact people having fun. Yes if you were by yourself maybe you would groan. But it's urban maybe families get out more or you drag your caching friends on a lunch expeiditon. Who cares. Fun is fun.

I agree that the converse is true.

 

I agree that caches can be more fun with a group as long as the group isn't too large. The better caches (raved about) remain more fun even under those conditions.

Again, proof that 'fun' is defined differently by different people at different moments in time.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Are we done here??

I agree. Isn't this thread about first hides, as opposed to all the different arguements over what is or isn't lame? Edited April 15, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+TrailGators]

...That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

 

Maybe reverse it. Longer logs may not indicate more people had fun, but the caches with the least long logs of all. can all vie for least fun overall?

 

People complicat the decision on fun. "Lame LPC's" with a car full of friends all laughing about how lame it is in in fact people having fun. Yes if you were by yourself maybe you would groan. But it's urban maybe families get out more or you drag your caching friends on a lunch expeiditon. Who cares. Fun is fun.

I agree that the converse is true.

 

I agree that caches can be more fun with a group as long as the group isn't too large. The better caches (raved about) remain more fun even under those conditions.

Again, proof that 'fun' is defined differently by different people at different moments in time.

Are you saying that it's impossible to gauge how much fun a cache was to the average person that visited the cache?

[+sbell111]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

 

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

Simple is good. Care to elaborate?

I've elaborated on this many times and you've even supported that concept in a few threads. Do you really want me to dredge them up?

[+TeamGumbo]

Holy cow, this is like the Off-Topic Olympics!

 

[+TrailGators]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

 

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

Simple is good. Care to elaborate?

I've elaborated on this many times and you've even supported that concept in a few threads. Do you really want me to dredge them up?

We've already been throough that with the person I asked the question to.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Are we done here??

I agree. Isn't this thread about first hides, as opposed to all the different arguements over what is or isn't lame?

 

Holy cow, this is like the Off-Topic Olympics!

 

No Kidding, I wonder if the officials are boycotting the opening ceremonies

[+sbell111]

...So how would I filter 1/1 traditional micros to remove LPCs?

 

Filter based on micro caches. Collateral damage is to be expected. However if it still leaves more than enough caches for you to find and enjoy, thats really not a problem. Yeah maybe the occasional 50 cal ammo can hidden under a lamp post may slip through, but that shouldn't happen to often.

Somebody posted an idea just the other day on how to deal with these. Simply filter out all 1/1s. If someone tells you about a great 1/1, add it to your watch list (which you of course get a PQ of). As new 1/1s are approved, take a look at them to see if it's obviously an LPC (checking the map will identify the bulk of these). If it looks like it's not an LPC, add it to your watchlist.

[+sbell111]

... You are therefore correct, TG: The fact that you might find yourself squarely in one category does not provide any basis to conclude that those in the other category ar enjoying Geocaching any less than you.

 

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

Ummm, weren't you the person who was looking for ways to prove whether a cache was a success?

Have you read anything I've written? Caches that are more successful (wheat) are the ones that get the higher average praise.

Why yes, I have read your posts:

There is no need to measure it.

 

The only real measure of success would be if the cache owner is happy with it.

There is if you want to try to prove some level of success. The point of hiding caches is to please the finders. So I base success or failure on achieving that.

I guess I'm missing your point. What's wrong with striving for success? That is my point.

Actually, your point keeps moving. One post reads like you are just looking for a filter. The next post suggests that you want a scoring system. The next wants to score other people's caches to see if they are successful. The next infers that anything that doesn't pass your banality meter be thrown into the sea. Edited April 15, 2008 by sbell111

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

So the final discussion ends up with..."if you haven't hidden your first Cache yet, and you come read this, just quit while you're ahead"

[+sbell111]

Are we done here??

I agree. Isn't this thread about first hides, as opposed to all the different arguements over what is or isn't lame?

Are you honestly agreeing with yourself?

[+softball29]

So the final discussion ends up with..."if you haven't hidden your first Cache yet, and you come read this, just quit while you're ahead"

 

Touche!

[+sbell111]

...That wasn't what we were debating. The debate centered around being possible to separate out the wheat from the chaff for 1/1s by using longer logs and must-do lists. I think even numbers people tend to write longer logs on awesome caches.

 

Maybe reverse it. Longer logs may not indicate more people had fun, but the caches with the least long logs of all. can all vie for least fun overall?

 

People complicat the decision on fun. "Lame LPC's" with a car full of friends all laughing about how lame it is in in fact people having fun. Yes if you were by yourself maybe you would groan. But it's urban maybe families get out more or you drag your caching friends on a lunch expeiditon. Who cares. Fun is fun.

I agree that the converse is true.

 

I agree that caches can be more fun with a group as long as the group isn't too large. The better caches (raved about) remain more fun even under those conditions.

Again, proof that 'fun' is defined differently by different people at different moments in time.

Are you saying that it's impossible to gauge how much fun a cache was to the average person that visited the cache?

It would be easy to have a simple survey to gauge whether people had fun at a cache. The problem is the data would be useless in determining whether a particular cacher at a particular moment in time will have fun at the cache. Edited April 15, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

 

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

Simple is good. Care to elaborate?

I've elaborated on this many times and you've even supported that concept in a few threads. Do you really want me to dredge them up?

We've already been throough that with the person I asked the question to.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the forums were the proper place for private conversations.

[+Miragee]

This "slightly-modified" quote seems to be applicable in this thread.

 

Some of you are getting a bit militaristic with your . . . philosophies. Let's not lose site that we are playing a game here....

I don't know how anyone can dictate how someone else wants to play this game, whether it is where they place their caches, how creatively they have cammoed the containers, or which caches they like to find.

 

Personally, I really like WRITE SHOP ROBERT's signature:

If you're tired of Drive Up Micros...Don't "drive up" to them.

 

I Love LPCs!

[+TrailGators]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

 

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

Simple is good. Care to elaborate?

I've elaborated on this many times and you've even supported that concept in a few threads. Do you really want me to dredge them up?

We've already been through that with the person I asked the question to.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the forums were the proper place for private conversations.

It wasn't private. It was posted right on this thread for public viewing. It just seemed silly to Markwell something that was posted recently in the same thread. Anyhow, let's move on... Edited April 15, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

This really is all nuts. People just need to accept that this isn't a Country Club. It's a public golf course and people play differently. Some slow, some fast, some good, some bad.

 

But, even at the best public courses, there's that faction of people who want to make it a Country Club to weed out the lesser players.

 

That's my analogy for the day.

Nobody is weeding out any players.

It's an analogy. He didn't mean literally weeding out players in this game. He meant weeding out caches that some people don't like.

Nobody still discussing this is doing that either. No caches are at risk of getting banned. That is a fear tactic that you guys try to use whenever these topics are discussed and it's simply not true. We are just trying to come up with ways to load our GPSs with caches that we will enjoy more.

Pocket queries. Simple enough.

Simple is good. Care to elaborate?

I've elaborated on this many times and you've even supported that concept in a few threads. Do you really want me to dredge them up?

We've already been through that with the person I asked the question to.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the forums were the proper place for private conversations.

It wasn't private. It was posted right on this thread for public viewing. It just seemed silly to Markwell something that was posted recently in the same thread. Anyhow, let's move on...

Your post makes no sense to me in the context of the posts leading up to it, but whatever. Edited April 15, 2008 by sbell111

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Are we done here??

I agree. Isn't this thread about first hides, as opposed to all the different arguements over what is or isn't lame?

Are you honestly agreeing with yourself?

Yes. It seems the only way to get a word in edgewise. I didn't want to keep typing the same thing over and over so I just quoted myself. If I didn't agree with myself I would just not have said it in the first place. Besides, I thought that wat FUNNY. I actualy made myself LOL when I posted it! HAHAHAHA

[+TrailGators]

This "slightly-modified" quote seems to be applicable in this thread.

 

Some of you are getting a bit militaristic with your . . . philosophies. Let's not lose site that we are playing a game here....

I don't know how anyone can dictate how someone else wants to play this game, whether it is where they place their caches, how creatively they have cammoed the containers, or which caches they like to find.

 

Personally, I really like WRITE SHOP ROBERT's signature:

If you're tired of Drive Up Micros...Don't "drive up" to them.

 

I Love LPCs!

I've never lost site of that!

 

We can't seem to agree that first hiders as well as all hiders should strive for success. I thought this would be universal. I guess I was wrong...

[+sbell111]

We can't seem to agree that first hiders as well as all hiders should strive for success. I thought this would be universal. I guess I was wrong...

I believe that what you are wrong about is that everyone should use your metric as to what makes a successful cache.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

We can't seem to agree that first hiders as well as all hiders should strive for success. I thought this would be universal. I guess I was wrong...

I believe that what you are wrong about is that everyone should use your metric as to what makes a successful cache.

Now, there's a good point, with no mumbo jumbo and bickering. Thanks.

 

Just as hider should strive for quality and success, others should be and remain aware that there are different measures of quality and success.

Edited April 15, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[GPS-Hermit]

I started this thread based on the 1st hider comments that asking others to consider not expecting too much -is another way of saying "I really didn't try very hard on this one and I am not that proud of it" "But at least I got one out there" - why the token attitude and why not impress yourself and others by waiting until you can be proud of what you did. "I just wanted to get one out there so I can say I have one out there". Yes there are different ways to play but that is no excuse for sleeping on the dance floor. "Play the game - Hide the cache - pick a GOOD place". Don't be snoring in the middle of my movie!

Edited April 15, 2008 by GPS-Hermit