Recipe for fun

[Neos2]

What's below is far more than I do for caching around my area ---but I just finished planning for a loooooong trip we're taking soon (many multiple states). I've found it's worth some of my time up front to improve the chances of findings caches we will enjoy. I did even more than I usually do for this trip...

 

Figure out a basic destination.

(Honey, do we want to go see Yellowstone this year, or are we going up east?)

 

Pick several "destination" locations based on common knowledge, word-of-mouth, internet research, GoogleEarth searches and come up with a rough route after getting some input.

 

Post in the forums and/or email cache owners in local areas asking for advice on certain towns.

("Where's a really great place to get local cusine? Any must-do caches?)

 

Run PQs filtering out basic things we won't want for this trip.

(What that may be changes with the purpose of the trip--for this trip it means no puzzles and lower terrains because we'll need to maximize our time so we can see more. We'll go back again another year to the places that intrigued us most. Plus my two bulging disks have been bad for several months--so no grueling hikes for me right now).

 

I glance at these next ones briefly to see why, but basically then I:

Eliminate caches that haven't been found in six months.

Eliminate caches with too many DNFs.

 

Run a PQ of just the earthcaches and mark them in a unique way (I'll go out of route for them!).

Put the Earthcache PQ and the other PQs into into a route and look at it on Mapsource.

 

Take out almost all the distant outliers (we won't keep going 5 miles off road for one cache unless it's one of the specially recommended ones or an earthcache).

 

Go through the route at a closeup range looking for caches that look like they're near the road but are really miles out of route down tiny narrow country roads. (That only has to be done in rural areas).

 

Take a look at all the ones that "sound like" potentially unappealing caches. The names of caches can tell you a lot. My husband doesn't have much patience for finding parking college campuses and in gated communities, so anything with a name like "The bell tower" or "Vontage Estates" gets a closer look.

 

I started out with over 4000 caches in the PQs. After doing all the steps above, I'm down to a few over 800 caches. I even looked closely at the caches nearest the road and took out some that just sounded unappealing ("Lots of broken glass here" "Don't go there when the homeless people are still sleeping").

I've eliminated more than 75% of the caches that were near my route, for a variety of reasons, but the bottom line is I've sweetened the potential for finding things I want and reduced the chance of finding things I don't want to deal with on vacation. I'd rather invest the time here at home than on the road.

 

Load the road trip caches off the map into the gps and load the PQs with ALL the caches in the PDA.

 

Now all I need to do "on the road" is maybe look online at the ones that area really far off route before we head there.

 

We won't hunt anything like 800 caches, and we'll still read the PDA before we go to the next cache each time-but there will be far fewer to read through on the road. I have some reasonable expectation that I probably won't go to a cache I really dislike on this trip.

 

I can pretty much just hit "next" the whole way and be pretty sure it's a cache I would choose to do. If we get somewhere and find there are great caches and we're enjoying the area, we can always use the PDA to find the ones I filtered out to see if there are more around by that cache owner or in that park.

[+Zor]

I'd don't bother filtering any of my PQ's. My PQ's have all caches listed on them and I fire them into Gsak, send them to my GPS & Cachemate on my PDA and then I head out.

 

Sometimes I have an area that I want to hit up for caches and I usually look at the descriptions in cachemate to see if it tells me more about the caches.

 

For me, I enjoy looking for the caches, micros, nanos, regulars, whatever. Doesn't matter to me.

[+BadAndy]

If it's an urban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a suburban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a rural or boondocks pq, I don't filter at all.

[Mr.Yuck]

If it's an urban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a suburban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a rural or boondocks pq, I don't filter at all.

 

No offense to anyone, but why are there so many replies in this thread from people who run out and find anything listed as a cache? I don't respond to threads like "Stealth techniques for avoiding muggles in parking lots".

 

That's interesting Bad Andy. I'd say it's not 100% foolproof, but I see where you're going with that.

[+sbell111]

If it's an urban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a suburban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a rural or boondocks pq, I don't filter at all.

No offense to anyone, but why are there so many replies in this thread from people who run out and find anything listed as a cache? I don't respond to threads like "Stealth techniques for avoiding muggles in parking lots".

 

That's interesting Bad Andy. I'd say it's not 100% foolproof, but I see where you're going with that.

Strangely, lots of people do respond to the 'stealth techniques' threads with comments that they just walk up and sign the log and could care less if they expose the cache to muggling.

 

Conversely, BadAndy didn't reply that he goes out and finds all caches. He stated that he filters out urban micros.

Edited June 27, 2008 by sbell111

[Mr.Yuck]

If it's an urban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a suburban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a rural or boondocks pq, I don't filter at all.

No offense to anyone, but why are there so many replies in this thread from people who run out and find anything listed as a cache? I don't respond to threads like "Stealth techniques for avoiding muggles in parking lots".

 

That's interesting Bad Andy. I'd say it's not 100% foolproof, but I see where you're going with that.

Strangely, lots of people do respond to the 'stealth techniques' threads with comments that they just walk up and sign the log and could care less if they expose the cache to muggling.

 

Conversely, BadAndy didn't reply that he goes out and finds all caches. He stated that he filters out urban micros.

 

True, that first statement was just a general observation, then the second a reply to Bad Andy. I could have quoted below the first statement to avoid confusion.

 

I'm sure you won't agree, but I think the consensus from those people is that acting natural, and not all wacky and suspicious is a stealth technique.

[+sbell111]

If it's an urban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a suburban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a rural or boondocks pq, I don't filter at all.

No offense to anyone, but why are there so many replies in this thread from people who run out and find anything listed as a cache? I don't respond to threads like "Stealth techniques for avoiding muggles in parking lots".

 

That's interesting Bad Andy. I'd say it's not 100% foolproof, but I see where you're going with that.

Strangely, lots of people do respond to the 'stealth techniques' threads with comments that they just walk up and sign the log and could care less if they expose the cache to muggling.

 

Conversely, BadAndy didn't reply that he goes out and finds all caches. He stated that he filters out urban micros.

 

True, that first statement was just a general observation, then the second a reply to Bad Andy. I could have quoted below the first statement to avoid confusion.

 

I'm sure you won't agree, but I think the consensus from those people is that acting natural, and not all wacky and suspicious is a stealth technique.

The problem is that some of them add something along the lines of 'if the cache owner didn't want it muggled, they would have hidden it somewhere else. This suggests that they are not simply playing the invisible normal-acting person, they simply don't care.

 

Either way, if the thread's question is "Please share your recipe for fun. What steps do you take to weed out caches that you dislike?", then teh replies that state that they require no additional filters are not the ones that are off-topic. The replies that are off-topic are the ones that boo-hoo about the 'problem' and then state that since no additional filtering works perfectly they don't bother or that the additional filtering requires extra work, so they don't do it.

Edited June 27, 2008 by sbell111

[Mr.Yuck]

If it's an urban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a suburban pq, I filter out the micros. If it's a rural or boondocks pq, I don't filter at all.

No offense to anyone, but why are there so many replies in this thread from people who run out and find anything listed as a cache? I don't respond to threads like "Stealth techniques for avoiding muggles in parking lots".

 

That's interesting Bad Andy. I'd say it's not 100% foolproof, but I see where you're going with that.

Strangely, lots of people do respond to the 'stealth techniques' threads with comments that they just walk up and sign the log and could care less if they expose the cache to muggling.

 

Conversely, BadAndy didn't reply that he goes out and finds all caches. He stated that he filters out urban micros.

 

True, that first statement was just a general observation, then the second a reply to Bad Andy. I could have quoted below the first statement to avoid confusion.

 

I'm sure you won't agree, but I think the consensus from those people is that acting natural, and not all wacky and suspicious is a stealth technique.

The problem is that some of them add something along the lines of 'if the cache owner didn't want it muggled, they would have hidden it somewhere else. This suggests that they are not simply playing the invisible normal-acting person, they simply don't care.

 

Either way, if the thread's question is "Please share your recipe for fun. What steps do you take to weed out caches that you dislike?", then teh replies that state that they require no additional filters are not the ones that are off-topic. The replies that are off-topic are the ones that boo-hoo about the 'problem' and then state that since no additional filtering works perfectly they don't bother or that the additional filtering requires extra work, so they don't do it.

 

I can agree with your second paragraph. No problem with that at all. The first one is off-topic. Don't worry though, I started it.

[CoyoteRed]

I've learned I don't have to find all caches that I come across. In fact, I drive around with my Nuvi loaded with all of the local caches that I've not found. I can see caches on the map. If one pops up and I'm not interested, I keep driving.

 

Now, I'm not saying I won't ever go find it. I like keeping in touch with hide techniques and the general "health" of the hobby. How caches are hidden interests me on a level different than that when I'm caching. I guess some folks are into the numbers, the stats, coins, events, the filling in the maps--me, it may be more of general interest in the hobby itself. There are aspects that interest me without entertaining me.

 

One thing I've noticed recently is some of my PQs with date cut-offs actually getting larger. That's not supposed to happen. The reason, I've found, is I was filtering out only micros. These "new" caches where now "unknown" or "not chosen." "A new cache placed a couple of years ago?" Nope. Upon going to the cache pages it was discovered micros were being re-sized to something else. Sometimes to unknowns and sometimes to small. I can only suppose that folks are getting the notion that folks are filtering out micros yet the owners still want their cache found. Kind of sad, in a way.

 

Also, "not chosen" or "unknown" has become an euphemism for micro or nano, plus those logs on the back of magnetic sheets and other cache-less caches.

 

So, outside my home state (soon to be outside a certain radius) I only download smalls, regulars, and larges.

 

I also use a GSAK macro. It's a bit different than the one Clyde created. It provides an average word count on found logs, the minimum and maximum log word count, the number of finds and average days between finds. (Accurate only if you have all of the found logs.) This macro provides a start for finding adventures.

 

I place "challenges" on ignore. I cache for the individual cache not to fulfill some arbitrary standard. Not saying that looking at my D/T grid is not interesting, it is. Even if I did meet the criteria for finding a challenge cache, I doubt I'd go after it unless it simply wasn't out of the way.

 

Going after epic caches increases the fun. I'd rather do one or two caches in a day where I had a blast than be bored getting a hundred traches.

 

Word of mouth. 'Nuff said.

 

I skip the chore of logging caches I didn't like. It's easier to hit the ignore button and move on to logs for owners who put forth a decent effort to create worthwhile caches.

 

Used to be I could download all caches and go hunting. The few caches that weren't all that good, or just plain trache, could be overlooked as a fluke. Nowadays, as Brian said, it's becoming so common that it interferes with the fun for a lot of us. When PQs first came out it was better than sliced bread. I'm looking forward to the next new thing to filter out the chaff.

[+Kit Fox]

I've learned I don't have to find all caches that I come across. In fact, I drive around with my Nuvi loaded with all of the local caches that I've not found. I can see caches on the map. If one pops up and I'm not interested, I keep driving.

 

When I planned my 900 plus mile trip to Geowoodstock 6, I had over 1500 caches listed in GPS. I found the caches I wanted to find, and skipped the rest. I did go out of my way for some Virtuals, and a cache that was on my to do list for years. Fossil Find.

 

One thing I've noticed recently is some of my PQs with date cut-offs actually getting larger. That's not supposed to happen. The reason, I've found, is I was filtering out only micros. These "new" caches where now "unknown" or "not chosen." "A new cache placed a couple of years ago?" Nope. Upon going to the cache pages it was discovered micros were being re-sized to something else. Sometimes to unknowns and sometimes to small. I can only suppose that folks are getting the notion that folks are filtering out micros yet the owners still want their cache found. Kind of sad, in a way.

 

Also, "not chosen" or "unknown" has become an euphemism for micro or nano, plus those logs on the back of magnetic sheets and other cache-less caches.

 

So, outside my home state (soon to be outside a certain radius) I only download smalls, regulars, and larges.

 

Removing the unknowns size category has worked great for me. I've also noticed that almost 95% of my favorite caches were all placed between 2000 to and 2004. I like how and where the old caches were hidden.

 

I also use a GSAK macro. It's a bit different than the one Clyde created. It provides an average word count on found logs, the minimum and maximum log word count, the number of finds and average days between finds. (Accurate only if you have all of the found logs.) This macro provides a start for finding adventures.

 

Would you share that macro with me?

Edited June 27, 2008 by Kit Fox

[RedShoesGirl]

i need to learn how to use PQs more effectively. now i do it all manually:

 

read the logs, eleminate the urban micros, eleminate most micros unless they are part of a series. really can't stand micros! they just don't seem like the electronic treasure hunt i have known and loved for more than 6 years! caches here are pretty far apart, terrain is important for those of us that can't climb rocky hills very well so reading all the notes and logs is crucial.

 

skip caches that say unknown size but "bring you own writing utensil." duh.

 

i do log each cache even if it is a bad one and i generally try to say something tactfully along those lines. "this cache sucks" is not generally a good idea.

 

avoid caches if there are people near by. i can always come back another time.

 

go back to caches that have coins in them i can move along or discover.

 

pretty simple recipe.

 

rsg

[+Juicepig]

caches with lots of pictures attached to them tend to be the best IMHO

[+Corp Of Discovery]

caches with lots of pictures attached to them tend to be the best IMHO

 

So you must love virts, LCs and Webcams then.

 

My technique? I try not to suffer from preconceived notions about what any cache may be before I hunt it. I don't expect every single destination to be a small view of heaven and earth shattering in its glory. I don't demand that cachers surprise me with their ingenuity or masterful camouflage every single time. Just getting away from it all and having a little fun is what I'm after. If I get to smile at least a little on a days outing then it was worth it. Why would I want to filter out something that's going to potentially do that for me?

[Neos2]

For "around home" I run one PQ for puzzles and multis and another for all caches under a 4 terrain.

 

On a usual day of caching, I don't have special equipment with me to go kayaking or rock climbing on the spur of the moment (plus as I said, I have two slipped discs--I can get into plenty of toruble just wandering down a trail that ends up being longer than I think it's going to be).

 

I work on the solutions to the puzzles and look over the multis on rainy days when I can't go caching. As I solve those or figure out they will be easy enough to do on a regular day of caching, I move them over to the other PQ.

 

Other than that, I just read the PDA before we go to the next cache. If it doesn't sound like what I want to do right then, I try another. If we pull up and the area is too scary (we live in a metro area) we move along to another area.

 

I usually go ahead and find and log everything else we run across-- even if it doesn't rock my world I can usually find some redeeming quality to every cache.

[+webscouter.]

I finish a shift working in a pharmacy, hit nearest cache on my Blackberry. Find the cache.

 

When I find myself sitting in an airport, a hotel room in bad weather or waiting for my dinner I open my laptop and cruise the recent photos gallery. If I see a picture that looks cool I add the cache to my bookmark list. The bookmark list becomes a PQ, these get loaded into my gps as caches and as POI's. The POI gets a special icon that I can see when looking at my map screen on the gps. When I get close to one of them it is searched for.

[+Lighteye]

Simply removing the 1/1's and those with more than 3 DNFs in a row work for me.

[+crockett3663]

I'm still pretty much a noob, so I'm still on the lookout for as many caches as I can find, however, because of my noob status, I'm currently shying away from puzzle caches (which I find rather difficult), multi caches, or anything with a terrain rating over three stars. I got into this hobby to spend more time with my 9 year old son, and I think I'm a little too over-protective to purposely lead him into searching for a cache that might be in a territory where he could easily be hurt, like an extremely rocky ledge, deep water, etc.

 

Maybe next summer when he's a year older and we've both got some experience under our collective belts will I push the boundries of our cache searches.

[+Kit Fox]

Anyone have any new recipes for fun?

[+sbell111]

Anyone have any new recipes for fun?

I take a package of stewmeat,season with grill seasoning...add a can of beef broth...simmer all day in a crock pot...when I get home I either just add a packet of gravy mix or mix my own...serve over mashed potatoes or noodles...

[+Kit Fox]

Anyone have any new recipes for fun?

I take a package of stewmeat,season with grill seasoning...add a can of beef broth...simmer all day in a crock pot...when I get home I either just add a packet of gravy mix or mix my own...serve over mashed potatoes or noodles...

 

I love "Crockpot Creations."

[+Mule Ears]

IF T < 3 THEN GOTO anotherCache

[+9Key]

IF T < 3 THEN GOTO anotherCache

Else

Bump_Thread = 1

End If

 

On Error Resume Next (greatest line of code ever devised - too bad its retired)

[+Ed & Julie]

I normally cache within 30 miles of my home coordinates.

 

1- Run PQ for unfound caches, not owned by me, I'm not ignoring.

 

2- Open PQ in GSAK

 

3- Filter out caches where the last two logs have 2 or more DNFs or temp unavailable.

 

4- Filter out caches with 3.5+ difficulty and/or terrain ratings (due to physical restrictions)

 

Now I have to look really close at the remaining caches.

 

Usually, I then read the descriptions and recent logs of the closest caches, and add anything with "evil", "bad coordinates", or "Took 4 trips" directly to my ignore list.

 

Depending on my mood, I may hold my nose and look for micros on the remaining list (if they sound like fun), most most often I will filter them out and have a list of small to large caches to search for.

[+sbell111]

I normally cache within 30 miles of my home coordinates.

 

1- Run PQ for unfound caches, not owned by me, I'm not ignoring.

 

2- Open PQ in GSAK

 

3- Filter out caches where the last two logs have 2 or more DNFs or temp unavailable.

 

4- Filter out caches with 3.5+ difficulty and/or terrain ratings (due to physical restrictions)

 

Now I have to look really close at the remaining caches.

 

Usually, I then read the descriptions and recent logs of the closest caches, and add anything with "evil", "bad coordinates", or "Took 4 trips" directly to my ignore list.

 

Depending on my mood, I may hold my nose and look for micros on the remaining list (if they sound like fun), most most often I will filter them out and have a list of small to large caches to search for.

You can automate step three in GSAK and build step four into your PQ.

 

I hope this helps.

[+Kit Fox]

I normally cache within 30 miles of my home coordinates.

 

1- Run PQ for unfound caches, not owned by me, I'm not ignoring.

 

2- Open PQ in GSAK

 

3- Filter out caches where the last two logs have 2 or more DNFs or temp unavailable.

 

4- Filter out caches with 3.5+ difficulty and/or terrain ratings (due to physical restrictions)

 

Now I have to look really close at the remaining caches.

 

Usually, I then read the descriptions and recent logs of the closest caches, and add anything with "evil", "bad coordinates", or "Took 4 trips" directly to my ignore list.

 

Depending on my mood, I may hold my nose and look for micros on the remaining list (if they sound like fun), most most often I will filter them out and have a list of small to large caches to search for.

You can automate step three in GSAK and build step four into your PQ.

 

I hope this helps.

 

How do you automate step 3? I've always done it manually.

[+rhelt100]

I haven't found a type of cache that I dislike enough to not seek.

 

 

I'm in the same boat, sorta. I have discovered that I don't enjoy most micros at all when I'm caching alone. If I'm solo caching, I tend to gravitate towards mid-length, scenic hikes (1-4 miles round trip).

 

 

On the other hand, if I'm out with a group I'm willing to knock out anything that stands in the way. For me, the people I cache with can often turn a lame micro into a positive, rememberable experience. I've also found that some caches that I would say were good but not favorites list material end up on my favorites bookmark based on the group I'm with when I do it.

 

 

My recipe for fun is group caching!

[+ccwrestlechik105]

I just pick out an area that I feel like going to and then look at the surrounding caches using the map.

 

Then I pick out the caches that look interesting... yes it does take time but if you look at the last few finds of the cache like Kit Fox suggests then it's usually pretty easy.

 

Lastly, I AUTOMATICALLY CHOOSE ANY CACHE MADE BY KIT FOX, I am never dissapointed!

[+Bad Duck]

I sit by my computer waiting for any cache to pop up within 30 miles. I read the cache page and check the map. I then determine if I have time to do it before work, bed, kids sports or any other thing. Don't care if it's lame or great. Micro or big. Will hike or hit a parking lot. I'm just happy to have something close to find.

[+Ladybug Kids]

How do you automate step 3? I've always done it manually.

I use this in a filter when I go traveling to avoid looking for caches that are missing or have other issues:

 

Search, Filter, then to "Logs" tab.

Logs to search: Last 4 (pull down), Found, Not Found, Others

Exclude

Required Count: Any number >0

Log types: Didn't find it, Needs Archived, Needs Maintenance

Edited November 15, 2008 by Ladybug Kids

[+L0ne.R]

I'm all ears (or should I say eyes?) because I've yet to find an easy way to do so.

 

Weed out micros? I've enjoyed many micros and include some among my all time favorites.

 

Avoid urban and suburban hides? I thoroughly enjoy well thought out urban and suburban caches.

 

Filter 1/1 caches? That might eliminate many of the caches at historic sites that I love.

 

Filter the caches of certain hiders? Might work if I'm familiar with them, but outside my immediate home area I really have no way of knowing someone's reputation.

 

Read through all the cache logs? It has a better chance of working, but it's tedious to read through dozens

of cache pages and kind of defeats the purpose of running PQs.

I must quite sadly agree. Sigh...........

 

I found myself spending too many hours using various techniques and it yeilded only minimal results. These days I often just ignore micros and then read the description/logs on the next one before I get to it - to save time. I abondon many attempts when I see the area upon parking. Others based on the description - but this is out in the field - not at home. Sometimes I go anyway - just because I am already there.

 

I'll add my "me too". Sometimes I spend a lot of time just driving from location to location. Waste of gas money and time.

[+sbell111]

Nothing like bumping a long dead thread with a 'me, too'.

[+L0ne.R]

Nothing like bumping a long dead thread with a 'me, too'.

 

Yeah, I was going to apologize for that. I was referred to this thread from another thread and because it was so similar to the first thread I forgot I was on a different one. After sending in my comment I noticed the dates on the quoted entries. But then I thought, everytime someone brings up a subject that's been discussed before someone says.... it's already been discussed. Inferring that the person should do a search and add their comment onto an already discussed thread. Or are they saying it's already been discussed...read this...say nothing? So your reply shows that it's actually quite annoying to bump up an old thread - my apologies, it was a mistake (but my statement still applies).

[+L0ne.R]

Nothing like bumping a long dead thread with a 'me, too'.

 

Yeah, I was going to apologize for that. I was referred to this thread from another thread and because it was so similar to the first thread I forgot I was on a different one. After sending in my comment I noticed the dates on the quoted entries. But then I thought, everytime someone brings up a subject that's been discussed before someone says.... it's already been discussed. Inferring that the person should do a search and add their comment onto an already discussed thread. Or are they saying it's already been discussed...read this...say nothing? So your reply shows that it's actually quite annoying to bump up an old thread - my apologies, it was a mistake (but my statement still applies).

 

Another thing, if we had:

 

Agree | Disagree | Interesting | Educational | Thank you

 

buttons at the end of each post, I could have just clicked on Agree, not bumped up the thread, and not annoy sbell with my "me too" post. Just a suggestion to decrease anxiety on the forums. No need to reply to this message - start a new thread if anyone wants to discuss post "poll" buttons.

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

Well, I love this thread and am glad it was bumped back into life.

 

Here's our recipe for good caching days:

 

We are committed to getting the most out of each cache since we will only search for a maximum of 5 (and more normally 2-3) and we want our caching to last most of the day. So we spend a lot of time analyzing caches to determine our next adventure. This is part of the fun for us. (We also do puzzle caches because we're suckers for puzzle caches.)

 

Once we've found a cache we love, we note the hider and begin studying their caches. We look for the following in future caches:

• Enticing photos in the logs
  
• Proximity to Earthcaches or known scenic areas
  
• Good logs
  
• Parking waypoints (if someone cares enough to provide parking waypoints, they probably care about the cache placement as well)
  
• Recently placed caches (likely to still be fresh, dry, & clean)
  
• Old caches (if it's lasted a long time, it's probably good)
  
• Caches with a terrain rating 2 or higher (though we will look for lower rated terrains if they are interesting in other ways)
  

We keep lists of caches that we want to visit someday. My beloved prints them off and keeps them in a notebook. When we are ready to go caching, he tells me how far he's willing to travel, I figure things out on the map with a pocket query, and he produces a printoff for the area I suggest. Then I add one or two more cache possibilities to the plan.

 

Carolyn

[superninjaducky]

Be careful as to who you bring... I went with my mom, dad, and 2 of my sisters and they complained the whole time and I got stressed and had a really bad time. I didn't find a single one...

[+Kealia]

I get new cache notifications for my area and look at the cache page when they are published. Based on who placed it and where it is located I decide right there if it goes on my ignore list.

 

When heading to an unfamiliar area, I use Google Maps to look at caches in the area, read the pages and then create a bookmark and subsequent PQ for those that I want to do. I don't need 500 caches to cover everything, just a handful of good ones that I've read up on to choose from when I get there.

[+Kit Fox]

Nothing like bumping a long dead thread with a 'me, too'.

 

Hardly a "long dead thread." Some people bump threads from 2000-2001.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Caches I dislike??? Naw. I'll hunt for almost anything! I do use GSAK to ignore any caches hidden in cemeteries, and caches hidden by certain cache hiders. Other than that, anything is fair game! If I'm in the area anyway, I will go for the lap post caches. But only if there are other caches that I want to find. North Jersey Checkpoint Challenge, surrounded by three parking lot caches? All fair game. Maine DeLorme Challenge? Let's Color in Mid-Atlantic States Tour? Anything is fair game.