Micro Icon?

[+we3dements]

I don't know about anyone else, but in the Jacksonville, FL area we are inundated with these "park and grab" 35mm film containers they like to call caches. I would very much like to see a classification of "micro" for these things so I can filter these waste of time "finds". I feel that these people do not fully understand the spirit of geocaching and only want to bolster thier cache numbers. I cannot include my son on most of them because it's like they are just tossing them out their window as they drive along a busy road.

 

Check out my "Say No To Micro" essay I made a few years back when we moved here. http://www.we3dements.com/geo/nomicro.html

 

It hasn't gotten any better but if only we could filter these things I would be much more happier.

 

Thank you.

We3Dements

[+ArcherDragoon]

A micro iconis already currrently in use...the smallest square in the "Size" description of caches...are you looking for an additional icon to be used?

[+lrosell]

I don't know about anyone else, but in the Jacksonville, FL area we are inundated with these "park and grab" 35mm film containers they like to call caches. I would very much like to see a classification of "micro" for these things so I can filter these waste of time "finds". I feel that these people do not fully understand the spirit of geocaching and only want to bolster thier cache numbers. I cannot include my son on most of them because it's like they are just tossing them out their window as they drive along a busy road.

 

Check out my "Say No To Micro" essay I made a few years back when we moved here. http://www.we3dements.com/geo/nomicro.html

 

It hasn't gotten any better but if only we could filter these things I would be much more happier.

 

Thank you.

We3Dements

 

There is a classification on micros. Run a PocketQuery and filter them out there

[+Isonzo Karst]

You're a premium member - you can filter out micros in your pocket queries. There's a section devoted to container size.

You can see the micro size on cache pages, and on cache lists. It's not hard to eliminate them from your gps.

[+lrosell]

And by the way; it seems like you found a few micros even though it was a while ago. So they can't be that bad?

 

Personally both I and my wife like micros, as well as ‘traditional’ caches. Sure, there are a lot of “thrown them around” micros out there, but the same goes for ‘regular’ size caches. The size is never relative to the quality. At least when it comes to caches.

 

The beauty of Geocaching and the variety of cache containers is that there is something for everyone; whether if you want to hunt for unnatural wood or rock constellations in the woods or cleverly hid micros downtown Miami or Washington DC a cache is there to be found.

 

The beauty is that not all caches needs to be found!

[+Prime Suspect]

Personally both I and my wife like micros, as well as ‘traditional’ caches. Sure, there are a lot of “thrown them around” micros out there, but the same goes for ‘regular’ size caches. The size is never relative to the quality. At least when it comes to caches.

On an individual basis? No. On an aggregate basis? I would say there is. It simply takes more thought and effort to hide a larger container. Any lamppost skirt will hold a micro. I've found that my caching experience has gotten much better since I've started filtering out micros.

 

Personally, I'd like it if geocaching.com simply said enough is enough, and no more lamppost caches will be listed. I'd start hunting micros again.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Prime Suspect

[+russellvt]

Personally, I'd like it if geocaching.com simply said enough is enough, and no more lamppost caches will be listed. I'd start hunting micros again.

You could always just avoid caches located in parking lots... though there's the occasional LPC on a sidewalk, they seem to be a lot less common (that's not an invite for the "geocache in every wally world parking lot" folks, BTW).

 

I, myself, don't mind the creatively hidden micros... and I have to admit, the first LPC we did was pretty amusing -- can't say I'm much impressed with anyone else's "creativity" following that one, though. Perhaps it's just more impetus for a more comprehensive cache rating system that seems to hit, oh, about every two weeks now? (disclaimer: I only just pulled that link off the gc.com topic list just now - I've yet to actually read this installment of it).

[+edscott]

......

Personally, I'd like it if geocaching.com simply said enough is enough, and no more lamppost caches will be listed. I'd start hunting micros again.

 

If they required proof of permission I'd guess most of them would have to be archived.

[+Prime Suspect]

Personally, I'd like it if geocaching.com simply said enough is enough, and no more lamppost caches will be listed. I'd start hunting micros again.

You could always just avoid caches located in parking lots... though there's the occasional LPC on a sidewalk, they seem to be a lot less common (that's not an invite for the "geocache in every wally world parking lot" folks, BTW).

 

I, myself, don't mind the creatively hidden micros... and I have to admit, the first LPC we did was pretty amusing -- can't say I'm much impressed with anyone else's "creativity" following that one, though. Perhaps it's just more impetus for a more comprehensive cache rating system that seems to hit, oh, about every two weeks now? (disclaimer: I only just pulled that link off the gc.com topic list just now - I've yet to actually read this installment of it).

I usually load up 800 or 900 caches at a time. Your suggestion would entail aerial photo inspection of every micro. I'd rather be caching.

[+we3dements]

Thanks for the hints. I have just recently renewed after a 2 year hietus and did not realize the size indicator on the pages. Also, was not aware of the filter capabilities of the pocket query.

 

The problem with the micros around here are not children friendly...ie. side of a busy highway, in a wally world parking lot....that kind of thing. Not a lot of thought processs. I even seen on guy say "While my wife was shopping I decided to place one here"

 

I like to be able to go on a short walk and take our 5 year old son with us. So this filtering option helps out a lot.

 

Thanks again.

we3dements

[+russellvt]

Personally, I'd like it if geocaching.com simply said enough is enough, and no more lamppost caches will be listed. I'd start hunting micros again.

You could always just avoid caches located in parking lots... though there's the occasional LPC on a sidewalk, they seem to be a lot less common (that's not an invite for the "geocache in every wally world parking lot" folks, BTW).

I usually load up 800 or 900 caches at a time. Your suggestion would entail aerial photo inspection of every micro. I'd rather be caching.

Point taken... I usually do the same thing, but the implication is that you could always drive by the obvious ones (sorry if I/that wasn't clear).

 

<devil's advocate>

Of course, I understand that it's not always obvious it's a LPC, either, until you drive up to it... and sometimes not even then (I've seen plenty of decoys). So, long as you're there, "might as well grab it to clear the map" tends to be my thinking.

</devil's advocate>

[+russellvt]

The problem with the micros around here are not children friendly...ie. side of a busy highway, in a wally world parking lot....that kind of thing. Not a lot of thought processs. I even seen on guy say "While my wife was shopping I decided to place one here"

Geez, you must live in my area. I think I've found that one too!

 

And yeah, no real imagination, there... I agree.

 

Maybe we should start a thread mentioning folks that routinely provide some level of imaginative hides and/or containers (then again, perhaps that just encourages the plunderers to go off and plunder their caches... dunno).

[+edscott]

First I had to check to see if this thread was started in 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008.... Must be a hundred similar threads kicking around in here. Personally I've gone from hating micros, to coexisting with micros, to realizing that some micros are actually worthwhile. The problem is not with the size of the cache, but more with the common sense and creativity of the hider. A good hide is a good hide regardless of the size. What we really need is a rating system based on input from the finders so it is easier to sort the interesting hides from the uninspired trash caches.

[tiny_tracey]

First I had to check to see if this thread was started in 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008.... Must be a hundred similar threads kicking around in here.

maybe if so many people have complained about the same thing for so many years then maybe those in charge ought to think about providing a solution. i don't know the background but from my limited reading of these forums it seems to me that micros seem to be upsetting an awful lot of customers. maybe i should find one to see what the fuss is all about

[+DaFunkyFrogs]

First I had to check to see if this thread was started in 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008.... Must be a hundred similar threads kicking around in here.

maybe if so many people have complained about the same thing for so many years then maybe those in charge ought to think about providing a solution. i don't know the background but from my limited reading of these forums it seems to me that micros seem to be upsetting an awful lot of customers. maybe i should find one to see what the fuss is all about

 

There IS a solution, if you don't like micros--filter them out with a PQ. But I see that both your finds were micros and you seemed to enjoy them, so no filtering necessary.

[+sbell111]

First I had to check to see if this thread was started in 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008.... Must be a hundred similar threads kicking around in here.

maybe if so many people have complained about the same thing for so many years then maybe those in charge ought to think about providing a solution. i don't know the background but from my limited reading of these forums it seems to me that micros seem to be upsetting an awful lot of customers. maybe i should find one to see what the fuss is all about

I've come to realize that lots of people complain about lots of things and that it isn't worth my time to react to every issue. Too often, these complaints are the attempts of a few people to try to change reality to match their desires to the detriment of others.

[+OReviewer]

A good hide is a good hide regardless of the size. What we really need is a rating system based on input from the finders so it is easier to sort the interesting hides from the uninspired trash caches.

 

A good location is a good location regardless of the size (and/or hide).

[+russellvt]

I've come to realize that lots of people complain about lots of things and that it isn't worth my time to react to every issue. Too often, these complaints are the attempts of a few people to try to change reality to match their desires to the detriment of others.

I can't really fathom what "detriment" there would be to adding icons, persay, or even something like a "nano" category (though that might cause more widespread confusion, I guess). Only issue is the time required to implement...

 

Personally, I think it might be cool if the icons somehow reflected "size" altogether, but that's more of a "nice to have" (not that the map isn't already cluttered enough, mind you). But perhaps they just need to fix the query tool to allow multiple conditions, instead (something it sounded like was being worked on at one point).

[+sbell111]

I've come to realize that lots of people complain about lots of things and that it isn't worth my time to react to every issue. Too often, these complaints are the attempts of a few people to try to change reality to match their desires to the detriment of others.

I can't really fathom what "detriment" there would be to adding icons, persay, or even something like a "nano" category (though that might cause more widespread confusion, I guess). Only issue is the time required to implement...

 

Personally, I think it might be cool if the icons somehow reflected "size" altogether, but that's more of a "nice to have" (not that the map isn't already cluttered enough, mind you). But perhaps they just need to fix the query tool to allow multiple conditions, instead (something it sounded like was being worked on at one point).

If you take a look at the first few posts of this thread, you will find that I support the addition of a new size smaller than 'small'.

 

You kind of lost the point of my post when you parsed it. It was commenting on TT's post, which basically stated that if enough whining goes on, then TPTB must make whatever changes are being demanded.

[+russellvt]

You kind of lost the point of my post when you parsed it. It was commenting on TT's post, which basically stated that if enough whining goes on, then TPTB must make whatever changes are being demanded.

Ah, ok... but I also look at it in the fact that it is their site... and, something to the effect of "you can't please all of the people all of the time."

 

I know there are plenty of good suggestions on the forums... but, manpower is surely limited.

[+sbell111]

You kind of lost the point of my post when you parsed it. It was commenting on TT's post, which basically stated that if enough whining goes on, then TPTB must make whatever changes are being demanded.

Ah, ok... but I also look at it in the fact that it is their site... and, something to the effect of "you can't please all of the people all of the time."

 

I know there are plenty of good suggestions on the forums... but, manpower is surely limited.

In other words, you agree with me.

 

OK.

[+baloo&bd]

If they required proof of permission I'd guess most of them would have to be archived.

 

Along with most other caches.

[+baloo&bd]

I can't really fathom what "detriment" there would be to adding icons

 

Thought I missed a change but just checked a couple caches and the size icon is still there. Possibly a browser issue?

[Mr.Yuck]

First I had to check to see if this thread was started in 2005, 2006, 2007, or 2008.... Must be a hundred similar threads kicking around in here.

maybe if so many people have complained about the same thing for so many years then maybe those in charge ought to think about providing a solution. i don't know the background but from my limited reading of these forums it seems to me that micros seem to be upsetting an awful lot of customers. maybe i should find one to see what the fuss is all about

 

There IS a solution, if you don't like micros--filter them out with a PQ. But I see that both your finds were micros and you seemed to enjoy them, so no filtering necessary.

 

FunkyFrogs, don't fall into the trap of thinking that it's all about the micros for those of us in the "anti-lame camp", for lack of a better phrase. I know, I know, the Original post sure makes it sound like it is in this case. Both of Tiny_Tracy's micro finds sound excellent, one at a covered bridge. I'd look for both those no problem. Now if there's a keyholder stuck to a guardrail next to the dumpster out back of her local Grocery store, that I would pass on.

 

Edit. OK, I had some downtime, and was bored. About 30 miles from Tracey's covered bridge find, in suburban Indianapolis, is this gem in a Wendy's parking lot, complete with a seven word cache description, three of those words being "One doller (sic) FTF". Compare and contrast this to her covered bridge micro find

 

See the difference? Which cache page would you show to someone you were trying to explain geocaching to? Which one would you actually take this person to? This is why the lame cache debate will go on forever. The fact that the overwhelming majority of these caches are micros is just a fact.

Edited June 27, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Seems there are two issues being discussed here. First, the OP is talking about the actual hide (i.e. lamppost, guardrail, etc.). The second topic is the presentation of the cache page itself. The quoted cache pages (especially the Wendy's 3 parking lot one) is a classic "let's just throw something out there" cache. It's boring and doesn't tell you anything worthwhile. Unfortunately, there are getting to be too many of these things.

 

Even the second one (Cades Mill Covered Bridge) is a bit brief but at least it seems to have a purpose - to show you this cool bridge and a bit of the history. And, it tells you something about the cache itself - what you are looking for and a good hint.

 

Maybe I'm just too critical, but obvious misspellings in a cache description ("doller") just turn me off. Same goes for gross grammar errors. These kinds of caches would NEVER make it to my "memorable" list, let alone tell a friend.