Jump to content

P&G Micros are Taking Over the World


Followers 6

Recommended Posts

This thread builds on an earlier one about the death of mystery (puzzle) caches, because it clearly is a larger issue. Caching -- at least in Florida -- has changed quite dramatically since we started about 5 years ago. Here are some observations:

 

1. Our mystery caches, multi-stage caches, long hike caches, and in fact any high level of difficult caches rarely are visted -- some have gone for over a year without a single person finding them. The only time many of them have been logged was last weekend when a friend from down south did about 120 local caches over the weekend. That was an exception.

 

2. Our park and grab micros are logged multiple times a month.

 

My sense is that the great majority of geocachers are busy folks who enjoy the sport, but want to maximize the number of finds per unit of time spent, and this precludes paying much attention to the caches types listed above, unless on occasion they can be done as part of another event.

 

We are as guilty as any others of this trend. When I first started caching, just about all we did was long hikes and ammo cans in great places. Now with limited time on my hands, we go for numbers. Numbers, like it or not, seem to influence how we cache. I have noticed recently that as I approach 1,000 finds, my focus is on hitting that target -- and this from a guy who many times has complained that this sport is not about the numbers!

 

OK, this is rambling. What's your thought -- has the sport changed in this manner, from your perspective -- does it really matter?

 

:ph34r:

Link to comment

Yes it has changed. I know I have a couple of harder caches out there and the one rarely gets a visit and the other I just placed. It is sad. I know I am up to almost 400 and cant wait to hit that target, but to me it is not just a numbers game. I love some of the areas that I get to see (some I just cant stand, like a recent cache I did). I am a busy person, but I do make time for caching at least. I will spend an entire day just running about caching. Usually save the P&Gs for closer to dusk, even though I have been known to trudge through the woods for half an hour in the dark to find a cache.

Yes, it has changed, like everything else in this world. Look at the cache types that you can no longer do. I know of a couple of virtuals I would like to put together. And I know of a couple of areas to do Earthcaches. Also know of one place that I would love to do a Web cam. Now they are either just ammo cans or micros or not at all.

Pretty soon, there will be just regular caches and nothing else. And they will be pretty much be P&G micros

Link to comment
We are as guilty as any others of this trend.

 

There's no need for anyone to take ownership of guilt over this.

 

There are a lot more people playing sand lot baseball or pick-up basketball than there are playing in MLB or the NBA, and they are all having fun. People will play at the level they find to be fun or to otherwise meet their needs. The subset of the game that more people find to be more attractive will grow faster.

 

I'm still seeing a reasonable number of mystery / puzzle and significant hike caches being created, so that segment of the game is alive and well.

Link to comment

An equally rambling response.

 

Starting with a quick note to Sparticus06 - there's nothing stopping you from creating a new Earthcache. They're published all the time.

 

Back in the day :ph34r: caches of any type were rare enough that any that got published were visited. Now there are so many caches that they are competing for finders. I consider this an improvement, not something to worry about.

 

Yes, I too have caches (9 of them currently) that have gone a year without a find, and a good many others that will have, at best, 3 or 4 finds per year. It's okay, nobody is paying me for finders. I continue to place the kind of caches that I like to find, and there's plenty of those out for me to find. It's all good.

 

I do worry some about the difficulty of separating the easy P&Gs, "just for the smiley" from the rest of it - I hope that some kind of ratings come to the website soon. Personally, I just go hiking/yaking, and check for caches where I'm planning to go, rather than PQing big hunks of caches. I no longer carry gps while running errands, so I'm not grabbing those P&Gs. They aren't bothering me a bit, either.

I used to do parking lot caches, as cheap entertainment while buying kitty litter, but at some point they got to be not entertaining enough to bother loading, carrying and firing up a gps. That's just me. Many still enjoy it, more power to them.

 

 

edit hiccup

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment
What's your thought -- has the sport changed in this manner, from your perspective -- does it really matter?

Yes, the hobby has changed.

 

Let's forget a minute about the folks who hunt only for the smilie--the folks who don't care one whit about the cache as long as they get to increment their find count on their way to whatever glory they see in an arbitrary number.

 

There is a much larger active cacher population today that before. This translates into more cache placements which means there are more caches to choose from. Even if folks skip the obvious trache they will tend to hunt the most convenient caches and leave the harder ones for later. When you've got a large population of caches that keep you entertained you'll tend to not go looking for something else.

 

Another issue is available cache spots and the relationship to what is "good enough." The two are slightly intertwined in that a newbie sees that all of the interesting areas they know about have caches in them or saturation rules preclude placements in adjacent spots. Add to this other caches they've seen on sign posts on random street corners and the logs it receives. A new cacher, and even an veteran cacher depending on whether he considers geocaching a hobby or a sport, will see the cache on a random street corner as "good enough." Some newbies might see these types of hides as what geocaching is all about.

 

The hobby is dividing into two different lines of thought. One can co-exist with the other better than the other way around. When one group doesn't care about the quality of the hunt, or at least it is not a priority, then they will hunt anything from excuse-for-a-smilie to epic adventures. Anything for the highest smilie return for the effort expended. The other end of the scale doesn't care about the smilie as long as they have a decent adventure.

 

The problem is every cache gives you a smilie (except for the exceptionally rare ALR that prohibits any smilie), but not all caches give you an adventure.

 

It's unknown how the general caching population breaks down into the two different groups: the ones that will hunt less adventurous caches on a regular basis versus those who don't. But, it can't be argued that placing a P&G is as hard as one that is not. It's much easier to find a spot to place a P&G, more spots are available, P&G tend to be less expensive, there are fewer maintenance issues: it's simply easier and cheaper to place and maintain a P&G than a regular "real" cache. Consider that certain folks tend to be lazy and a P&G is the perfect fit and it feeds the ego with a cheap smilie.

 

No wonder P&Gs and especially P&G trinketless caches on a rise.

 

Is there an answer to this problem? Sure, but it would never be implemented on this site.

Link to comment
Is there an answer to this problem? Sure, but it would never be implemented on this site.
Perhaps the 'answer' won't be implemented because TPTB don't see the current situation as a problem.

 

If only easy peasey micros were being hidden and cachers were quitting in droves and not being replaced by new cachers who like the caches being hidden, I could see the argument that there was a problem. Since none of these things are happening, it's not a problem, in my opinion.

 

A less lazy forum regular would markwell similar threads from each of the last five or six years.

 

<Silly image is broken, so I'm deleting it since the [x] doesn't really have the same flava.>

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

It's pretty simple, really, and fairly obvious to me... if most of us hide and seek them then most of us like them, whatever 'them' might be! :unsure:

 

No, I don't think anything has changed, people have always hidden and hunted what they like.

 

It is simple, and you're 100% correct. I do find it interesting though, that the OP is from the perspective of someone with several P&G's, not a "micro hata". Just scanning their hides, I see micros in a mall parking lot, a donut shop, and a Publix store.

Link to comment

i havent cached much, I feel i "plan" for the hike or special caches and just pick up micro trads if I happen to be in the area.

 

few days ago i was doing a multi and was only halfway when it was getting too dark. i stopped and figured ild come back tmorrow.

so i walked up to the road and called my wife to come pick me up.

i sat down at a monument and started messing about with the GPS, opened the geocache section... 0.0km ??? hu? i was sitting at a cache site ???

so got to log a find afterall :-)

finished the multi the next day.

Edited by Guinness70
Link to comment

I've notice that ice cream has change dramatically since I started eating it over 50 years ago. Here is my observation:

 

Very few fast food restaurants and even ice cream stores sell hand scooped ice cream any more. Soft-served is much more convenient. And that also means that you get exactly two flavors - usually vanilla and chocolate. Of course most soft-serve machines let you swirl the two flavors so maybe that counts as three flavors.

 

My sense is that the great majority of people enjoy quality hand scooped ice cream in a variety of flavors. But people are busier than they once were and with the price of gasoline perhaps they prefer bargain priced soft-served ice cream they can get at a convenient nearby location.

 

Even a venerable ice cream chain like Baskin-Robbins is as guilty as any other. They now serve soft-serve and in one flavor only - not 31.

 

OK, this is rambling. What's your thought -- has the ice cream changed in this manner, from your perspective -- does it really matter? Is this a good analogy for geocaching?

 

:unsure:

Link to comment

There seems to be a feeling that the number of times a cache is found is the soul indication of how desirable it is.

 

The caches that get the most visitors are the P&Gs. The more difficult ones seem to be ignored more.

 

It is my humble opinion, that this has more to do with time available to hunt, than with wanting easy finds for quick numbers.

 

When I know I've only got a little time to pick up a couple quick caches, I really can't go looking for the nice hike, or drive up the back roads. However, you can usually fit a few quick and easy caches into your day if you plan for it. Then when you have some time to spare you can go for the longer ones.

 

My limited mobility also limits the caches I can go for. It takes a lot more planning to attempt the more difficult caches, so I really like the quick little caches in the local parks. We all have some limits whether it is physical or time.

 

I'm sure there are cachers that just enjoy the P&Gs, and some cachers just like the remote caches. However, it seems most I know like the better caches, but have fun with the quicker ones when time is of the essence.

Link to comment

I guess that you would also have to figure in the fact that it is late July. If it's not the very hottest time of the year, it is not more than a week or two from it. It's simply way too hot for this old guy to be mucking about in the woods. If I want to brave the heat to find a cache, it will be one that doesn't take me very far from the air conditioning.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I guess that you would also have to figure in the fact that it is late July. If it's not the very hottest time of the year, it is not more than a week or two from it. It's simply way too hot for this old guy to be mucking about in the woods. If I want to brave teh heat to find a cache, it will be one that doesn't take me very far from the air conditioning.

Amen!

Link to comment

Here's a thought...who cares?

 

If you want to knock off 150 P&G's in an afternoon. go for it.

 

If you want to spend all day climbing a rock cliff to get the cache at the top, go for it.

 

If you want to trade, go for it.

 

If you want to log it, go for it.

 

What you do doesn't affect me, and I have yet to be shown by anybody, on any forum, how what I do affects you.

Link to comment

At the risk of overcomplicating things, it would be nice if there were two 'scores':

 

1. Total find count

2. Weighted find count

 

In my ideal system (remember, I might be overcomplicating things) your weighted score for each cache would be significantly greater than 1 for caches that are found infrequently, and much less than 1 for caches that are found often. So the guy climbing a rock face or hiking five miles to find a cache that only gets found four times a year would get, let's say, 10 added to his Weighted find count. Meanwhile, a find of a P&G in a busy parking lot that gets found ten times a day would count for .1:

 

Find a rarely visited cache = 10 points

Find a cache that gets found all the time = .2 or .3 points

 

Maybe this would encourage the numbers people to seek out the rarely found caches.

 

But I might be overcomplicating things.

 

Wes

Link to comment

But I might be overcomplicating things.

You are.

 

While you're at it, why not add a "driving" score, say, someone who drives 10 highway miles to find a cache gets less credit than someone who drives 10 off-road miles? Or, how about a "shoes" score? Someone who caches in sandals gets a higher score than someone who has $300 hiking boots?

 

One cache = one smiley. Whether it's a 5 star or a 1.

 

Why do so many people think they have to make the playing field completely level for all cachers???

Link to comment

Here's a thought...who cares?

 

If you want to knock off 150 P&G's in an afternoon. go for it.

 

If you want to spend all day climbing a rock cliff to get the cache at the top, go for it.

 

If you want to trade, go for it.

 

If you want to log it, go for it.

 

What you do doesn't affect me, and I have yet to be shown by anybody, on any forum, how what I do affects you.

Other than selecting an avatar which I find mildly disturbing (but not as bad as a small monkey that used to stir the pot in here) I agree 100% with this attitude.

 

I don't give a flying squirrel's nuts about your numbers nor do I care what you think about mine.

I'll agree that bogus found logs on a missing cache can cause some angst, but that's about all that can cause serious issue.

 

Right now it's too hot here to even think about much more than P&G's, and there are many days when jumping in the pool ASAP is preferable to stopping for any cache on the way home. :drama:

 

edited to add that I really like your sig line :unsure:

 

Wesbo-how would your weighted score adjust for seasonal challenges in finding caches? I've got one that is a pleasant .5 mile stroll down a wooded creekside path, with a 100' climb at the very end to access the cache. When I hid it in the fall, it was a cool day, the bugs were dead, and the PI had already fallen back. It's a very different experience in the Mid-Summer heat though. :ph34r:

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

This thought has been debated before, but I like how this one has remained pretty much angst free.

 

I'm pretty much with the "who cares" crowd and don't have enough time to worry about what other cache people are finding. As long as everyone is having fun and enjoys what they're doing, then that's all that really matters.

 

One thing I would suggest is that if people like a certain type of hide, suggest that people hide more of those rather than bash the ones they don't like. I think that "I just did an awesome 5 miler that offered some fun stages and think it would be great to see more like that hidden around here" would come across better than "I just did 5 of the lamest caches ever. They were all those stupid film cans in stop signs. Why do you morons keep placing caches like that?!" :unsure:

Link to comment
(tozainamboku @ 29 July 9:10 am) OK, this is rambling. What's your thought -- has the ice cream changed in this manner, from your perspective -- does it really matter? Is this a good analogy for geocaching?

 

Ya know, there's this great ice cream place in Hanford, CA that sells some of the best hand-dipped ice cream in the world.

 

Unfortunately, I live in Illinois now and it's been years since I had some. Some of theirs, that is - I still eat ice cream all the time.

 

One of these days someone will point out a great place, and it'll be right around the corner.

 

I love the long hike caches; wish there were more of 'em. But I've also discovered some really neat stuff right in my own backyard, simply looking for the grab 'n go smilie.

Link to comment
In my ideal system (remember, I might be overcomplicating things) your weighted score for each cache would be significantly greater than 1 for caches that are found infrequently, and much less than 1 for caches that are found often.
Let's say that I organize a deathmarch, and the main objective is an extreme-terrain cache that everyone needs for a Fizzy challenge cache, so we have great turnout. The cache was hidden 3 years ago, but until this weekend, it had been found only 5 times. This weekend, a few dozen cachers log finds.

 

Are past finds any less valuable than they were before the deathmarch? Are future finds any less valuable than they would have been without the deathmarch?

 

It might make sense to count stars (difficulty*terrain, or difficulty+terrain-1, or whatever formula tickles your fancy) if counting smilies isn't enough. But weighting based on the number of previous finds seems wonky. The best caches should be the ones everyone wants to find, and that everyone encourages others to find.

Link to comment
In my ideal system (remember, I might be overcomplicating things) your weighted score for each cache would be significantly greater than 1 for caches that are found infrequently, and much less than 1 for caches that are found often.
Let's say that I organize a deathmarch, and the main objective is an extreme-terrain cache that everyone needs for a Fizzy challenge cache, so we have great turnout. The cache was hidden 3 years ago, but until this weekend, it had been found only 5 times. This weekend, a few dozen cachers log finds.

 

Are past finds any less valuable than they were before the deathmarch? Are future finds any less valuable than they would have been without the deathmarch?

 

It might make sense to count stars (difficulty*terrain, or difficulty+terrain-1, or whatever formula tickles your fancy) if counting smilies isn't enough. But weighting based on the number of previous finds seems wonky. The best caches should be the ones everyone wants to find, and that everyone encourages others to find.

 

For the personal fun factor. Probably not.

In the skydiver point system that used to be in my area (one tip of it anyway) Yup. A series of death marches would lower the point value of the cache. It's getting found after all. Other caches would remain worth more points. When the death march frenzy dies away the cache may slowly rise back to it's normal high point value.

 

For points, it's all in how they are counted. Be definition you can turn any 'least found' cache into a frequently found cache. Vice versa is harder.

Link to comment

...OK, this is rambling. What's your thought -- has the sport changed in this manner, from your perspective -- does it really matter?

 

:unsure:

 

Yes and no.

It's easy to get distracted by a buch of caches and not hunt the one that's up an old jeep trail. I used to get distracted all the time. Then I hit my 1000 find goal and had stopped caring.

 

There is an unfound cache at the end of my street. One of these days I'll find it. My last finds were 300 & 500+ miles away. No better reason that I decided to cache when I was out of town. I still haven't gotten around to the one at the end of my street.

 

My priorties changed. Now I'll fish, then cache. Not cache instead of fish. Now I'm as likely to plan the next one to place as go find one. Or I'll figure where I want to find one next and go there.

 

Caching holds appeal still. P&G? Not so much though I'm sure some day I'll feel like a day of P&G just for kicks.

Link to comment

It is about the numbers....there are no cash rewards....But there is plenty of enjoyment, which is better then cash rewards or should I say "Cache Rewards." The more Caches we find, the more enjoyment, Visiting places we have never been, but should have. I Have found caches at wonderful scenic areas that I have passed by hundreds of time over a period of years and never stop. I have placed caches at very scenic places, which is very rewarding. I enjoy searching for caches and I enjoy placing caches for other to find, which is my way of paying back this wonderful sport. Ground Speak is just an outstanding program, as is the Premium Member Program. Not to forget GSAK.

Happy Caching and smooth trails.

Link to comment

with limited time on my hands, we go for numbers

 

I think it's the other way round: If you are into the numbers game, you don't need much time. A few minutes here, a few minutes there. If you hunt for more challenging caches, then you'll free up time for this. Like go hiking for a whole sunday, just to find one or two caches.

 

does it really matter?

 

No.

 

Go out and hide and find those caches you like. Enjoy and write a good log. Have fun.

Link to comment

This thread builds on an earlier one about the death of mystery (puzzle) caches, because it clearly is a larger issue. Caching -- at least in Florida -- has changed quite dramatically since we started about 5 years ago. Here are some observations:

 

1. Our mystery caches, multi-stage caches, long hike caches, and in fact any high level of difficult caches rarely are visted -- some have gone for over a year without a single person finding them. The only time many of them have been logged was last weekend when a friend from down south did about 120 local caches over the weekend. That was an exception.

 

2. Our park and grab micros are logged multiple times a month.

 

My sense is that the great majority of geocachers are busy folks who enjoy the sport, but want to maximize the number of finds per unit of time spent, and this precludes paying much attention to the caches types listed above, unless on occasion they can be done as part of another event.

 

 

The more I read these forums the more I wonder if I live in an atypical geocaching area.

 

In a 10 mile radius from my local zipcode I know of only three caches in lamp posts and one of those is a lamp post on a bridge over a pretty gorge. There are a handful of P&Gs but the rest of the 180 or so caches are a mix of tricky hides, puzzle caches, and short/long hikes with quite a few ammo cans. If I extend the radius to 20 miles it includes a town of about the same size which seems to have a lot more P&Gs.

 

Even our busiest local cachers don't find 120 caches in a weekend. The record for one of our busiest is 42, but she did it in California.

 

 

We are as guilty as any others of this trend. When I first started caching, just about all we did was long hikes and ammo cans in great places. Now with limited time on my hands, we go for numbers. Numbers, like it or not, seem to influence how we cache. I have noticed recently that as I approach 1,000 finds, my focus is on hitting that target -- and this from a guy who many times has complained that this sport is not about the numbers!

 

OK, this is rambling. What's your thought -- has the sport changed in this manner, from your perspective -- does it really matter?

 

:unsure:

 

I'm approaching 500 finds and have a monthly average of 26. As I have found all but 1 caches within 12 miles of home I figure it costs me close to $5 just to drive to the nearest cache, whether I find it or not, and return home. I just found the last two between 11 and 12 miles away and was the first to find them this year. I could have gone in a different direction and picked up 10 or so in the same amount of time. Given that I have to drive aways just to get to an area in which I haven't found all the caches sometimes going after the numbers, which don't even come close to the numbers many have reported finding in a day, is as satisfying as hitting two or three caches that require a bit more effort.

 

I think that one of the reasons that my area may be somewhat atypical is that those the hide caches before me (and have mostly moved out of the area) set a precedent for certain types and now that most of the new caches are being placed by the next generation of local caches we've followed that pattern.

 

Perhaps, if those that are placing caches today would refrain from placing lots of P&Gs newcomers to the hobby would follow suit.

Link to comment

...I think that one of the reasons that my area may be somewhat atypical is that those the hide caches before me (and have mostly moved out of the area) set a precedent for certain types and now that most of the new caches are being placed by the next generation of local caches we've followed that pattern.

 

Perhaps, if those that are placing caches today would refrain from placing lots of P&Gs newcomers to the hobby would follow suit.

Bingo!!

 

I agree with this. New cachers have a real tendancy to place what they have seen and what they have found. Set a good example if you want more of a certain type in your area.

Link to comment
In my ideal system (remember, I might be overcomplicating things) your weighted score for each cache would be significantly greater than 1 for caches that are found infrequently, and much less than 1 for caches that are found often.
Let's say that I organize a deathmarch, and the main objective is an extreme-terrain cache that everyone needs for a Fizzy challenge cache, so we have great turnout. The cache was hidden 3 years ago, but until this weekend, it had been found only 5 times. This weekend, a few dozen cachers log finds.

 

Are past finds any less valuable than they were before the deathmarch? Are future finds any less valuable than they would have been without the deathmarch?

 

It might make sense to count stars (difficulty*terrain, or difficulty+terrain-1, or whatever formula tickles your fancy) if counting smilies isn't enough. But weighting based on the number of previous finds seems wonky. The best caches should be the ones everyone wants to find, and that everyone encourages others to find.

 

Uh... Maybe I was overcomplicating things. But using the 'find frequency' (not # of previous finds) is kind of self-regulating. I like things that are self-regulating.

Link to comment

This is really just another 'Which came first - the chicken or the egg' convo.* In this case, one feeds & has fed the other....for all the reasons & ways mentioned. I compare it to water, & how it will seek its own level, & following the path of least resistance. I think that's exactly what geocaching has become....because it's how people, generally speaking, are.

 

*And everyone should know - it was the rooster.

[:unsure:]

~*

Link to comment

Wesbo-how would your weighted score adjust for seasonal challenges in finding caches? I've got one that is a pleasant .5 mile stroll down a wooded creekside path, with a 100' climb at the very end to access the cache. When I hid it in the fall, it was a cool day, the bugs were dead, and the PI had already fallen back. It's a very different experience in the Mid-Summer heat though. :unsure:

 

It will self-regulate. That cache will be found less frequently than a nano in a grate in the WalMart parking lot in Orlando... Probably...

Link to comment
But I might be overcomplicating things.

Yep and not thinking it through.

 

How often a cache is found is not a direct result of how difficult it is, but more of how convenient it is. Sure, difficulty played a part of convenience, but only a part. How close it is to folks is the major factor. A moderately difficult cache at a popular tourist destination will be found a lot more often then a very easy, but out of the way, cache. Why should the cache near a dense cacher population be punished.

 

Additionally, a cache that is moderately entertaining will be found much less often than a much harder, though wildly entertaining, cache. The reason is reputation. The most infamous caches will get found more often than less so ones, but which one would have the higher score? Yes, the lesser cache. Why should the more popular cache be punished?

 

Basing a scoring system, and the resultant competition, on a flawed system is not exactly desirable.

Link to comment

Keep in mind there are also a lot of new people joining your ranks (myself included), who just don't have the awesome geosense needed to find the harder caches.

 

Hell, I still have trouble with 1/1s, I can't even imagine the frustration I'd face with a 5/5. I'll get there, eventually, and there are lots around here that are probably in need of a find, but I'd like to get some experience with the little ones first, and work my way up.

 

I also have the issue of a (very) limited budget. If your cache needs climbing gear, a kayak, or $300 hiking boots to get to, it's pretty much off limits to me. I just simply can't afford it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one in that boat (or lack of boat...).

 

And then there's the gas issue of course. If a cache is 50 miles away in the middle of nowhere, and I'm not headed that way anyway, I'm not likely to go after it until I am headed that way anyway, it's just too dang expensive!

 

If I win the lotto, I'll be all over those special equipment and hundred mile drive caches though :mad:

 

Edited for horrible spelling (I shouldn't be on here at 2 in the morning).

Edited by Silfron Mandotheneset
Link to comment
But I might be overcomplicating things.

Yep and not thinking it through.

 

How often a cache is found is not a direct result of how difficult it is, but more of how convenient it is. Sure, difficulty played a part of convenience, but only a part. How close it is to folks is the major factor. A moderately difficult cache at a popular tourist destination will be found a lot more often then a very easy, but out of the way, cache. Why should the cache near a dense cacher population be punished.

 

Additionally, a cache that is moderately entertaining will be found much less often than a much harder, though wildly entertaining, cache. The reason is reputation. The most infamous caches will get found more often than less so ones, but which one would have the higher score? Yes, the lesser cache. Why should the more popular cache be punished?

 

Basing a scoring system, and the resultant competition, on a flawed system is not exactly desirable.

 

You're right, of course, but a weighted score isn't supposed to be perfect or fair. Just a supplement to find count.

Link to comment

This thought has been debated before, but I like how this one has remained pretty much angst free.

 

I'm pretty much with the "who cares" crowd and don't have enough time to worry about what other cache people are finding. As long as everyone is having fun and enjoys what they're doing, then that's all that really matters.

 

One thing I would suggest is that if people like a certain type of hide, suggest that people hide more of those rather than bash the ones they don't like. I think that "I just did an awesome 5 miler that offered some fun stages and think it would be great to see more like that hidden around here" would come across better than "I just did 5 of the lamest caches ever. They were all those stupid film cans in stop signs. Why do you morons keep placing caches like that?!" :mad:

 

This is a good point, and it actually works -- tell the hider of a really good full size cache that we need more, and they seem to respond -- particularly if the person making the suggestion does the same.

Link to comment

1. Our mystery caches, multi-stage caches, long hike caches, and in fact any high level of difficult caches rarely are visted -- some have gone for over a year without a single person finding them.

2. Our park and grab micros are logged multiple times a month.

 

I think that, as with anything, the more people you have involved, the more likely you will encounter the lowest common denominator as you participate.

 

The good aspects that attracted you in the first place are still there, perhaps they've just become clouded a bit by the influx of larger numbers taking the easier path.

 

As the pendulum begins to swing the other direction, though, the P&G tycoons may get to where they want more in a cache, the numbers aren't so important, and they begin to look into some of the vast array of cache hides and styles that are out there.

 

They may desire more from their hides than "TFTC", or "SL". Just think of the huge number of better caches that could result from the pendulum's return pass.

Link to comment

It's a bit like music.. everyone has their own set of preferences.

 

Agreed.

 

I still prefer Steely Dan to Kid Rock, but I don't necessarily change the radio when I don't like what's on.

 

I prefer an Angus ribeye to a hamburger, but I won't pass it up if hamburgers are served.

 

I prefer an ammo can to a LPC, but I'll sure take the LPC smiley when the opportunity is presented.

 

To paraphrase an old adage, "variety is the spice of geocaching".

Link to comment
This is a good point, and it actually works -- tell the hider of a really good full size cache that we need more, and they seem to respond -- particularly if the person making the suggestion does the same.

In CT, water caches have really caught on over the past year or two. As cachers find them, they say how much they liked them, so people are placing more and more. It's fun to go out and get one, but it's really fun to go out and get several over a multi-mile paddle. We're a small state but are fortunate to have over 70 quality water caches. Some of them get found every weekend by at least one person during warm summer weekends.

 

The same thing is happening with climbing caches. A couple avid climbers have rock climbing events several times during the summer, and then they get together during the week to climb unofficially. As more and more people attend these events and get addicted to climbing, we're seeing new caches requiring ropes getting published all the time.

 

By going out and finding these caches, it shows that people like them and owners respond by placing more of that type.

Link to comment

It's a bit like music.. everyone has their own set of preferences.

 

Agreed.

 

I still prefer Steely Dan to Kid Rock, but I don't necessarily change the radio when I don't like what's on.

 

I prefer an Angus ribeye to a hamburger, but I won't pass it up if hamburgers are served.

 

I prefer an ammo can to a LPC, but I'll sure take the LPC smiley when the opportunity is presented.

 

To paraphrase an old adage, "variety is the spice of geocaching".

 

Hey WebChimp -- where did you get all of those slick graphics on your web page? You must have every possible statistic that can be calculated displayed in pie charts, bar graphs and/or tables. Is this a canned program that you found in the web or self - generated?

 

I take it that in addition to Steely Dan (agree -- one of the best), steaks (agree again) and ammo cans (agree again) you are interested in numbers.

 

:unsure:

Edited by hikemeister
Link to comment

There is a bit of a micro explosion in parts of our area too. Recently, I decided that with the price of gas, I wanted our finds to count for something more than just numbers. So instead of quantity, we'll be focusing on quality. We've decided to work on the MA Delorme Challenge, RI Delorme Challenge, and the Well Rounded New England Cacher Challenge.

 

We've had a great year so far in terms of goals, MEMORIES or firsts for us without going crazy chasing micros.

Link to comment

This situation reminds me of fishing. Some people enjoy catching lots of smaller fish in a heavily stocked lakes. Others spend all day wading up whitewater to go after a single Steelhead. The Steelhead fishermen know enough not to fish in the stocked lakes. There may actually be a few big ones in the lake, but it's just not as fun to them. There is a definite difference in thrill level and some people will never get it. This is great news for the Steelhead fisherman because he often has the peace, beauty and solitude of the river all to himself. :unsure:

Link to comment

FWIW from a new cacher, I have only one hide, and it is a very easy find. It is right near the Trans-Canada Highway, east of Regina, about 80 miles. I made it an easy find because it is likely that anyone who is travelling by would just enjoy the break, park the car, walk a hundred yards, make the find, maybe trade some swag, and be off. A little stealth may be required at certain times of the day, but it is a really nice area, good for the dog or the kids to run around a bit. Each to his/her own in this game, as I see it. kjohn73

Link to comment

Here's a thought...who cares?

 

If you want to knock off 150 P&G's in an afternoon. go for it.

 

If you want to spend all day climbing a rock cliff to get the cache at the top, go for it.

 

If you want to trade, go for it.

 

If you want to log it, go for it.

 

What you do doesn't affect me, and I have yet to be shown by anybody, on any forum, how what I do affects you.

 

Well there you go again....Injecting an unwanted simple, realistic approach to this matter. :unsure:

Link to comment

Here's a thought...who cares?

 

If you want to knock off 150 P&G's in an afternoon. go for it.

 

If you want to spend all day climbing a rock cliff to get the cache at the top, go for it.

 

If you want to trade, go for it.

 

If you want to log it, go for it.

 

What you do doesn't affect me, and I have yet to be shown by anybody, on any forum, how what I do affects you.

Other than selecting an avatar which I find mildly disturbing (but not as bad as a small monkey that used to stir the pot in here) I agree 100% with this attitude.

 

I don't give a flying squirrel's nuts about your numbers nor do I care what you think about mine.

I'll agree that bogus found logs on a missing cache can cause some angst, but that's about all that can cause serious issue.

 

Right now it's too hot here to even think about much more than P&G's, and there are many days when jumping in the pool ASAP is preferable to stopping for any cache on the way home. :ph34r:

 

edited to add that I really like your sig line :P

 

Wesbo-how would your weighted score adjust for seasonal challenges in finding caches? I've got one that is a pleasant .5 mile stroll down a wooded creekside path, with a 100' climb at the very end to access the cache. When I hid it in the fall, it was a cool day, the bugs were dead, and the PI had already fallen back. It's a very different experience in the Mid-Summer heat though. :unsure:

 

I would very much appreciate you leaving a squirrel's anatomy out of this!! :D

Link to comment
There is a bit of a micro explosion in parts of our area too. Recently, I decided that with the price of gas, I wanted our finds to count for something more than just numbers. So instead of quantity, we'll be focusing on quality. We've decided to work on the MA Delorme Challenge, RI Delorme Challenge, and the Well Rounded New England Cacher Challenge.
When you mentioned the price of gas, I totally thought you were going to go in a different direction.

 

For me, the price of gas has caused me to eliminate these challenge caches. In my opinion, their fun per mile quotient is simply too low to justify them. Instead, the bulk of my caching will be in areas near to where I will be anyway. This will result in a higher number of finds on 'P&G micros', but that doesn't bother me, at all. If I didn't wish to find these caches, I would simply filter them out of my PQs. Otherwise, nothing about my method would change.

Link to comment

I know there are many opinions, but mine is, that after rich dark Rocky Road . . . there was NO reason to have any other flavors (it ain't no soft serve) :P .

 

As for cache types that I seek . . . mostly P&G because most of the caches are P&G caches. Locally, I try to cache out the area to support my local hiders . . . out-of-town, with the costs involved, it is strictly number runs except for occassional 'special' caches (ie: Elvis Confluence, etc.).

 

There are purists who still want "in-the-woods-hikes-climbs-etc. caches" to be the rule rather than the exception (this is fine!). These friends have become extremists simply by not moving because the game has gravitated heavily to micro P&G caches . . . initially this move was okay as it satisfied a need in growing the population of players and hides. But (IMO), it has gone too far in that direction. I used to find these purists to be a bore but I am starting to wish they had had more impact several years ago, before it got so crazy (can't believe I am sayng this) :ph34r: .

 

I will try any cache (locally) but I have gained a low frustration level and tire quickly of puzzles that seem more designed to NOT be found. For me, there is really no joy in such difficulty-elevated hides that have all the time & expense of a smiley, but suffer only a DNF. Long multi-caches, drive-to-stages are too expensive today.

 

That's all I have . . . :unsure:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...