Jump to content

Why MICROS are better.


CoyoteRed

Recommended Posts

I'm curious. I've just read an article over at Online Geocacher called "The Dreaded Micro!" The author actually has a reason as to why he prefers putting out micros. It's fairly well thought out, but I'm going to withhold my thoughts on it for now.

 

I'm curious, if you think micros are better than larger caches, why? I'm looking for well thought out reasons similar to those in the above linked article and not just because they're "kewl," cheap, or easy to hide.

Link to comment

I'm curious. I've just read an article over at Online Geocacher called "The Dreaded Micro!" The author actually has a reason as to why he prefers putting out micros. It's fairly well thought out, but I'm going to withhold my thoughts on it for now.

 

I'm curious, if you think micros are better than larger caches, why? I'm looking for well thought out reasons similar to those in the above linked article and not just because they're "kewl," cheap, or easy to hide.

 

My first thought is that it's a regional situation for the author, and that it sounds like just about all the caches in the area take you to nice locations, regardless of size. It is a very nice well thought out article.

Link to comment

One of the major arguments the author makes is that micros can be more challenging to find, hence they make you slow down and examine your surroundings. Sure, I can buy that, but believe me, I can point you in the direction of numerous ammo box caches which will take you more than a few minutes to locate...

Link to comment

My preference between one container size and another has never been strong enough to register as meaningful. Many other factors far outweigh container size when it comes to determining whether I am likely to enjoy a caching experience.

 

How are micros better?

  • Depending on the location, sometimes a tiny container is the only way to make it happen.
  • Other places, a tiny container adds to the difficulty of the challenge.
  • In a busy public place one is less likely to draw attention while signing the log with a micro in one’s lap than with a full-size container, trade swag and baggies all over the place.
  • One minor advantage to micro-sized containers became obvious to me the very first time I went to hide a full-size cache: It sometimes takes a bit of effort to blend in while walking through a park carrying a military ammo can and a big wad of army-surplus camouflage.

How are larger caches better?

  • Some people don’t like micros in the woods. I think what they usually mean is that they don’t enjoy tedious hides which require plodding patience over clever insight in order to find the cache. I also do not enjoy tedious hunts, therefore I also tend to be suspicious whether a micro in the forest is a good idea, but then again some of my very favorite caches have been micros in the woods. Either way, the tedious hunts tend to be the micros.
  • Some folks need there to be some trade swag at the end of their hunt. Like the author of your article, I rarely see anything I couldn’t have found a better copy of in a dollar store or a Happy Meal. Anyone who caches purely for the ‘treasure’ is likely to be disappointed, in my experience.

Some eschew micros because they associate micros with lack of inspiration. I myself have seen some pretty lame hides – and everyone has his own standard when it comes to minimum-satisfactory entertainment, of course – but I simply haven’t seen enough lame micro hides to justify the association. I have seen way too many lamely-hidden full-size containers to put the blame for lame solely on micros.

 

In general, then, I don’t think it is ever valid to judge a cache’s worthiness if the only thing you know about it is the container size -- but that's just my opinion.

 

Asking whether a micro cache is better than a larger container, to me, is like asking whether a meal tastes better served on a round plate versus a square one. Everyone has his own preference, of course, but as for me, container size is one of the least important indicators as to whether I am likely to have a pleasantly memorable experience.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

One of the major arguments the author makes is that micros can be more challenging to find, hence they make you slow down and examine your surroundings. Sure, I can buy that, but believe me, I can point you in the direction of numerous ammo box caches which will take you more than a few minutes to locate...

 

This is my primary beef with most micros-in-the-woods-or-wilds: The intensive search detracts from sightseeing, picture-taking, side-tripping, posey-picking, lunching, loafing and generally enjoying the surroundings. If I want to minutely examine every rock and branch within a 30-foot circle, I can go out my own back door and do it.

 

That said, I've placed small-to-micro caches in remote and scenic places, but I always post a spoiler pic on the cache page. Want the ersatz 'challenge' of searching for the cache? Ignore the picture. Want to have a leisurely lunch on the peak while leafing through the logbook? Use the spoiler.

Link to comment

I'm curious. I've just read an article over at Online Geocacher called "The Dreaded Micro!" The author actually has a reason as to why he prefers putting out micros. It's fairly well thought out, but I'm going to withhold my thoughts on it for now.

 

I'm curious, if you think micros are better than larger caches, why? I'm looking for well thought out reasons similar to those in the above linked article and not just because they're "kewl," cheap, or easy to hide.

 

It seems to me the main premise of that article is that a micro keeps a person in an area longer and the author is making the case that time spend looking for a cache = enjoyment of the area. I'm not sure I agree with that. I think most people are very focused on finding a cache and not giving the great view surrounding them much or any attention.

 

For me, I tend to enjoy my surroundings much more outside of GZ. Once inside of 25 ft, I am pretty much focused and all business. The longer it takes me to find a cache (especially a micro in the wild), the more chances of my old friends frustration and confusion visiting me. After a long search, it usually takes some time during the walk back to get back in balance with my surroundings.

 

Or to bottom line this, it is about the journey and the container will always remain insignificant to me.

Link to comment

Micros are better because:

 

They're CHEAP

(meaning that you can slap one on a guard rail every .1 miles with little or no financial involvement)

 

They're SMALL

(so you don't have to fill them with expensive trade items)

 

They're EASIER TO HIDE

(so you don't need to put much thought or skill into where or how you hide them)

 

They're HARDER TO FIND

(forget the trampled flora -- just up the difficulty because your caches are "hard")

 

They DON'T HOLD TRAVELERS

(no need to spend money of TBs or Coins if there's no caches to put them in)

 

They're NOT BLOWN UP BY BOMB SQUADS

(of course, well placed larger caches aren't either, but....)

 

They FIT INSIDE LARGER CONTAINERS

(so you can create seeder caches to spread the joy just like dandelions spread theirs around your yard)

 

They're LIGHT IN WEIGHT

(So you can carry a bunch of them to make super-duper-awesome power trails)

 

Hmmm.. did I miss any?

Edited by DocDiTTo
Link to comment
If a person is in it strictly for what they can trade at a cache site or in it just for the numbers, then the micro cache will most likely be avoided. But, if a person is in it just for the thrill of finding a cache and the places caching takes them, then the size of the cache won’t make a difference.

 

I actually agree with this statement. To me, half the thrill is the hunt, the other half is the location and the find. Container size isn't an issue. After personally having many ammo cans, and decon containers stolen, nicely placed micros are slightly more appealing. I usally end up hiding small caches instead, :laughing:

 

Here are two micro caches, requiring intense hike / scramble /climbs, that are very high on my to-do list.

 

Stone Sentinel and Hat Trick

 

A photo from the Hat Trick gallery made the front page of GC.com awhile back.

 

 

And finding a micro in a desert rock -pile or amongst the sage is truly an accomplishment to be proud of.

 

This usually ends up causing more damage to an area, so I disagree with the challenge or accomplishment aspect.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

I like Micros just as well as a ammo box in the woods. To me it doesn't matter.

I'm not into LPC's so I don't actively seek them out.

 

One of the more "chuckled" caches was a simple bison tube down the plastic protector on a guy wire for a telephone pole behind a shopping center. It used fine fishing line and was well hidden.

One of the most simple finds I had was a ammo can in a tree!

 

To me it doesn't matter, as long as the cache is interesting to find/hunt. Scenery, ya that is nice too, but not always a must.

Link to comment

There are two times a micro would be better than a regualar cache.

 

The first is when it's literally the only size cache you can hide in that location. The other choice being no cache at all.

 

The second is when the micro fits some cool theme, style, idea that would demand a micro.

 

Even for the second though I have to say if a larger cache worked with a different cool theme, style, or idea I'd say the larger cache still has an advantage over the micro. No matter how I measure a cache the ability to look at the trade items adds a little something to the enjoyment of the hunt.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I disagree with the notion that, overall, a micro is better than a small or a regular. The premise I try to teach those interested enough to ask is the old adage, "Hide the biggest cache an area can reasonably support". Sometimes that's a 50 cal ammo can, sometimes that's a Mr Magneto. The end result of this principle is, (in theory), a reduction of micros or nanos in areas that would support a semi truck. I would argue that a micro in the woods has a greater potential for leading to seekers damaging the surrounding flora, however that's not set in stone. While I know I can hunt for a nano in an environmentally sensitive area without leaving any trace of my presence, evidence would indicate that this is not always the case. More often than not, when I hunt for a micro in the woods, I can make a reasonable guess as to how many other cachers have hunted for it, simply by evaluating the damage done to the area.

 

That's one reason why I don't accept the premise that micros are better.

 

The other reason falls more along the lines of aesthetics: While I've seen countless threads in these forums criticizing micros, I have yet to see an honest slur against caches large enough to contain swag. I've seen a few snipes about "boring ammo cans under piles of sticks", but I don't necessarily take those critiques seriously, as a check of the person(s) profile(s) has, (so far), always revealed that despite their snarky comment(s), they continue to hunt them. I've also seen many posts from folks who don't care if a cache has swag or not, as they don't, (usually), trade. I happen to fit into this group, as I rarely trade anything, although I will leave swag in any cache large enough to hold it, however I don't see this as an argument against small or regular caches.

 

There seems to be a large contingent of folks who don't appreciate micros anywhere, folks who don't like micros in wooded environments, folks who don't care about cache sizes and folks who love pawing through swag, even if they don't trade. As such, it would seem that hiding a cache with swag would please more cachers overall than hiding a cache without swag. Since I create all my hides for the pleasure of the finders, this theory impacts my choice in container size.

Link to comment

I have a container cache Eager Beaver GC113AX and a micro cache OK in AZ GC1AF0F. They were placed because the container made sense for the location.

 

Eager Beaver highlights the reintroduction of beaver along the San Pedro River. It is along a family friendly trail. Swag originally included items for geo-tykes. Soon, I will be refreshing Eager Beaver with geo-tyke swag.

 

OK in AZ highlight the fact that the movie Oklahoma was actually filmed in Arizona. It is a P&G near buildings used for the movie.

 

Future caches will be in locations for historic, natural, cultural, or scenic value with a narrative about the location. I will probably lean toward micros but will include at least one geo-tyke friendly cache.

 

Generally, I TNLNSL unless it is a TB. I replace the TB with BSA patches.

Link to comment

I'm tempted to say I don't like micros but that's not exactly true. I've found some great ones...tricky camos or interesting surroundings. But many are, IN MY OPINION, very boring...say for example...driving 10 miles to find 5 micros hidden at fast food restaurants. Not my cup of tea (and not good for the waistline either :( ). Mainly I prefer larger caches because I can drop a TB, they are often in the woods, and I enjoy reading logs and poking through swag. Most of the time its junk but I've seen some cool stuff and interesting sig items/cards.

 

IN MY OPINION, I can see where micros have advantages that tempt the hider...sometimes more creative to camo but mostly...it's the fact that there are more placement opportunities. The saturation rule often "fills up" areas where larger caches can be hidden. A micro can be placed just about anywhere. The world is the micro's oyster. So...space-wise...they are easier to place.

Link to comment

I would argue that a micro in the woods has a greater potential for leading to seekers damaging the surrounding flora, however that's not set in stone.

 

I agree with this statement. It isn't set in stone. That is something that rests entirely upon the type of cacher seeking the cache not the type of cache.

 

A friend and I do a lot of runs that some would consider numbers runs. We do not do this to impress others with numbers, we do it to beat our last run. We have fun spending time together doing this. I would almost say that logging them is not a priority. (As a matter of fact I HATE logging but do it anyway. It is a part o my experience here among you fine folk.)

 

A micro has it's place as does an ammo can. Micros can be, I believe the term I saw the other day was, trache. And I have seen a lot of those. I have also been taken to some with amazing views and really cool pieces of history that I would have never known about (EVERYBODY) had it not been for geocaching.

 

Of course finding an ammo can in a park can bring you to some cool spots. And an ammo can in a park can bring you to the end of a log that you can just swear that you've seen before.

 

As of late I have begun hiding micros more often than not. I've been taking people to spots with history lessons and views more than I used to. I guess this is something that has come with time and the experience of the caches that I have found.

 

Check out:

 

Cross the Diamond and Squashapenny

A cache by rvaughn513 Hidden: 10/28/2004

Size: Size: Micro (Micro) Difficulty: 1.5 out of 5 Terrain: 1.5 out of 5

 

My log for it (back when I was X, sorry I tend to be a little MPD):

 

September 3, 2006 by Clan X-Man (290 found)

Found with G28 on a long trip to find the Maryland APE cache. TFTC!

 

X

 

Ok that is what I put in for most of my logs this weekend and thought that this cache deserved a little more. It was around 12:17 A.M. Sunday morning when we found this one on our trip through to get to the APE. When we turned onto the road after Little Ladies of the South we could hear the train coming down the tracks and though that we would turn back and then decided what the heck, we were enjoying the night. Got some great pics and had a very strange time. This is why you go off the highway and cache! Thanks for a wonderful spot.

 

X

 

To add to that log, the train blocked us for a while. As we waited, I got out to smoke since G28 doesn't (disgusting habit I know, but at least I don't smoke in peoples cars that don't.) He sat in the car and was checking what our next cache would be after the micro we were going after. The train pulled away and it was like a curtain went up on the freakiest show on earth.....

 

It's all about your experience in the end.

 

The article was very well written and thought out. Food for thought.

Edited by DoctorWho
Link to comment

Lots of good commentary here. All seem to be consistent in their approach and I haven't much more to add. I echo the sentiment that one should try to use as large a cache as the area can support (i.e. not be muggled). I sure don't need a cache to contain swag. I rarely trade. However, when I've got kids with me or new cachers, swag adds to the fun for them.

 

I really enjoy getting out into the hills and valleys, etc., looking for caches. Those are the kinds of places where larger caches can be hidden. However, sometimes, you can't go out on a real hike, but still want to check out some caches. That's when urban micros come into play.

 

Additionally, I don't relish the thought of carrying 5 or 6 ammo cans along on a hike where I want to give others a good time.

 

I also agree that searching for a micro tends to cause more impact than searching for an ammo can.

Link to comment

The one advantage of a micro is that there are more hiding places that allow you to hide it right next to a trail so that you don't have to leave the trail to grab it. We have many sensitive/fire damaged areas that won't hold larger containers.

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Micros are better because:

 

They're CHEAP

(meaning that you can slap one on a guard rail every .1 miles with little or no financial involvement)

 

They're SMALL

(so you don't have to fill them with expensive trade items)

 

They're EASIER TO HIDE

(so you don't need to put much thought or skill into where or how you hide them)

 

They're HARDER TO FIND

(forget the trampled flora -- just up the difficulty because your caches are "hard")

 

They DON'T HOLD TRAVELERS

(no need to spend money of TBs or Coins if there's no caches to put them in)

 

They're NOT BLOWN UP BY BOMB SQUADS

(of course, well placed larger caches aren't either, but....)

 

They FIT INSIDE LARGER CONTAINERS

(so you can create seeder caches to spread the joy just like dandelions spread theirs around your yard)

 

They're LIGHT IN WEIGHT

(So you can carry a bunch of them to make super-duper-awesome power trails)

 

Hmmm.. did I miss any?

Amen

Link to comment

Micros have changed the game and and ruined it for me. When I started geocaching there were fewer than 100 chaches in the whole state. The ones that were out there were in interesting places. I found lots of waterfalls, caves, geological oddities and local hideaways. Geocaching took me to interesting places off the beaten path.

 

Now it takes me to a Wal-Mart parking lot for a game of hide and seek. Boring.

Link to comment

....because they are flammable

 

9b5b5479-dc37-40e6-9017-db49ac9630c5.jpg

 

3fb2a90f-a455-495d-87af-1360a96dc600.jpg

Burning Micro IV - GC1EEWN

Sounds like total fun! Thanks for the pics and for the link! While I do not categorically hate any particular type or category of caches, I must admit that I do get tired of the endless stream of lame urban micros (aka Micro Spew TM), and it is often very difficult, using the PQ tools and the cache listing page, to cull these with any degree of success from my hunt list in advance.

Link to comment

Micros are a sign of the times. A Micro is reflective of the lazy, overweight instant gratification society of today. Why go for a mile plus hike in the woods for a cache when you can park your car 5 feet from the light pole, slide your fat but out and receive your ‘reward’. Got 14 caches today did ya? Good for you but you only walked 50 feet total all day to find 9 film canisters, 4 Altoid tins and an old Tic Tac box.

Link to comment

What I don't like about micros:

 

1. They are attractive to lazy cache hiders. All you need is a slip of paper (I've even seen them torn out of a notebook. Too lazy to use scissors.) a free film canister and a bush. It's why they make up the overwhelming majority of uninspired hides.

 

If you spend $5 on an ammo box and $10 on swag you are more likely to put some thought into your hide, if only because you don't want it stolen.

 

2. They increase the potential for damage to the area. A micro in the woods means it's probably harder to find than a regular cache and there are usually many more places to conceal it. That increases the probability of a longer and wider cache hunt. More people spending more time at the site increases the probability of impact on the surrounding area.

 

3. Most don't accept travelers. I enjoy finding geocoins and TBs in caches and I like moving them along and watching their journeys. More and more micros make finding a place to put travelers difficult.

 

4. No swag. Some people stock their micros with swag, but most don't. I rarely trade, but still enjoy finding a well stocked cache and pawing through the contents to see what's there.

 

5. It's all about the kiddies. It's about the hunt for many of us adults, but young kids love the idea of a treasure hunt and it's the treasure at the end that they want. Try telling a 4 year old that he should be overjoyed to find a film canister with a slip of paper inside. I geocached with my young nephews and neice and the excited looks on their faces when we opened caches and they saw all the goodies was priceless. Conversely their disappointment was obvious when we found a micro.

 

6. They breed like rabbits. Once they make inroads into an area they quickly become the predominant cache type. Newbies come along and find a few and think "I can do that" and they do. Then more come along and soon they think micros ARE geocaching. Even worse is when you get someone new to the sport who decides he wants to make a name for himself and has a bag of empty film canisters in his closet. I've seen people hide 25 caches in a day. Really, how much thought can go into those hides?

 

Why I like micros:

 

1. Easier to conceal. In some very interesting, but high traffic areas, micros are the only realistic way to hide a cache there.

 

2. Could be a challenge. Because they attract lazy cache hiders, micros are often quite easy to find. Just check the guardrail or the lamp post and you can find about 87.3 percent of them in under 60 seconds. But in the hands of an inspired cache hider they can be a real challenge to find.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Micros have changed the game and and ruined it for me. When I started geocaching there were fewer than 100 chaches in the whole state. The ones that were out there were in interesting places. I found lots of waterfalls, caves, geological oddities and local hideaways. Geocaching took me to interesting places off the beaten path.

 

Now it takes me to a Wal-Mart parking lot for a game of hide and seek. Boring.

 

Only two times in the past three years of caching have we ever been surprised to find out that a cache was a parking lot micro. The first time, it was during our first week or two of caching, and we never knew those lampskirts lifted up. We thought that was the most clever, sneaky, interesting thing ever. Yes, the thrill has worn off since then. The other time that we were surprised to be taken to a plain old parking lot hide was about a year later when the cache had a really neat name that we thought referred to something else, and lo & behold, all it referred to was the local Radio Shack. Blah.

 

But nowadays, after more experience, we can easily tell by the cache description, the map on the cache page, or (if further clarification seems necessary) Google maps, if the cache is going to be a lame parking lot or guard rail micro. Thus, we are able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to go hunt for it, or whether to make it a priority cache or an "if we have time to kill" cache. These parking lot micros, by the way, are seldom within .528' of spactacular vistas, glorious waterfalls, virgin hardwood forests, remote canyons, pristine mountain lakes, etc., so they really don't block cachers from hiding ammo cans in the aforementioned significant and/or scenic spots.

 

In conclusion, no, we do not LOVE parking lot micros. But since we live in a place that doesn't have a huge number of hides to begin with, we'll take a lame micro over nothing at all. If you don't like micros, don't look for them!

Link to comment
But nowadays, after more experience, we can easily tell by the cache description, the map on the cache page, or (if further clarification seems necessary) Google maps, if the cache is going to be a lame parking lot or guard rail micro. Thus, we are able to make an informed decision as to whether or not to go hunt for it...

 

It's the research aspect that is a turnoff for some of us. I know it is for me and I suspect it may be for Solohiker. I used to enjoy loading the GPS and going out the door. You can't do that anymore in many

areas.

 

And research can only get you so far. I've found some fascinating caches at what appeared at first glance to be a hackneyed parking lot cache, and I've seen cache page write-ups that lead me to believe there was something special about the cache, only to find a film canister on a guardrail in a nondescript parking lot.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

What I don't like about micros:

 

1. They are attractive to lazy cache hiders. All you need is a slip of paper (I've even seen them torn out of a notebook. Too lazy to use scissors.) a free film canister and a bush. It's why they make up the overwhelming majority of uninspired hides.

 

If you spend $5 on an ammo box and $10 on swag you are more likely to put some thought into your hide, if only because you don't want it stolen.

 

2. They increase the potential for damage to the area. A micro in the woods means it's probably harder to find than a regular cache and there are usually many more places to conceal it. That increases the probability of a longer and wider cache hunt. More people spending more time at the site increases the probability of impact on the surrounding area.

 

3. Most don't accept travelers. I enjoy finding geocoins and TBs in caches and I like moving them along and watching their journeys. More and more micros make finding a place to put travelers difficult.

 

4. No swag. Some people stock their micros with swag, but most don't. I rarely trade, but still enjoy finding a well stocked cache and pawing through the contents to see what's there.

 

5. It's all about the kiddies. It's about the hunt for many of us adults, but young kids love the idea of a treasure hunt and it's the treasure at the end that they want. Try telling a 4 year old that he should be overjoyed to find a film canister with a slip of paper inside. I geocached with my young nephews and neice and the excited looks on their faces when we opened caches and they saw all the goodies was priceless. Conversely their disappointment was obvious when we found a micro.

 

6. They breed like rabbits. Once they make inroads into an area they quickly become the predominant cache type. Newbies come along and find a few and think "I can do that" and they do. Then more come along and soon they think micros ARE geocaching. Even worse is when you get someone new to the sport who decides he wants to make a name for himself and has a bag of empty film canisters in his closet. I've seen people hide 25 caches in a day. Really, how much thought can go into those hides?

 

Why I like micros:

 

1. Easier to conceal. In some very interesting, but high traffic areas, micros are the only realistic way to hide a cache there.

 

2. Could be a challenge. Because they attract lazy cache hiders, micros are often quite easy to find. Just check the guardrail or the lamp post and you can find about 87.3 percent of them in under 60 seconds. But in the hands of an inspired cache hider they can be a real challenge to find.

 

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

Excellent points....every one of them.

Link to comment

The Original Poster did NOT ask for a micro-bashing party.

 

Exactly the opposite: He was quite clearly asking for previously unconsidered positives regarding micro containers.

 

The OP’s actual question: "If you think micros are better than larger caches, why? I'm looking for well thought out reasons ..." (OP's italics, not mine)

 

Many reasonably on-topic comments have appeared, but for some reason this thread has largely turned into a full-on Anti Micro Hate Fest, complete with angry micro-bashing slurs, photos of ‘micro execution’ bonfires, abusive personal insults directed at everyone who hides and finds micros, and high-fives all around.

 

I feel like I’m watching some screaming ‘Death To Micros’ mob protest on CNN.

 

An intelligent (and amazed) newbie might reasonably wonder why nobody has ever thought to simply create an electronic filter to conveniently hide the offending micros from consideration in place of all this other noisy nonsense. An oldbie like me is moved to wonder if the existing convenient electronic filter is down for maintenance.

 

For whatever reason, the OP has not objected to the off-topic turn of his thread. I’m guessing he will do so as soon as he is able to return.

Link to comment

The Original Poster did NOT ask for a micro-bashing party.

 

Exactly the opposite: He was quite clearly asking for previously unconsidered positives regarding micro containers.

 

The OP’s actual question: "If you think micros are better than larger caches, why? I'm looking for well thought out reasons ..." (OP's italics, not mine)

 

Many reasonably on-topic comments have appeared, but for some reason this thread has largely turned into a full-on Anti Micro Hate Fest, complete with angry micro-bashing slurs, photos of ‘micro execution’ bonfires, abusive personal insults directed at everyone who hides and finds micros, and high-fives all around.

 

I feel like I’m watching some screaming ‘Death To Micros’ mob protest on CNN.

 

An intelligent (and amazed) newbie might reasonably wonder why nobody has ever thought to simply create an electronic filter to conveniently hide the offending micros from consideration in place of all this other noisy nonsense. An oldbie like me is moved to wonder if the existing convenient electronic filter is down for maintenance.

 

For whatever reason, the OP has not objected to the off-topic turn of his thread. I’m guessing he will do so as soon as he is able to return.

On the contrary, I'd say the Burning Micro response comes closest to answering the question directly. The rest say why they don't like micros, give situations where micros are better, or say "size doesn't matter", none of which answers the question. Nobody has yet said "I prefer finding micros for this reason".

 

I don't prefer micros, so I can't answer.

 

(Edit: I'm not bashing posters, BTW, just addressing the complaint. The comments have raised interesting points)

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

Let me answer the OP's question then: WOOHOO for micros! Love 'em! No crappy dollar store stuff for Little Whistler to bring home!

 

Also, somewhat off topic, but related nonetheless (and directly opposite to a previous poster, who mentioned above that he likes to move TB's and coins): I really DO take it personally when I drop off a traveler and then it vanishes from the cache, or when trackables vanish from one of our caches, or even when I discover a trackable in a cache and leave it there but then it vanishes immediately after my visit. I am always burdened with guilt, and also paranoia that the owner of the item will suspect me of absconding with it. Micros means no trackables to complicate things!

Edited by whistler & co.
Link to comment

When I opened the thread, I was looking for something more along the lines of the reasoning behind, if given a choice, using a micro sized container over any other choice. I wasn't really looking for why one might not prefer looking for micros because the reputation, deserved or not, of being trache.

 

Of course, this would have to mean there was a choice, i.e. you're presented with a location where you could easily hide anything from a nano up to a regular. (We'll leave the 40' shipping containers alone for now.) The author in the article seems to prefer micros over regulars for a reason. I'm assuming he could have hidden a regular somewhere near the location he wanted to highlight.

 

I probably could have worded my OP better. Maybe, more along the lines of:

 

If you have a location to which you want to bring other hobbyists and as you scout the location you determine you have a choice of any sized cache from a larger-sized regular down to nano-sized micro, would you choose a micro? Why?

 

Of course, this would be aside from any theme or other outside influence that would make it more desirable to choose one over the other. For instance, if I wanted to really highlight hiding skills I might actually choose an ammo can because it's harder to hide one versus a blinkie. I'm talking any size has equal weight for any particular hide.

 

EDIT: changed the re-worded query.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

if given the choice to go find micros or regulars-would be regulars. would prefer a nice walk along with the cache find. there's some regulars I just can't do cause of too high terrain-too long of distance, etc. there's still enough variety that one can find something they like to find. I cache with my friends a lot and we end up at several micros throughout the day. they're fun-but for a completly different reason-we're all together having a blast. on my own would not have chosen that route. So-to me micros mean a gathering of friends. I can't think of too many reasons why seeking micros would be better. most memorable caches are generally larger then a micro. now-there's some exceptional micros that are memorable to me. two of them in pittsburgh,pa. would fall along the lines-best size container for the area, which has been posted in this thread. the first micro I hid is a guiderail at a hunting and fishing club lake. it still gets positive posts cause it's a nice view so haven't pulled it. now that I'm a member of that club-looking at a possible full sized ammo can behind the lake. majority of my new hides will be regulars with hikes. in my area, we have a decrease in these and a huge increase in micros. so apparently, there's lots of people that like micros for whatever their reasons.

Link to comment
If you have a location to which you want to bring other hobbyists and as you scout the location you determine you have a choice of any sized cache from a larger-sized regular down to nano-sized micro, would you choose a micro?

Not necessarily, but “very possibly.”

 

Why?

 

Advantages of hiding micro containers:

 

Easier to tote to the hide location, especially if one has a long ways to walk, or hasn’t yet decided for sure whether to create the hide, or if maybe one just likes to carry a cache container around at all times for whenever the cache-hiding inspiration strikes during one’s long walks.

 

No need to worry about trade swag. Many of us are burned out on the so-called “treasure” element of this treasure-hunting hobby after years of finding box after box of the junk other people leave behind after taking away the good stuff.

 

It is easier for the finder to conceal a micro from the view of muggles while retrieving, opening, signing, closing and re-hiding the cache.

 

Based on my experience, I believe micros generally stand a significantly smaller chance of being muggled than do larger containers.

 

When they do go missing, micros are generally cheaper and easier to replace. This fact is certainly an encouragement to responsible cache owners to be even more responsive about replacing missing caches, and it is therefore a valid reason to expect micro cache listings to spend less time on disabled status than caches with larger containers.

 

For me as a finder, the accomplishment of uncovering a micro tends, on average, to be a more satisfying achievement than that of detecting a larger container. A challenging micro hide might therefore provide other finders like me with a potentially more rewarding experience than would a similarly challenging hide involving a larger cache.

Link to comment

 

I probably could have worded my OP better. Maybe, more along the lines of:

 

If you have a location to which you want to bring other hobbyists and as you scout the location you determine you have a choice of any sized cache from a larger-sized regular down to nano-sized micro, would you choose a micro? Why?

 

 

We might chose a micro simply because we have a stockpile of cammoed micros in the Jeep! Yep, that's laziness for ya!

 

We might also choose a micro because you can usually get it REALLY close to your point of interest. For example, we have one hidden right on a spring in the woods. We probably could have hidden an ammo can less than 100' away, but this way, people actually see what we wanted them to (the natural spring) rather than ignoring it, leaving the trail too soon and missing it, or just forgetting to stop there and take a look.

 

We might also choose a micro because we like to stock our hides with decent swag. We would never think of hiding a half-empty container. If we don't have the money to spend on the swag, we'd go with a small or micro to avoid that empty, echoing feeling.

 

We would also choose a micro if the cache is in a high-traffic area. No matter how well-concealed the container is, chances are if it is near a monument or waterfall, in a park, or along a Rails to Trails, sooner or later a muggle will either accidentally find the cache or will spot a cacher rehiding it and will do a little investigating of their own. Micros are cheaper to replace, and we also probably avoid the guilt (see above post) of being the catalyst for a missing trackable if it's just a micro container that vanishes.

Link to comment

If you have a location to which you want to bring other hobbyists and as you scout the location you determine you have a choice of any sized cache from a larger-sized regular down to nano-sized micro, would you choose a micro? Why?

 

I'll admit that I regularly filter all micros out when I'm caching, and I'm not a micro lover at all. I love locations, if it's a great location then whatever cache takes me there is fine with me, size isn't relevant.

 

I've hidden a few micros, most of which are stages in a multi that lead to larger containers. A few of my micro hides stand alone though. One was a hide on a gazebo in a flower garden in a park. There was absolutely no way to hide a regular size cache there as park maintenance crews or visitors would come across it and it would be gone. A small cache might have been possible, but the micro actually worked better because I custom made the container out of wood, stained it to match the gazebo and when it was in place it blended in extremely well. Only a micro could have fit in the rafters of the gazebo where I'd hidden it.

 

Another micro I've hidden was a bison tube drilled into a log. That container was given to me by a friend who made it and I hid it in his honor. Normally I'd have used a larger cache in that location but he gave it to me so I wanted to use it.

 

My third micro was hidden under the railing on a deck overlooking the Susquehanna river and the nearby city of Harrisburg. Nice place to take a picture of the cityscape, but again, only room for a micro there.

 

Of my 17 active caches, currently only 1 (the second one I mentioned above) is a micro. There are so many new micros popping up in my home area I really have no desire to hide more. If I can't do a larger cache (and I often can) I just won't hide one at all. I like the added challenge of pulling off a larger cache hide. Makes me think about the hide more and really check out an area, especially if it's not a rural location.

 

For me, micros are only used as 1) part of a larger cache or 2) if the location absolutely supports nothing larger. That's it. Micros have their place. Creative ones are fun to hunt, and I'd rather you take me to a nice location using a micro than not at all. But constantly weeding through the hordes of mundane locations where micros are thoughtlessly tossed has really turned me off of micro hunting -- and hiding.

Link to comment
If you have a location to which you want to bring other hobbyists and as you scout the location you determine you have a choice of any sized cache from a larger-sized regular down to nano-sized micro, would you choose a micro? Why?
Each cache is it's own unique combination of scenery, size, camo, challenge, access and creativity and no "blanket" rules apply. Many people argue that at the end of a ten mile hike in the woods nothing but a full sized, fully stocked ammo can is acceptable. In many people's opinions (including mine) the larger containers are for swag which I know some people enjoy but is more of a draw for kids. How many kids are going to hike the ten miles? I'd rather people carry gear, snacks, and drinks in their packs then a big bag of McJunk to trade.

 

A lamp post cache is looked at as "lame" by many people but how is that any more or less "lame" then an ammo can plopped under the one lone tree down a wooded trail? Both require minimal effort to find when you reach GZ. Some people don't like to hike just like some people don't like PAG's. If you require someone to paddle or hike a good part of a day to reach some place, you might not want to bust their chops giving them a near impossible camo job. If you put something somewhere easy to access, you can still challenge someone with tricky camo. A balanced GC life is the best and to please the majority of the people the majority of the time, there needs to be the most possible options to let pick from.

 

IMHO it boils down to the basics of challenge, creativity, originality, imagination and fun and the proper size container for a hide is in the eye of the cache-owner. One cacher's lame is another cacher's treasure.

Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment

I looked at the article the OP linked to. The writer of the article expresses the reasons he prefers to find micros. The terrain in his area limits somewhat the ways you can hide a regular size cache. It seems that in southern Idaho you can spot that unnatural pile of rocks from 500 feet away. The writer says he never has to make an effort to find an ammo can. On the other hand he has to spend time to find a micro in the same terrain. While he says that when searching for a micro he has to take a little more time to view his surroundings and, sometimes, see the reason why the cacher brought him to that particular location. Seems that he could just as easily stop when he finds an ammo can and look around. My guess is that he enjoys the searching part of geocaching to the trading. A cache that he can find in a few seconds is less fun than one that takes several minutes or longer to find. Perhaps having to use his eyes and brain to discover where the cache is hidden is more fun to him than spotting the cache from a distance and walking right up to it.

 

But he really shouldn't have to justify why he prefers one kind of cache over another. Just as he may find the search the best part of caching, other people find trading and moving travel bugs important. If we were discussing what kind of ice cream you liked would someone start a thread "Why chocolate is better?" Would people respond with lists of reasons that chocolate is bad? :ph34r:

 

A lot of reasons are given by people who prefer larger caches on why micros shouldn't be used. I find most of the reasons given to be matters of taste and sometimes they don't even have anything to do with the cache size as much as a blaming micros for something else: "Its harder to hide an ammo can in a parking lot so if there weren't any micros there would be fewer parking lot hides." The argument that micros in the woods cause more damage to environment is one that seems to be hardest refute. All I can say is that my personal experience has been the opposite. That may be due to the terrain near where I live. Ammo cans are hidden under the scrub brush and chaparral in the coastal California mountains. To prevent being muggled they are usually hidden well off trail. Cachers will sometimes cause social trails to form leading to these caches. I've seen signs of erosion on steep hillsides from cachers climbing up or down to the cache. And the bushes often have branches broken or striped of leaves, usually unintentionally, by cachers reaching for or replacing the cache. Micros in the same areas may be hung in bushes or trees or placed under rocks at trailside. I find very little if any damage cause by someone who stopped on the trail and examined the rocks, bushes, and trees to find a bison tube. I can understand that if someone places a micro off trail hanging in a bush there may be more damage, but this just isn't done. If people are placing micros in hollow logs in wooded areas without providing a spoiler hint, some foolish person may start tearing apart every hollow log and turning over every rock to look for a cache. On my trips to the east coast, I find that mostly regular caches are hidden in the woods. I have found several small and even some micros and have been able to do so without damaging the area. My hope is that people placing any cache consider that some searchers may be irresponsible and select a hiding style appropriate to the area. And I would encourage all geocachers to remember that the cache was hidden without causing a environmental damage and it can be found without causing it.

Link to comment
If you have a location to which you want to bring other hobbyists and as you scout the location you determine you have a choice of any sized cache from a larger-sized regular down to nano-sized micro, would you choose a micro? Why?

No, I wouldn't. I'm a firm believer in placing a regular cache unless the situation requires something else. The size "regular" means, well, regular--normal-sized. If I need to put out a book cache I'd probably need to go up in size. If I simply can't get an ammo can close enough to the spot I want to highlight, then I work my way smaller. Sometimes an ammo can won't fit where I want to place the cache. I go smaller.

 

I disagree with the author's notion that a harder-to-find cache forces the seeker to see more of the area he wanted to highlight. Sure, you are forced to the see the trees, but you don't see the forest. I know that was the case when we were simply going from cache to cache. You get laser focused: get there, fine the closest parking spot, hike to the cache, find it, sign in, leave and on to the next cache. What happened between the time you got to ground zero and leaving ground zero pretty much was, for us, little different in terms of "seeing the forest" as it related to how easy the cache was to find. We didn't.

 

From reading some of the responses and posts in other threads, if what I'm reading really held true we should be seeing the hobby gravitate to sizes somewhere in the larger micro to smaller small ranges. If the caches is going to be trinketless, then shouldn't the convenience--for the finder--of a regular log book be more important than the placer being able to fit 20 caches in a pocket? As defined on this site, a cache in its simplest form is simply a container and log. So a container just large enough to fit a decent logbook--like a sandwich-size LnL or decon container--without any trinkets should be where the hobby gravitated. That is, if it moved away from regulars with trinkets. This size is much easier to hide than an ammo can and not much harder than a micro--I mean, it's not bigger than your fist. With no trinkets to paw through to get to the log book and a log book you can write more than your initials and numerical date this seems like the perfect size.

 

I'm wondering if we're being honest with ourselves.

Link to comment

I like all types of caches and some micros are fun to find. There are some kinds that can be frustrating. Those are the ones that are hidden in the woods, rock piles, cedar trees, the dreaded hanging in a pine tree with sharp needles, ivy and vines, tanks and cannons, the list goes on and on of the ones that burn up time and sometimes end in a DNF. And when you do finally find them they are just a log.

 

These kinds of caches would be more fun and less frustrating if the owner gave a good dead giveaway clue so the geocachers could actually find the cache, but of course mugglers would not have the clue and probably not find it. Unfortunately some geocachers are in for the fun of making things challenging for others. I must admit I have done that sometimes especially out of revenge for someone doing it to me. YOU know who you are.

 

I also like micros that take you to interesting or pretty places that you would not otherwise know about. Sometimes these spots are too public for a regular cache.

 

I like P&Gs so I can cache in the rain and work clothes and when I only have a few minutes to cache. Skirt Lifters and guard rails are just fine with me. I like that quick and easy grab, sign and leave.

 

I like power trails. I think they are fun to do and I like to rack up a bunch of numbers on a single outing. I am in it for the numbers and I think most people who say they aren't are fooling themselves and others. If they were not in it for the numbers why log the find on gc.com? Just sign the log book.

 

Rarely do you find a TB, GC or SI in a micro. It is a real treat when you do. That is why I made my KS Sunshine GCs as micros so I can leave them in microcaches. These are the things I like to find in caches as well as items like cool keychains that make nice TBs. BUt I guess that what regular caches are for.

 

The cute camo jobs I have seen on some micros are really fun and give you that moment of delight when you finally find them. I enjoy that and sometimes go back a number of times to find one I dnf'd because I know it will be worth it when I finally do find it. I use PAF and read previous logs when I have trouble with one. But I do not quit looking very fast on them. Some of my fondest caching memories are hard to find well camo'd micros. My wife, who rarely caches and does not even have her own account is really great at these, but she has a bad knee so she cannot walk on uneven ground. Only urban caches are accessible to her.

 

I think it is silly of people to insist on putting out just large size caches. Variety is the spice of life.

 

And that's what I have to say about micros.

Link to comment

there is fun and enjoyment in hiding a regular size cache (be it multi or trad). i love tinkering and creating the perfect setting for a regular size, bombproof, floodproof, bugproof, muggle proof and interesting to find. its

alot easier and alot less work/planning to hide a nano or a micro.

 

my goal is when someone finds one of mine the first reaction should be

a big grin and thinking : hey, look at this! good isnt it! clever! sneaky bugger. well done.

rather then : +1

 

as someone probably already has mentioned. before GC.com you had to have a container big enuff to put in a logbook to read peoples reactions.

now for proof of finding your name in the micro/nano log will be good enuf and the placer can read up on the site.

 

but if all turn nano... what with TB and coins? signature items?

some people show their appreciation by dropping a (special/rare) coin, or better swag.

finding a nano after a glorious 10km naturehike? would feel strange imo

 

true, some well-camoed/inventive micros are great fun and will put a smile on yer face. how many % of micros would that be?

 

I like power trails. I think they are fun to do and I like to rack up a bunch of numbers on a single outing. I am in it for the numbers and I think most people who say they aren't are fooling themselves and others. If they were not in it for the numbers why log the find on gc.com? Just sign the log book
best start that discussion in a new thread, or rather continue in one of the (im sure) many that are covering that subject. (love the ava btw)

 

That said, I've placed small-to-micro caches in remote and scenic places, but I always post a spoiler pic on the cache page. Want the ersatz 'challenge' of searching for the cache? Ignore the picture. Want to have a leisurely lunch on the peak while leafing through the logbook? Use the spoiler.
amen to that! the idea is to let cacher enjoy the find, rather then let the hider enjoy the DNF. Edited by Guinness70
Link to comment
I disagree with the author's notion that a harder-to-find cache forces the seeker to see more of the area he wanted to highlight. Sure, you are forced to the see the trees, but you don't see the forest. I know that was the case when we were simply going from cache to cache. You get laser focused: get there, fine the closest parking spot, hike to the cache, find it, sign in, leave and on to the next cache. What happened between the time you got to ground zero and leaving ground zero pretty much was, for us, little different in terms of "seeing the forest" as it related to how easy the cache was to find. We didn't.

Well put.

 

Cache size doesn’t seem to affect how well I do my job of appreciating a cache’s surroundings, either.

 

The cache owner only provides the cache; he does not provide the propensity to enjoy the location. The cache seeker either brings that predisposition with him ... or he doesn’t. The container size is irrelevant.

 

I enjoyed your explanation of your size preference as well. I don’t completely share your preference, but I think you expressed it convincingly.

 

I’m not sure what you mean with your comments about where you think the hobby “should” be gravitating ... but your comments sound more like a hope, or at the most maybe a prediction, and less like a demand than I have heard in these forums in the past.

 

I'm wondering if we're being honest with ourselves.

I was with you all the way up until that comment. It is neither offensive nor inane-sounding to me – I simply don’t understand it.

 

This is obviously something that is important to you.

 

Where do you see dishonesty? You used the word "we." Do you think I'm being dishonest? If not, then who is "we?"

Link to comment

After all these opinions I still don't really understand why someone would dislike micros so much. If you don't like them don't go for em. I don't like grapefruit juice *yuck!* but when I see my friend drinking it I don't go writing long opinions on why grapefruit juice shouldn't exist and post pics of a grapefruit juice destroying gadget. Heck, I just let him enjoy his juice.

Link to comment
After all these opinions I still don't really understand why someone would dislike micros so much. If you don't like them don't go for em. I don't like grapefruit juice *yuck!* but when I see my friend drinking it I don't go writing long opinions on why grapefruit juice shouldn't exist and post pics of a grapefruit juice destroying gadget. Heck, I just let him enjoy his juice.

How unfashionable of you. Don't let Joan Rivers hear you say that.

 

The type of tolerance you describe may sound perfectly logical and reasonable to frumpy-minded people like you and me, but it sure isn’t trendy here in the forums.

Link to comment
A lamp post cache is looked at as "lame" by many people but how is that any more or less "lame" then an ammo can plopped under the one lone tree down a wooded trail?

I can only speak for my own sense of aesthetics: Anything, (from a 55 gallon drum to a film canister), is vastly improved by being located in the woods, as opposed to being in a sweltering, 500 acres of exhaust laden blacktop. Dodging soccer moms in SUV's is not the type of challenge I prefer when caching. Groundspeak's motto is, "The language of location". While I realize that a dumpster behind a Burger King is, technically a location, I can't quite make myself feel that it is equal to a waterfall at the end of a pleasant hike.

 

Lame is always subjective, but that's why I feel a LPC is lamer than an ammo can at the end of a wooded trail.

Other's mileage may vary.

Link to comment
A lamp post cache is looked at as "lame" by many people but how is that any more or less "lame" then an ammo can plopped under the one lone tree down a wooded trail?

I can only speak for my own sense of aesthetics: Anything, (from a 55 gallon drum to a film canister), is vastly improved by being located in the woods, as opposed to being in a sweltering, 500 acres of exhaust laden blacktop. Dodging soccer moms in SUV's is not the type of challenge I prefer when caching. Groundspeak's motto is, "The language of location". While I realize that a dumpster behind a Burger King is, technically a location, I can't quite make myself feel that it is equal to a waterfall at the end of a pleasant hike.

 

Lame is always subjective, but that's why I feel a LPC is lamer than an ammo can at the end of a wooded trail.

Other's mileage may vary.

Of course some will say that anything hidden in the mall parking lot where you can get some shopping done while you are out geocaching is an improvement over having to walk several miles, fighting off mosquitoes and checking for ticks while worrying about snakes or something else, to find some tupperware under a pile of sticks. Some people prefer PnG caching to hiking. The real question is why they don't spend time complaining about the caches that people insist on hiding down some trail in the woods, while the people who like the hikes are always complaining about the parking lot caches. It would be like the people who prefer vanilla always complaining about chocolate while the the chocolate lovers keep their mouths shut about vanilla :laughing:

Link to comment

After all these opinions I still don't really understand why someone would dislike micros so much.

I can only speak for myself on this issue. Allow me to qualify my answer with the caveat that I do not hate micros. I hate (what I perceive to be) lame micros. Film canisters tossed into bushes at Burger King. Hide-a-keys slapped on a guardrail in an area with no visually redeeming quality. Bison tubes stuck behind stop signs at boring locations. etc, etc. Interestingly enough, (for those who play with statistics), these uninspired hides account for roughly 90% of the micros in my area. Ergo, if I go to hunt a micro, there's a 90% chance it will be lame, by my mostly biased standards.

 

Because I am passionate about this game, I take umbrage at anything that I perceive to be causing it harm. It is my oft stated opinion, (and we all know what opinions are worth), that lame caches, in and of themselves, are having a detrimental effect on the game of geocaching. Because I perceive them to be a direct threat to an activity I love, I voice my opinion whenever a topic drifts that direction. Judging by the vast numbers of folks, (dare I say a horde?), who also express their dislike of lame micros, I'd guess I wasn't alone.

 

If you don't like them don't go for em.

When you understand where I'm coming from, you'll see why I can't adopt a "live & let live" attitude toward them. :laughing:

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

I don't venture into the Forums much anymore, but as older-timers here know I've been railing against Spewed Micros (not ALL micros, just the uninspired Spew ) for years. (The "caching kindred spirits of mine" PA cachers holding the Burning Micro event even give me a shout-out on the cache page when they hold this event every year...how flattering to be so famous/infamous! :laughing: ).

 

Obviously I gave up "the good fight" against Micro Spew due to it being unwinnable against The Geocaching Mass Market that has also obviously spoken and has responded with supply in response to demand, so let's just sum it all up:

 

Hiders of Spewed Micros , like all hiders of all qualities of caches, like to feel as if they are "giving back" to the caching community, which is all good. However, by spewing tens (or more) Spewed Micros , they are able to feel they've "given back" with a minimum of effort and cost. And as an added bonus, they get additional ego gratification with lots of "Found It" Emails peppering their Inboxes, because after all, a large population of cachers LOVES to crank their numbers on these generally-easy grabs. ("Cool! Another finder Email! I gave back to the game and people must love me!")

 

Finders of Spewed Micros get the ego gratification of watching their stat numbers increase quickly, and depending on where they live, additional ego grat if honored in local on-line Forums or Geo-events. In fact, in my home state of MS, we take our "Milestones" very seriously...our local organization has an informal process in place to ensure that all those who reach these milestones are properly honored at local Events. The difference in MS, though (and one of the advantages of being a small state), is that through unabashed and unashamed peer pressure, we're able to keep Micro Spew to a minimum in most of our areas, meaning that those who do the majority of their caching in MS and reach those milestones have generally "earned" their recognition through a majority of hunts of quality caches in quality locations worth visiting. We have few enough 1K- and 2K-find cachers based in MS that it still does matter, getting-recognized-for-your-stats-wise. And when we get newer cachers who start placing Spew , it doesn't take long for them to get a reputation for it and public or private bashing in the local community ("We have a new cacher in the Jackson (or Starkville or Oxford or Coast) area who's dropping micros everywhere, so don't expect much if you hunt for one of that hider's caches"). Some don't get the message, but most do, and overall quality remains relatively high state-wide.

 

As I stated above, I gave up "the good fight"...now I just accept it for what it is, and recently have been trying to find ways to enjoy the game again. I am gratified to see, though, that years after I was one of the few voices railing against this trend, more recently those who share my viewpoint are raising their voices more forcefully now, and so maybe there is hope (I have personally experienced this to be the case in my "second" home in Twin Cities, MN...I've done a lot of caching there recently and have found more caches/hides/hikes of quality than not).

Link to comment

 

I like power trails. I think they are fun to do and I like to rack up a bunch of numbers on a single outing. I am in it for the numbers and I think most people who say they aren't are fooling themselves and others. If they were not in it for the numbers why log the find on gc.com? Just sign the log book.

 

 

Thanks for the post Larry. It's pretty rare to see a "numbers cacher" state their true feeling in these forums. I certainly respect how you play the game, and you can do whatever the heck you want. And look at that, you didn't even get flamed. :laughing:

 

I just want to take issue with the one thing I'm quoting here. In early 2005, the ignore list was bestowed upon us, to remove caches we don't want to find from our searches. Actually, in my area, it wasn't even needed before then, I'll bet I only self-ignored 3 or 4 caches at the time. So then we have the majority of the caches listed on the website available in searches. When you find them, they are removed from your searches. This is the way the website is designed to work. Why wouldn't I use the website that way, instead of just signing the logbook, and not logging on geocaching.com?

 

Besides, "they" have made it quite clear they want you to visit geocaching.com and log your visit.; first requiring an account to view cache coordinates (a couple of years ago), and much more recently, strongly suggesting it in the unofficial "rules" of geocaching. :P

 

Shout out to Drat19; Why not attend that event in Pa. one of these years? I'm making the 4 hour trip in a few weeks. :P

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...