Jump to content

Why MICROS are better.


CoyoteRed

Recommended Posts

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?"

It was more of a rhetorical question--something to think about.

Link to comment
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.

 

Why?

1. It's a way to thank the owner. He spent the time and money to hide the cache, the least I can do is tell him I found it and enjoyed it.

 

2. It's the easiest way to keep a journal of my finds. Here they are online, sorted by date and order of find, complete with any photos.

 

3. When I run a pocket query, I don't want it to return results for caches I've found. It's a simple way to eliminate my finds when I run pocket queries.

 

4. When doing a search for caches to find on this website, I can quickly see which caches I've already found because they have a check mark next to them.

 

...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.

 

Maybe there just aren't nearly as many chocolate lovers as you would have us believe and/or in many places there is little but chocolate available, so why would they complain? (BTW, I have seen the chocolate lovers complain here).

 

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 disagree too. You may see more of the roots, rocks, guardrails and stumps in the area, but are you really seeing the area? If I find the cache fairly quickly I have more time to stop and check out the view, explore the area, read signs, or examine whatever object the cache owner was trying to bring me to, instead of spending it looking under benches.

 

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.

 

If you really read the opinions here and in similar threads, you'd know that very few geocachers dislike micros based solely on their size. What most geocachers I know dislike about them are the mundane and and/or unappealing places they are so often hidden. But because there are sometimes outstanding micros,

many of us are unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater and filter all micros.

 

And why do people complain about them rather than just avoiding them? Because in many areas if you don't care for hackneyed micros, you don't geocache because there ain't much else out there and in other areas their preponderance makes it a chore to winnow things down to the kinds of caches you do like.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

-//- It would be like the people who prefer vanilla always complaining about chocolate while the the chocolate lovers keep their mouths shut about vanilla :P

i'm guessing the issue is not vanilla or chocolate rather that the chocolate lovers are bragging how many more choc icecream cones from the vending machine they can eat in one day,

but the vanilla lovers are enjoying the big vanilla ice cream coupes with diced fruit, hot chocolate and crumbled nuts in a beautyfull glas while sitting at a terrace in an historic town, along a river with a magnificient mountain view.

 

to each their own, but ill take 1 vanilla coupe like that over 50 vending maching chocolate icecream cones.

as long as both are having a good time and feeling good about themselves and getting out of geocaching what puts a smile on their face : the hunt or the kill.

 

2days ago i had a DNF after a 4 hours walk, but nothing but praise and pictures in my log cause we thoroughly enjoyed the walk. actually the DNF is a good thing, now we have the perfect excuse to return to that castle and enjoy a different walk :-) , during winter this time! when there is less thorny bushes and itchy plants. so we'll enjoy that cache TWICE :laughing:

Edited by Guinness70
Link to comment
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.

You could very well be right. Most very well may be in it for the numbers. I know of very few cachers who, even being PMs, will find a cache, complain about the quality, and then not log it. Many times they even log with some sort of thanks.

 

This is something I don't really understand. Sure, it's polite to thank someone for a gift, but is a geocache placement a gift? Maybe, but some is the equivalent of the coal Santa might bring. When the quality of the cache (my opinion) is at this level then the owner gets back as much as he put in, nothing. I don't have to log a cache if I feel it's not worth my time or effort. If I did enjoy myself, I'll provide feedback.

 

For me, it's all about the experience. I'm looking for quality experiences. I'm not looking for numbers.

Link to comment
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.

This always makes me giggle when I see someone try and use the motto this way. It's pretty obvious to me that the language of location is coordinates. Coordinates and the coordinate system are the language we use to tell other players where a cache has been hidden.

 

If they'd meant for the motto to give us direction on what kinds of places to hide caches, they would have worded the motto differently, and it would have been closer to "The way to get to interesting and wonderful locations".

 

Micros are definitely a valid and wonderful cache size. I've always felt that those who complain about them loudly but have plenty of micros in their recent finds and especially hides are amazingly silly. Don't they know we can see their numbers with a few clicks?

 

If you don't like micros, just don't hunt them. And not hiding them should be even easier.

Link to comment

I think we're getting off track as to why placing a micro is preferable over a larger size. Yes, I did a little of that, too.

 

So far we've seen pretty much convenience of the hider--easier to carry, carry more, etc. Unless I missed something somewhere only the author of the article had a reason for micros over a larger size other than hider convenience.

Link to comment
I've always felt that those who complain about them loudly but have plenty of micros in their recent finds and especially hides are amazingly silly. Don't they know we can see their numbers with a few clicks?

 

You can certainly find them among my recent finds. Here a good example of why "If you don't like them, don't hunt them" doesn't work for me.

Link to comment
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?"

It was more of a rhetorical question--something to think about.

I figured that much.

 

Let me rephrase the question, then: Where do you see any rhetorical dishonesty?

Link to comment
I've always felt that those who complain about them loudly but have plenty of micros in their recent finds and especially hides are amazingly silly. Don't they know we can see their numbers with a few clicks?

You can certainly find them among my recent finds. Here a good example of why "If you don't like them, don't hunt them" doesn't work for me.

I assume your point is that a wholesale avoidance of micros might have caused you to miss out on a great hike with an awesome view.

 

My questions:

 

As you approached within a few miles of the area, didn’t you have even a slight hint as to whether the cache was in a large forest versus a "suburban/parking lot/typical lame micro" area?

 

Don’t you know that you can get a flavor of the same information in about three seconds by clicking through to the satellite maps right from the cache page?

 

And these are the critical questions: How do you know for sure that the time it took you to hike to that micro didn’t cause you to miss out on a much better hike to a regular-size cache with an even more awesome waterfall? If not, then how can you reasonably conclude that keeping micros out of your PQs will cause you to miss out on enjoyable experiences?

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
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.

Because I am passionate about this game, I take umbrage at anyone whom I perceive to be saying “Geocaching is going bad because my preferences are different from other people's preferences” without further explaining himself.

 

Your oft-repeated claim: “Lame caches, in and of themselves, are having a detrimental effect on the game of geocaching.”

 

(And you are not at all the only one to make this claim.)

 

Your stated reasons, your underlying rationale, your oft-repeated basis for making the claim: [(sound of crickets)]

 

(And you are not at all the only one who never supports the claim.)

 

I would ask you, once again, for your specific rationale as to why you think "lame caches, in and of themselves, are having a detrimental effect on the game of geocaching" ... but as you and I both know your anti-micro comments are rudely off-topic for this thread, and therefore so would my question be also. So this time I won’t ask. :laughing:

Link to comment
And these are the critical questions: How do you know for sure that the time it took you to hike to that micro didn’t cause you to miss out on a much better hike to a regular-size cache with an even more awesome waterfall? If not, then how can you reasonably conclude that keeping micros out of your PQs will cause you to miss out on enjoyable experiences?

You miss the point completely. When the subject comes to discussion of lame caches, mostly lame micros, some joker pipes up "if you don't like micros, don't hunt them." BS simply retorted with a reason to NOT avoid micros in general.

 

Even so, the topic is about why to place a micro over any other choice available.

 

But, given the oft repeated retort of ignoring micros to avoid trache, I'd think that would be a reason to not use a micro.

Link to comment
And these are the critical questions: How do you know for sure that the time it took you to hike to that micro didn’t cause you to miss out on a much better hike to a regular-size cache with an even more awesome waterfall? If not, then how can you reasonably conclude that keeping micros out of your PQs will cause you to miss out on enjoyable experiences?

You miss the point completely.

I must also say the same about you. :laughing:

 

When the subject comes to discussion of lame caches, mostly lame micros, some joker pipes up "if you don't like micros, don't hunt them." BS simply retorted with a reason to NOT avoid micros in general.

I thought the implied reasoning behind my comment to Briansnat was obvious, but apparently I was overly optimistic in that assumption. Here it is, laid out in an easier-to-follow step-by-step format:

 

A long-running point expressed by those whom you respectfully refer to as "jokers" is that if one dislikes micros, one should simply not hunt micros.

 

Briansnat’s long-running response to that point is that he dislikes filtering out micros for fear of missing out on the occasional "good one."

 

The "joker"-expressed counterpoint to Briansnat’s objection has also been consistent: Even if you filter out all the micros, there should still be plenty of non-micros to keep you well entertained; if not, then you could always expand your target list by sifting a bit through the micros – but that would ONLY become necessary after you have already exhausted all the awesomely entertaining non-micros, of which there is a staggering number.

 

Briansnat, while ignoring all that, and in an effort to illustrate his point that some micros are "good ones," posted a link to a micro he happened to greatly enjoy.

 

I simply asked him how he knew for certain that the time he spent at that particular micro didn’t prevent him from experiencing an even more enjoyable non-micro somewhere. Unless he can prove that it didn’t, then his experience proves nothing in support of his original claim about missing out on fun by ignoring micros.

Link to comment
Let me rephrase the question, then: Where do you see any rhetorical dishonesty?

I thought I spelled it out in the post from which you quoted my rhetorical query.

If it was there, I missed it. In which case I am moved to post a rhetorical question of my own:

 

Why do some people vaguely accuse others of dishonesty as they ask rhetorical questions?

Link to comment

So far we've seen pretty much convenience of the hider--easier to carry, carry more, etc. Unless I missed something somewhere only the author of the article had a reason for micros over a larger size other than hider convenience.

 

 

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.

 

 

What more do you want? Sure an ammo can could have been hidden here. I think that pawing through that ammo can would have taken away from this location.

 

It's not about the container. It's about the hide, the location, MORE THAN THAT IT'S ABOUT THE FINDER AND WHAT THEY WANT OUT OF THE GAME!

Link to comment
As you approached within a few miles of the area, didn’t you have even a slight hint as to whether the cache was in a large forest versus a "suburban/parking lot/typical lame micro" area?

 

No, it was in the middle of a suburban area. It was a college campus with this few acre oasis of green. In fact as I pulled into a paved parking area and saw that the cache was only a few hundred feet from the parking lot, I almost turned around.

 

Don’t you know that you can get a flavor of the same information in about three seconds by clicking through to the satellite maps right from the cache page?

 

I do know that, but not owning a laptop with a cellular or satellite connection, this information was not available to me at the time.

 

And these are the critical questions: How do you know for sure that the time it took you to hike to that micro didn’t cause you to miss out on a much better hike to a regular-size cache with an even more awesome waterfall?

 

I don't, however finding the elusive better hike to a more awesome waterfall in this area could have taken hours of pre-trip research.

 

If not, then how can you reasonably conclude that keeping micros out of your PQs will cause you to miss out on enjoyable experiences?

 

Because it does. If I eliminated micros I would have missed this, and this and this and this and many more fascinating caches.

Link to comment

Normally large cache containers, big jugs to ammo cans, etc...You normally find these under POL or POR Pile of rocks and pile of limbs. The challenge on these cache containers is getting to the cache site.

 

I like all cache containers that have a log book to sign and date. I could add another period to that.

Micros I find are so much more challenging..Whether a "pica", nano, or film canister and of course the bison tubes and match containers. These two are great for staying dry for long periods.

 

Another point is that every summer chasing "regular tradition" caches in the woods, I get poison ivy, oak, sumac. Why cachers hide cache containers in fields of Poison is a mystery, but I know the answer....We hide them in the winter, because we would not go there in the summer....I'm guilty, guilty.

 

I will still go after the "treasure" none the less....I like Micros, they are my first choice because of the challenge. I prefer not to hike 2-10 miles to log a "regular" cache.

 

Happy caching and smooth terrain (1.5) that is........

Link to comment
Why do some people vaguely accuse others of dishonesty as they ask rhetorical questions?

I don't know. Who's done that? I know I didn't. I was asking if we are being honest with ourselves. Nowhere is there an accusation that someone is being dishonest with someone else as you would insinuate. If you can't understand the question then go find a different thread and stop trying to make this one another personal sand box for you to dump in.

Link to comment
What more do you want? Sure an ammo can could have been hidden here. I think that pawing through that ammo can would have taken away from this location.

If the area was not conducive to a larger-than-micro then fine, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about if an area is conducive to any sized container, what would your choice be and why.

Link to comment
I simply asked him how he knew for certain that the time he spent at that particular micro didn’t prevent him from experiencing an even more enjoyable non-micro somewhere. Unless he can prove that it didn’t, then his experience proves nothing in support of his original claim about missing out on fun by ignoring micros.

You're kidding, right?

 

If someone ignores micros because they don't like that a too-large percentage is trache and they skip an entertaining cache because it was listed as a micro, then he didn't miss out on fun? How does that logic work?

Link to comment
Why do some people vaguely accuse others of dishonesty as they ask rhetorical questions?

I don't know. Who's done that? I know I didn't. I was asking if we are being honest with ourselves. Nowhere is there an accusation that someone is being dishonest with someone else as you would insinuate. If you can't understand the question then go find a different thread and stop trying to make this one another personal sand box for you to dump in.

You asked if "we" are being honest with ourselves. "We" includes me. Questioning my honesty implies suspecting me of dishonesty.

 

You therefore vaguely accused me, and everyone else, of being dishonest about ... something. What that something is I have no idea – and I now strongly suspect you have no idea either.

Link to comment

I simply asked him how he knew for certain that the time he spent at that particular micro didn’t prevent him from experiencing an even more enjoyable non-micro somewhere. Unless he can prove that it didn’t, then his experience proves nothing in support of his original claim about missing out on fun by ignoring micros.

You're kidding, right?

 

If someone ignores micros because they don't like that a too-large percentage is trache and they skip an entertaining cache because it was listed as a micro, then he didn't miss out on fun? How does that logic work?

He would have missed out on THAT fun. He wouldn't necessarily have missed out on HAVING fun. THAT'S what he didn't prove.

 

How does that logic work? Because his example doesn’t prove anything unless he can also accompany it with proof that he exhausted ALL the non-micro possibilities within his reach before seeking that one micro.

 

Analogy Time!

(Yes, I know. You’re welcome):

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"I love to read good books. Here in CoolTown, in Regular County, our local CoolTown Library has over 100,000 book titles available right on the shelf, and in my experience I have rarely made a selection, even when made at random, that I did not enjoy immensely."

 

"I’m fully aware that I could burn through two books a day, every day, for the rest of my life and never run out of fresh and different CoolTown Library selections to read – especially considering that great new titles are being brought in almost continuously – but, unfortunately, I have this little problem:"

 

"You see, over in Lameville, in neighboring Micro County, they have the Lameville Library which is stocked with even more books, all of them different from anything one can find in Regular County. Most of them are paperbacks, as compared to the hardbacks with all the wonderful cover art in the CoolTown Library – and sadly, most of Lameville's books, to be perfectly honest with you, stink."

 

"Almost every time I check a book out of the Lameville Library I wonder why I even bothered. Almost. A rare few of them are actually okay. But I must confess: You see, I despise doing any research – such as browsing book reviews, or even dipping open the back cover to the book’s circulation card to see how many times it’s been checked out before – so I’m stuck being disappointed with most of the books I ever check out from Micro County. It’s SOOO frustrating!"

 

"Many annoying people have asked my why I don’t simply avoid the Lameville Library altogether, and stick with the tried-and-true CoolTown Library where I rarely find disappointment. They think they’re being helpful when they remind me that I could burn through two CoolTown books a day, every day, for the rest of my life and never run out of fresh and different Regular County CoolTown Library selections to read."

 

"Well, DUH! What’s wrong with these busybodies? A tiny percentage of the Lameville books are actually worth reading too! I might MISS one of them! Can’t they see that?"

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Any questions, Coyote?

Link to comment
How does that logic work? Because his example doesn’t prove anything unless he can also accompany it with proof that he exhausted ALL the non-micro possibilities within his reach before seeking that one micro.

 

The day it gets to the point where I have to take the time to exhaust all non micro possibilities before heading out on a cache hunt is the day I dust off my golf equipment.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
How does that logic work? Because his example doesn’t prove anything unless he can also accompany it with proof that he exhausted ALL the non-micro possibilities within his reach before seeking that one micro.

The day it gets to the point where I have to take the time to exhaust all non micro possibilities before heading out on a cache hunt is the day I dust off my golf equipment.

So you’re saying ... that if there are too many non-micro caches out there for you to find in the time you have available for caching ... that you’d rather play golf instead? :laughing:

 

You DO understand that the "time" you are referring to when you say "take the time to exhaust all non micro possibilities" means nothing more than the half-second that is required to check the box on your PQ screen (the 'ignore all micros' checkbox), before you head out the door, right?

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

I think the author's base assuptions come into play here. Some folks cache to be taken to unknown or little known or scenic or historic locations and the fact that a cache is nearby becomes a kind of bonus in the discovery. Some other folks cache for challenge of the hunt and the thrill of "getting away" with something.

 

Count me in the first group - so I very much tend to perfer larger caches that are easy to locate at fantastic locations......

Link to comment
I think the author's base assuptions come into play here. Some folks cache to be taken to unknown or little known or scenic or historic locations and the fact that a cache is nearby becomes a kind of bonus in the discovery. Some other folks cache for challenge of the hunt and the thrill of "getting away" with something.

 

Count me in the first group - so I very much tend to perfer larger caches that are easy to locate at fantastic locations......

Count me in the first group too.
Link to comment
I think the author's base assuptions come into play here. Some folks cache to be taken to unknown or little known or scenic or historic locations and the fact that a cache is nearby becomes a kind of bonus in the discovery. Some other folks cache for challenge of the hunt and the thrill of "getting away" with something.

 

Count me in the first group - so I very much tend to perfer larger caches that are easy to locate at fantastic locations......

Count me in the first group too.

If I wanted to be taken to unknown or little knoww or scenic or historic location I would be Waymarking. I hear there is a Best Kept Secrets category just for unknown or little known places :laughing: . I go geocaching to find geocaches. If the geocache is in a particularly cool place that becomes a bonus.

Link to comment
I think the author's base assuptions come into play here. Some folks cache to be taken to unknown or little known or scenic or historic locations and the fact that a cache is nearby becomes a kind of bonus in the discovery. Some other folks cache for challenge of the hunt and the thrill of "getting away" with something.

 

Count me in the first group - so I very much tend to perfer larger caches that are easy to locate at fantastic locations......

Count me in the first group too.

If I wanted to be taken to unknown or little knoww or scenic or historic location I would be Waymarking. I hear there is a Best Kept Secrets category just for unknown or little known places :laughing: . I go geocaching to find geocaches. If the geocache is in a particularly cool place that becomes a bonus.

How much longer will it be until we will be able to run PQs for waymarks?
Link to comment

On a bit lighter note, 2 3/4-year-old Little Dipper found this black necklace in a magnetic key holder under a bench earlier in the day. This was the highlight of her, as yet, short geocaching career.

 

The micro location took us to a great viewpoint overlooking the very picturesque Friday Harbor in the San Juan Islands. She was very happy. I was very happy. And then we went for ice cream. (Edit for typos)

 

27aeceb5-40f9-4aba-aadd-a6a211c60a2b.jpg

Edited by Team Sagefox
Link to comment

I love micros. The biggest problem I see is that people aren't creative with them. Anyone can stick a nano on an old steel railroad bridge making a hard cache, but that's not really creative. I like to see ones that are unique and make you go, "Wow!"

 

Ok, so eliminate about 90% of all geocaches then? This thread is almost the same as the religious materials in caches thread. Seriously, get over it. If you don't want to go after a cache because it is 'boring" thats your call.

Link to comment

-//-It's not about the container. It's about the hide, the location, -//-

you hit the nail on the head there. LOCATION! HIDE !

 

would it be totally wrong saying that hiding a regular size container would by definition require a "better" location?

not all micros/nanos are lame, just that compared to regulars, there is more % of nanos/micros that are lame. all bulls are cattle, but not all cattle are bulls.

 

if the count/stats would be disabled and no more smileys handed out for a find

i know i would keep on hunting multis or go for the longer walks upto a cache (be it micro or regular)

and i would completly disgard these "lame" nanos, coz without the +1 there is NO reason left to even bother with these.

but would "PnG" lovers still be lifting lampostskirts on a parking lot?

Link to comment

-//-It's not about the container. It's about the hide, the location, -//-

you hit the nail on the head there. LOCATION! HIDE !

 

would it be totally wrong saying that hiding a regular size container would by definition require a "better" location?

not all micros/nanos are lame, just that compared to regulars, there is more % of nanos/micros that are lame. all bulls are cattle, but not all cattle are bulls.

 

if the count/stats would be disabled and no more smileys handed out for a find

i know i would keep on hunting multis or go for the longer walks upto a cache (be it micro or regular)

and i would completly disgard these "lame" nanos, coz without the +1 there is NO reason left to even bother with these.

but would "PnG" lovers still be lifting lampostskirts on a parking lot?

Exactly! Micro Spew is all about the "+1", and as far as I'm concerned anyone who says differently is denying the truth about them. (Again, NOT ALL MICROS, just the flooding of areas with uninspiring ones.)

 

The very first cache I found back in '02 was a micro, and it did not deter me from changing my life (at the time) by taking up this game. Fortunately, that was pretty much the ONLY micro hidden in my area at the time...the next TENS of caches I found were Regulars, all in cool locations I never knew about before, where I could search pretty much undetected. And I couldn't stop talking to pretty much everyone I knew about what a great new sport/game/hobby I had discovered.

 

I'm not sure I would have had the same reaction if the first TENS of caches I had found were PNG micros.

Link to comment
You asked if "we" are being honest with ourselves. "We" includes me. Questioning my honesty implies suspecting me of dishonesty.

 

You therefore vaguely accused me, and everyone else, of being dishonest about ... something. What that something is I have no idea – and I now strongly suspect you have no idea either.

:laughing:

 

Do you feel dishonest? Do you think I'm accusing you as an individual? Do you think the portrait of Jesus is looking directly at you and His eyes follow you as you walking through the room? Guilty conscience?

 

That might be something you want think about. Yes, that was "you" as an individual which was different than the "we" as a collective.

 

Of course, I'm not thinking you feel guilty of anything, not for one second. I think you're simply trying to stir the pot.

Link to comment
Ok, so eliminate about 90% of all geocaches then?

If that's what it takes...

 

Back when virts were still being listed and after they started requiring "wow" that's exactly what happened. The number of new virts dropped dramatically and the quality went up considerably. Folks really enjoyed the new virts because of the quality. Go figure.

 

My biggest complaint about the way they did virts with the "wow" was it also had to be unique. So if there already existed a type of virt anywhere in the world, another of the same type could not exist.

Link to comment
So you’re saying ... that if there are too many non-micro caches out there for you to find in the time you have available for caching ... that you’d rather play golf instead?

No. See

I read your statement many times before I posted my interpretation. The very reason I phrased it as a question is because I knew my best attempt at interpretation produced a strange meaning that couldn't possibly have been what you meant to say. If I misunderstood what you meant, would it have been so difficult to answer with a clarification?

 

Thanks for insulting me personally instead of answering my very valid question. That, all by itself, tells me much more about your reasoning, or lack of it, than any straight answer you could have possibly given.

 

I was only trying to help you. At this point I no longer care whether you believe that or not – because I am now giving up on helping you.

 

Until now I was optimistic that I could somehow convince you to understand why a certain frequently-offered suggestion is the perfect answer to your frequently-posted complaint. I am only embarrassed that I have allowed my unfounded optimism to drag me this far down what I now understand is a dead end.

Link to comment
He would have missed out on THAT fun. He wouldn't necessarily have missed out on HAVING fun. THAT'S what he didn't prove.

Hmm... He could go play golf. He'd be having fun. You telling him to stop caching?

No. I didn't say that. Where do you think I said that?

 

Did you read the analogy?

Link to comment
You asked if "we" are being honest with ourselves. "We" includes me. Questioning my honesty implies suspecting me of dishonesty.

 

You therefore vaguely accused me, and everyone else, of being dishonest about ... something. What that something is I have no idea – and I now strongly suspect you have no idea either.

Do you think I'm accusing you as an individual?

 

Of course, I'm not thinking you feel guilty of anything, not for one second. I think you're simply trying to stir the pot.

Me questioning the validity of one of your odd-sounding statements is no more "stirring the pot" than when you question the validity of one of mine.

 

My only point was this:

 

If you want to publicly announce that you think you are being dishonest with yourself about something, then that is your business.

 

If you want to publicly announce that you think other people are being dishonest about something, then maybe you should consider being a bit more specific, instead of getting defensive about it when pressed by one of the accused for a little more detail.

Link to comment
Ok, so eliminate about 90% of all geocaches then?

If that's what it takes...

 

Back when virts were still being listed and after they started requiring "wow" that's exactly what happened. The number of new virts dropped dramatically and the quality went up considerably. Folks really enjoyed the new virts because of the quality. Go figure.

"If that's what it takes" .... ?

 

Eliminate all micros, you mean?

 

Is that the agenda of this thread?

 

I know you're not seriously proposing a ban on all micros – the removal of an entire category of very popular caches, taking them away from everybody – just to get rid of some caches that you, personally, might not enjoy ... are you? :rolleyes:

 

I thought this thread was supposed to be about "Why micros are better." I know better than to think you’ve knowingly been *dishonest* with us about your intentions ... right?

Link to comment
He would have missed out on THAT fun. He wouldn't necessarily have missed out on HAVING fun. THAT'S what he didn't prove.
Hmm... He could go play golf. He'd be having fun. You telling him to stop caching?
No. I didn't say that. Where do you think I said that?

 

Did you read the analogy?

Sure 'nuff. I'm wondering why you choose an analogy where folks are allowed to rate items, have "best sellers," and have better ways of separating the chaff from the wheat. If we did that would be cool. Oh, wait, how folks feel about the stories they read are so subjective that any rating system would be useless. Right?

 

Sure, good analogy.

Link to comment

I love micros. The biggest problem I see is that people aren't creative with them. Anyone can stick a nano on an old steel railroad bridge making a hard cache, but that's not really creative. I like to see ones that are unique and make you go, "Wow!"

 

Ok, so eliminate about 90% of all geocaches then? This thread is almost the same as the religious materials in caches thread. Seriously, get over it. If you don't want to go after a cache because it is 'boring" thats your call.

I think your numbers are a bit off. I'd reckon that 90% of cache hides are not nanos on railroad bridges.

 

If you enjoy looking over a 100' railroad bridge for a thumbnail sized nano somewhere on it, that's great. That's what makes caching so fun. Everyone can search for whatever they enjoy. I'll search for a cache like that but only until I get frustrated. It's still not a creative hide.

 

Just like when someone drills a nano into a rock and places it in a pile of boulders. Yes, it'll be very difficult to find, but it's not creative. Some people may enjoy moving boulders all day long to find it, but most people will get bored and move on.

 

After you've found more caches, you'll start to appreciate a well done cache where someone put a lot of time and effort into it versus one where someone just stuck a container somewhere because there wasn't a cache nearby.

 

Here is an example of an extremely difficult but totally creative cache.

Link to comment
Me questioning the validity of one of your odd-sounding statements...

You were questioning the validity of one my musings? You're going to start giving me my opinions, too?

 

No, wait. I forgot, you're back into "twist mode."

 

I wrote:

I'm wondering if we're being honest with ourselves.
You're claiming:
We're all liars.
Interesting. Mayhap the "guilt thing" is in play.
Link to comment
Ok, so eliminate about 90% of all geocaches then?
If that's what it takes...

 

Back when virts were still being listed and after they started requiring "wow" that's exactly what happened. The number of new virts dropped dramatically and the quality went up considerably. Folks really enjoyed the new virts because of the quality. Go figure.

"If that's what it takes" .... ?

 

Eliminate all micros, you mean?

You're not suggesting all caches that aren't entertaining are micros, are you? Alternatively, you're not suggesting all micros lack "wow," are you? I didn't say that. You saying that?

 

I thought this thread was supposed to be about "Why micros are better."
I wouldn't have known that with the way you continue to try to debate every other issue.
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...