Micro caches are getting out of control

November 18, 2008

Anyone else sick and tired of micro caches??

I say we start a petition to bring back virtual caches instead.

Or we need to limit the approval of micro caches.

Pine tree hangars and light pole magnets need to be done away with.

I will bet a few of you agree with me.

talk amongst yourselves....................

2.3k · November 18, 2008

Well you could always 'skip' all micro caches.

3.6k · November 18, 2008

Again?

:unsure:

18.9k · November 18, 2008

I've done a number of very well done, scenic, well thought out water-tight micros over the years.

Nothing wrong with the size.

Sadly, I would have to agree that the majority of "object thrown out the window in a bush" type caches are micros. But size is not the problem.

November 18, 2008

I'm tired of magnetic key safes hidden in newspaper racks and almost anything buried in ivy or near where homeless people relieve themselves, but when you're placing a hide in an urban setting, you have to keep it discreet. The old reliable ammo box just doesn't do it. In the right setting, even a nano has its charms.

November 18, 2008

Sadly, I would have to agree that the majority of "object thrown out the window in a bush" type caches are micros. But size is not the problem.

Shhhh don't say that out loud! Apparently I am now despised here for saying that! Remember, all caches are created equal!

November 18, 2008

Anyone else sick and tired of micro caches??

I say we start a petition to bring back virtual caches instead.

Micro wank AND Virtual wank in ONE post!

Who told you it was my birthday???

- Elle

Edited November 18, 2008 by Redneck Parrotheads

6.7k · November 18, 2008

Micros are a good thing, if people had to throw ammo boxes out the car window they might hurt somebody! :unsure:

2.3k · November 18, 2008

Anyone else sick and tired of micro caches??

I will bet a few of you agree with me.

talk amongst yourselves....................

...........................seems like we have. :rolleyes:

Which costcoguy has got it all wrong? :unsure:

Now let us move on to proper discussions!

November 18, 2008

Geocaching needs new rules for micros. Some here in Utah are on private property and I would venture to say no permission was given. Reviewers need to be more picky when approving any old micro.

2.3k · November 18, 2008

Geocaching needs new rules for micros. Some here in Utah are on private property and I would venture to say no permission was given. Reviewers need to be more picky when approving any old micro.

Ditto larger caches too.....surely ???

3.9k · November 18, 2008

I've done a number of very well done, scenic, well thought out water-tight micros over the years.

Nothing wrong with the size.

Sadly, I would have to agree that the majority of "object thrown out the window in a bush" type caches are micros. But size is not the problem.

Exactly! There are some micros that are great, and a good number that are just fine, but unfortunately, the vast majority of lame caches do also fall into the micro category.

And yes, a seeker can choose to avoid all micros, perhaps by setting pocket query (PQ) options to eliminate all micros, but then they will also miss some very good caches as well, and so that is not an ideal solution. In fact, much as Briansnat has stated on the forum several times, when it comes to micros, it often takes an on-site visit to determine whether a given micro is lame or not.

For those who are relative newcomers here, this is not a new topic, and rather, this is a very old and repetitive theme: there have been a great many threads devoted to the job of lamenting lame urban micros, starting about the year 2001.

Due to the longevity and the severity of this lame cache problem, I would like to suggest a several-pronged approach to the problem, as follows:

all lame caches of any size must bear an attribute icon labeled LAME. This will serve as a ready signal to those who are on the lookout for such critters, and can also be used as a means to eliminate all caches bearing this attribute from PQs.
only members of geocaching.com who are premium members and who also pay a LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE membership rider surcharge of $50 per year will have permission to emplace lame caches and to list them on the site.
Current paid-up LAME HIDER cachers will be allowed to own a maximum of four lame caches per account.
Anyone wishing to emplace a LAME cache must not only have a currently-paid up LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE rider on their premium membership, but must also own at least one non-lame cache for every LAME cache (up to four per qualified account) that they wish to hide.
LAME caches owned by a hider will be archived if payment for their LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE rider lapses for a period of greater than ten days.
A small portion of the fees derived from the LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE membership rider program shall be used to reimburse cachers in local regions to act as CITO contractors whose job it will be to remove lame caches which do not conform to the above-listed requirements.
(OPTIONAL) I am not yet sure about this one, but it seems to be a good idea that any and all hiders of lame caches should have the word "LAME CACHE" tattooed upon their foreheads in two inch high scarlet letters.

I hope that my modest proposal listed above helps to clear up much of the messy confusion surrounding this matter from this point forward.

6.5k · November 18, 2008

Perhaps we should also have a rating system for these caches? :unsure:

8k · November 18, 2008

Costco can start by letting Geocaching.com know that they don't appreciate people hiding micros in their parking lots without permission. Maybe WalMart and Home Depot would follow suite. :unsure:

Edited November 18, 2008 by tozainamboku

November 18, 2008

It seems that microcaches are leading to the decline of modern civilization.

Please excuse me while I prepare for armageddon.

6.5k · November 18, 2008

I think we need a petition to do away with lame computer generated stats graphics that clutter up cachers profiles and say nothing about who they really are. :rolleyes:

Or does it say that their numbers are very important to them and they like pretty graphs and charts with colors? :unsure:

November 18, 2008

[*] only members of geocaching.com who are premium members and who also pay a LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE membership rider surcharge of $50 per year will have permission to emplace lame caches and to list them on the site.

$50 is outrageous! If I can't afford an ammo can, how could I possibly afford an elitist surcharge?!?

:unsure:

6.7k · November 18, 2008

What I want to know is since everyone uses digital cameras these days where are all of these film cans coming from? :unsure:

There must be some film-can super-salesman out there, like the salesman that convinced all those states up north that they needed mile-markers every tenth of a mile instead of every mile. You know he had to win the sign-salesman of the year award!

Edited November 18, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

1.2k · November 18, 2008

Geocaching needs new rules for micros. Some here in Utah are on private property and I would venture to say no permission was given. Reviewers need to be more picky when approving any old micro.

Ditto larger caches too.....surely ???

See, that's your problem...you guys are getting old caches published...you need new ones to keep things fresh!!!

:unsure: :rolleyes:

Edited November 18, 2008 by ArcherDragoon

November 18, 2008

What I want to know is since everyone uses digital cameras these days where are all of these film cans coming from?

There must be some film-can super-salesman out there, like the salesman that convinced all those states up north that they needed mile-markers every tenth of a mile instead of every mile. You know he had to win the sign-salesman of the year award!

LOL, I've wondered that myself! Are people buying film just for the canisters?

The problem with micros isn't the size of the cache itself, but that the size makes it so easy to make a lazy hide. It's not the containers fault it's hidden under a lamp post skirt. My very first find was a nano, but it was well placed, a challenge to get to and find, and well worth it. Micros can be fun, but they are also overused by people who are too lazy to spend the time making some good camo for their urban micro.

Edited November 18, 2008 by HondaH8er

3.2k · November 18, 2008

Anyone else sick and tired of micro caches??

I say we start a petition to bring back virtual caches instead.

Anyone else sick of these threads?

I say we ban any micro-bashing forum threads started by premium members who insist on complaining about micros instead of simply filtering them out.

24.7k · November 18, 2008

Micro caches are getting out of control

Well, I've never been mugged by one, but they sure hang out in some unsavory areas. I'd be warry, but wouldn't say they are out of control just yet.

November 18, 2008

The economy sucks, 2 wars and unemploymet soars. Are micro's really that bad? :unsure:

1.6k · November 18, 2008

I say we start a petition to bring back virtual caches instead.

Or we need to limit the approval of micro caches .

Pine tree hangars and light pole magnets need to be done away with.

Perhaps we should also have a rating system for these caches?

Edited November 18, 2008 by J-Way

10.2k · November 18, 2008

Geocaching needs new rules for micros. Some here in Utah are on private property and I would venture to say no permission was given. Reviewers need to be more picky when approving any old micro.

Are you mad because some of them are at Costco? :unsure: I wouldn't know, we don't have any of them in these parts.

3.6k · November 18, 2008

Perhaps we should also have a rating system for these caches?

Like when gas was expensive, maybe we could boycott micros on Tuesday. That will surely make a statement and hit em where it hurts.

November 18, 2008

I am so tired of reading this lame topic. Every week someone else starts a new thread on this same subject. It is getting out of hand. There should be some restrictions to prevent this. :unsure:

Having read the title of the thread, I could have saved myself the aggrevation by just ignoring it. Maybe these folks should do the same with micro caches.

Was this analogy:

a. lame

b. awesome

c. this was an analogy?

d. go away

November 18, 2008

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have hiked a mile to do a cache that was a full size cache and still lame. I have stepped out of the car and done micros that were good caches. When it come down to it we all play this game by our own rules and yes it is just a game that we play for ourselves and our own satisfaction. I don't see why everyone is so worried about how other people choose to play or to hide.

The one great cache on occassion more than makes up for a bunch of lame caches between those finds. If I get sick of micros or any other caches it is time to quit the game or at least take a break and take up another hobby. If everyone is so upset about micros or lame caches why not just BM hunt and the problem is solved. That way numbers aren't posted in your totals and you still get to enjoy the search and the find but I don't see too many complainers with a bunch of BM finds.

Complaining about someone's profile page! I would take that page to be a personal thing and certainly no one forces anyone to even look at profile pages unless the complainers are cruising the site for innocent cacher geeks to prey on (and yes that is a joke). :unsure:

November 18, 2008

Ya know the thing I like about this addiction is the variety of hides. There are somedays that I feel like going for a long walk in the woods and other days a nano on a bridge on a nature trail. Some days I feel like looking for an almost impossible to find micro and other days I feel like looking for an unnatural pile of sticks in the woods. I have found really lame hides in all cache sizes. Pick what you like going after and ignore the rest.

In my opinion what is really getting out of control is whining about some type of hide or cache size that a different person every week posts to these forums. Suck it up, put on your big girl panties and take the time to search out caches that will make you happy and go find them.

3.3k · November 18, 2008

Geocaching needs new rules for micros. Some here in Utah are on private property and I would venture to say no permission was given. Reviewers need to be more picky when approving any old micro.

Are you mad because some of them are at Costco? I wouldn't know, we don't have any of them in these parts.

Micros or Costco stores? :unsure: Or micro Costco stores?

10.2k · November 19, 2008

Geocaching needs new rules for micros. Some here in Utah are on private property and I would venture to say no permission was given. Reviewers need to be more picky when approving any old micro.

Are you mad because some of them are at Costco? I wouldn't know, we don't have any of them in these parts.

Micros or Costco stores? Or micro Costco stores?

No Costco stores. And consequently, no Costco Micros. Or Micro Costco's.

November 19, 2008

Micros are getting out of control? Are they beginning to organize and plot against us, or are they just being a bit unruly?

Hey; I came across this revolutionary new feature the other day; it's called a pocket query. I can even filter out micros!

November 19, 2008

Micros are getting out of control? Are they beginning to organize and plot against us, or are they just being a bit unruly?

The nanos are using the bison tubes for canon fodder in a coup against the ammo boxes. Evil conspiring nanos.

There is unrest in the forest and creatures all have fled...

- Elle

November 19, 2008

I've done a number of very well done, scenic, well thought out water-tight micros over the years.

Nothing wrong with the size.

Sadly, I would have to agree that the majority of "object thrown out the window in a bush" type caches are micros. But size is not the problem.

Exactly! There are some micros that are great, and a good number that are just fine, but unfortunately, the vast majority of lame caches do also fall into the micro category.

And yes, a seeker can choose to avoid all micros, perhaps by setting pocket query (PQ) options to eliminate all micros, but then they will also miss some very good caches as well, and so that is not an ideal solution. In fact, much as Briansnat has stated on the forum several times, when it comes to micros, it often takes an on-site visit to determine whether a given micro is lame or not.

For those who are relative newcomers here, this is not a new topic, and rather, this is a very old and repetitive theme: there have been a great many threads devoted to the job of lamenting lame urban micros, starting about the year 2001.

Due to the longevity and the severity of this lame cache problem, I would like to suggest a several-pronged approach to the problem, as follows:

all lame caches of any size must bear an attribute icon labeled LAME. This will serve as a ready signal to those who are on the lookout for such critters, and can also be used as a means to eliminate all caches bearing this attribute from PQs.

only members of geocaching.com who are premium members and who also pay a LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE membership rider surcharge of $50 per year will have permission to emplace lame caches and to list them on the site.

Current paid-up LAME HIDER cachers will be allowed to own a maximum of four lame caches per account.

Anyone wishing to emplace a LAME cache must not only have a currently-paid up LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE rider on their premium membership, but must also own at least one non-lame cache for every LAME cache (up to four per qualified account) that they wish to hide.

LAME caches owned by a hider will be archived if payment for their LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE rider lapses for a period of greater than ten days.

A small portion of the fees derived from the LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE membership rider program shall be used to reimburse cachers in local regions to act as CITO contractors whose job it will be to remove lame caches which do not conform to the above-listed requirements.

(OPTIONAL) I am not yet sure about this one, but it seems to be a good idea that any and all hiders of lame caches should have the word "LAME CACHE" tattooed upon their foreheads in two inch high scarlet letters.

I hope that my modest proposal listed above helps to clear up much of the messy confusion surrounding this matter from this point forward.

You know what, I know a tattoo artist that might just be willing to dontate his service's to the cause.

I have to say I agree as well it's not the size that matter's a lame cache is a lame cache no matter what the size.

Now if the OP is talking micro-spew™ then that's a whole another subject.

November 19, 2008

Instead of complaining, maybe we can see who can make the smallest micro. I am going to put out a micro cache which will be a straight pin with a "hole punch" piece of paper for the log. I will toss it into a haystack.

November 19, 2008

I like microcaches, but then again, I haven't been caching that long either. I might get sick of them later, but for now, I'll take what I can get. I will say, it is a little more fun to find a large container with lots of trading room.

November 19, 2008

the best cure for all those micro's is to go find them and get them off your unfound list. Then you won't have to worry about them ever again! :unsure:

November 19, 2008

I've done a number of very well done, scenic, well thought out water-tight micros over the years.

Nothing wrong with the size.

Sadly, I would have to agree that the majority of "object thrown out the window in a bush" type caches are micros. But size is not the problem.

Exactly! There are some micros that are great, and a good number that are just fine, but unfortunately, the vast majority of lame caches do also fall into the micro category.

And yes, a seeker can choose to avoid all micros, perhaps by setting pocket query (PQ) options to eliminate all micros, but then they will also miss some very good caches as well, and so that is not an ideal solution. In fact, much as Briansnat has stated on the forum several times, when it comes to micros, it often takes an on-site visit to determine whether a given micro is lame or not.

For those who are relative newcomers here, this is not a new topic, and rather, this is a very old and repetitive theme: there have been a great many threads devoted to the job of lamenting lame urban micros, starting about the year 2001.

Due to the longevity and the severity of this lame cache problem, I would like to suggest a several-pronged approach to the problem, as follows:

all lame caches of any size must bear an attribute icon labeled LAME. This will serve as a ready signal to those who are on the lookout for such critters, and can also be used as a means to eliminate all caches bearing this attribute from PQs.

only members of geocaching.com who are premium members and who also pay a LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE membership rider surcharge of $50 per year will have permission to emplace lame caches and to list them on the site.

Current paid-up LAME HIDER cachers will be allowed to own a maximum of four lame caches per account.

Anyone wishing to emplace a LAME cache must not only have a currently-paid up LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE rider on their premium membership, but must also own at least one non-lame cache for every LAME cache (up to four per qualified account) that they wish to hide.

LAME caches owned by a hider will be archived if payment for their LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE rider lapses for a period of greater than ten days.

A small portion of the fees derived from the LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE membership rider program shall be used to reimburse cachers in local regions to act as CITO contractors whose job it will be to remove lame caches which do not conform to the above-listed requirements.

(OPTIONAL) I am not yet sure about this one, but it seems to be a good idea that any and all hiders of lame caches should have the word "LAME CACHE" tattooed upon their foreheads in two inch high scarlet letters.

I hope that my modest proposal listed above helps to clear up much of the messy confusion surrounding this matter from this point forward.

While I understand your reasoning behind this proposal, I think that this would ruin geocaching.com. It is supposed to be a family hobby that anyone can do. A rating system might be a better way to handle it. That way, people can avoid the low rated caches if they want. I would probably go to all of the caches anyways just to check them out. Someone might get their feelings hurt if they had their cache labeled "LAME".

3.3k · November 19, 2008

I've done a number of very well done, scenic, well thought out water-tight micros over the years.

Nothing wrong with the size.

Sadly, I would have to agree that the majority of "object thrown out the window in a bush" type caches are micros. But size is not the problem.

Exactly! There are some micros that are great, and a good number that are just fine, but unfortunately, the vast majority of lame caches do also fall into the micro category.

And yes, a seeker can choose to avoid all micros, perhaps by setting pocket query (PQ) options to eliminate all micros, but then they will also miss some very good caches as well, and so that is not an ideal solution. In fact, much as Briansnat has stated on the forum several times, when it comes to micros, it often takes an on-site visit to determine whether a given micro is lame or not.

For those who are relative newcomers here, this is not a new topic, and rather, this is a very old and repetitive theme: there have been a great many threads devoted to the job of lamenting lame urban micros, starting about the year 2001.

Due to the longevity and the severity of this lame cache problem, I would like to suggest a several-pronged approach to the problem, as follows:

all lame caches of any size must bear an attribute icon labeled LAME. This will serve as a ready signal to those who are on the lookout for such critters, and can also be used as a means to eliminate all caches bearing this attribute from PQs.

only members of geocaching.com who are premium members and who also pay a LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE membership rider surcharge of $50 per year will have permission to emplace lame caches and to list them on the site.

Current paid-up LAME HIDER cachers will be allowed to own a maximum of four lame caches per account.

Anyone wishing to emplace a LAME cache must not only have a currently-paid up LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE rider on their premium membership, but must also own at least one non-lame cache for every LAME cache (up to four per qualified account) that they wish to hide.

LAME caches owned by a hider will be archived if payment for their LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE rider lapses for a period of greater than ten days.

A small portion of the fees derived from the LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE membership rider program shall be used to reimburse cachers in local regions to act as CITO contractors whose job it will be to remove lame caches which do not conform to the above-listed requirements.

(OPTIONAL) I am not yet sure about this one, but it seems to be a good idea that any and all hiders of lame caches should have the word "LAME CACHE" tattooed upon their foreheads in two inch high scarlet letters.

I hope that my modest proposal listed above helps to clear up much of the messy confusion surrounding this matter from this point forward.

While I understand your reasoning behind this proposal, I think that this would ruin geocaching.com. It is supposed to be a family hobby that anyone can do. A rating system might be a better way to handle it. That way, people can avoid the low rated caches if they want. I would probably go to all of the caches anyways just to check them out. Someone might get their feelings hurt if they had their cache labeled "LAME".

What about the devout urban dweller who hates hiking and wide open vistas? He/she might label ammo cans in alpine areas as LAME or give them low scores due to the potential long walk or hike. People already have all of the information they need in order to avoid the vast majority of caches they are not likely to think warrant a high rating by investing a minimal amount of pre-caching research. Perhaps anyone wanting to rate any particular cache should be the ones paying in to the system. Rate them high or rate them low, but pay as you go. Of course there will be some that would consider this concept to be elitist since only those able and willing to pay to rate could do so. :unsure:

November 19, 2008

I've done a number of very well done, scenic, well thought out water-tight micros over the years.

Nothing wrong with the size.

Sadly, I would have to agree that the majority of "object thrown out the window in a bush" type caches are micros. But size is not the problem.

Exactly! There are some micros that are great, and a good number that are just fine, but unfortunately, the vast majority of lame caches do also fall into the micro category.

And yes, a seeker can choose to avoid all micros, perhaps by setting pocket query (PQ) options to eliminate all micros, but then they will also miss some very good caches as well, and so that is not an ideal solution. In fact, much as Briansnat has stated on the forum several times, when it comes to micros, it often takes an on-site visit to determine whether a given micro is lame or not.

For those who are relative newcomers here, this is not a new topic, and rather, this is a very old and repetitive theme: there have been a great many threads devoted to the job of lamenting lame urban micros, starting about the year 2001.

Due to the longevity and the severity of this lame cache problem, I would like to suggest a several-pronged approach to the problem, as follows:

all lame caches of any size must bear an attribute icon labeled LAME. This will serve as a ready signal to those who are on the lookout for such critters, and can also be used as a means to eliminate all caches bearing this attribute from PQs.

only members of geocaching.com who are premium members and who also pay a LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE membership rider surcharge of $50 per year will have permission to emplace lame caches and to list them on the site.

Current paid-up LAME HIDER cachers will be allowed to own a maximum of four lame caches per account.

Anyone wishing to emplace a LAME cache must not only have a currently-paid up LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE rider on their premium membership, but must also own at least one non-lame cache for every LAME cache (up to four per qualified account) that they wish to hide.

LAME caches owned by a hider will be archived if payment for their LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE rider lapses for a period of greater than ten days.

A small portion of the fees derived from the LAME HIDER PRIVILEGE membership rider program shall be used to reimburse cachers in local regions to act as CITO contractors whose job it will be to remove lame caches which do not conform to the above-listed requirements.

(OPTIONAL) I am not yet sure about this one, but it seems to be a good idea that any and all hiders of lame caches should have the word "LAME CACHE" tattooed upon their foreheads in two inch high scarlet letters.

I hope that my modest proposal listed above helps to clear up much of the messy confusion surrounding this matter from this point forward.

While I understand your reasoning behind this proposal, I think that this would ruin geocaching.com. It is supposed to be a family hobby that anyone can do. A rating system might be a better way to handle it. That way, people can avoid the low rated caches if they want. I would probably go to all of the caches anyways just to check them out. Someone might get their feelings hurt if they had their cache labeled "LAME".

What about the devout urban dweller who hates hiking and wide open vistas? He/she might label ammo cans in alpine areas as LAME or give them low scores due to the potential long walk or hike. People already have all of the information they need in order to avoid the vast majority of caches they are not likely to think warrant a high rating by investing a minimal amount of pre-caching research. Perhaps anyone wanting to rate any particular cache should be the ones paying in to the system. Rate them high or rate them low, but pay as you go. Of course there will be some that would consider this concept to be elitist since only those able and willing to pay to rate could do so.

You just made me realize, I like the site exactly the way it is. If it was changed, no matter how hard they try to make everyone happy, someone will not like it. I'm perfectly happy with how they have it set up now.

November 19, 2008

Instead of complaining, maybe we can see who can make the smallest micro. I am going to put out a micro cache which will be a straight pin with a "hole punch" piece of paper for the log. I will toss it into a haystack.

:unsure:

GREAT visual! I already started my own anti-micro thread so I won't reiterate. Your idea got me thinking though, I would like try to make the biggest cache, maybe hollow out a 30 ft. tree and put some big swag in there like soccer balls, tricycles and computer monitors. Now THAT'S a cache! The logbook can be rolled up posterboard and you can sign it with a can of spray paint.

14.3k · November 19, 2008

What I want to know is since everyone uses digital cameras these days where are all of these film cans coming from?

There must be some film-can super-salesman out there, like the salesman that convinced all those states up north that they needed mile-markers every tenth of a mile instead of every mile. You know he had to win the sign-salesman of the year award!

Did you also ever notice that people that hide micros have bad breath? Why else would they have hundreds of empty Altoids tins? :rolleyes:

November 19, 2008

But I'm PROUD of my nano hide! GC1J1QQ - Yellow Nano :unsure:

November 19, 2008

What I want to know is since everyone uses digital cameras these days where are all of these film cans coming from?

There must be some film-can super-salesman out there, like the salesman that convinced all those states up north that they needed mile-markers every tenth of a mile instead of every mile. You know he had to win the sign-salesman of the year award!

LOL, I've wondered that myself! Are people buying film just for the canisters?

The problem with micros isn't the size of the cache itself, but that the size makes it so easy to make a lazy hide. It's not the containers fault it's hidden under a lamp post skirt. My very first find was a nano, but it was well placed, a challenge to get to and find, and well worth it. Micros can be fun, but they are also overused by people who are too lazy to spend the time making some good camo for their urban micro.

Um, you can get them free at Costco if you ask the film counter, got about 500 that way...

38.2k · November 19, 2008

The economy sucks, 2 wars and unemploymet soars. Are micro's really that bad?

If you want to talk economics or politics, there are websites for that. This is a geocaching forum, so we discuss geocaching.

Go over to a University of Notre Dame football forum and tell them not to worry about whether or not Charlie Weis should be fired because "The economy sucks, 2 wars and unemploymet soars". People can still care about relatively trivial matters without others ridiculing them.

November 19, 2008

I agree. We just got into caching and the kids are not real impressed with the micro. Some have been fun to find and the medium sized ones are more interesting.

14.3k · November 19, 2008

I agree. We just got into caching and the kids are not real impressed with the micro. Some have been fun to find and the medium sized ones are more interesting.

My advice is to skip micros with your kids unless you want to risk killing their enthusiasm. Kids love to trade for treasures and most micros are treasure-less.

8.3k · November 19, 2008

most micros are treasure-less.

In more ways than one.

Jim

3.3k · November 19, 2008

If you approach ANY cache with an expectation of coming away with anything other than a smiley or a frowney you are setting yourself up for failure. And most cachers don't acknowledge the frowney. Where is the treasure in caching if you can't bring yourself to log and acknowledge what you did?

November 19, 2008

My suggestion is to hide caches of the nature that you would enjoy finding. If you do a good enough job of it, you may find like-minded geocachers that will be inspired to follow your example.

Micro caches are getting out of control

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation