Should micros be a seperate cache type?

[CoyoteRed]

Huh. "The majority of cachers love micros." "LPCs get found a lot so people love them."

 

First, different types of cachers kind of stick together. Cachers who think numbers are important will naturally gravitate to someone who has a massive number of finds and might even be a "yes person" around them. Of course, then that is all that person will hear "I love micros," "I love quick and ease finds to up rack massive finds in a day."

 

This holds true for a different group, say, a group that likes to have a bit of adventure and a smilie is much less of a concern. So, yes, my experience tells me something quite different.

 

As far as caches being found a lot means folks love them: that's hog wash. Convenient caches get found more often. It's because many LPCs are in convenient locations that they are found more often than a cache hidden behind a hideous puzzle or on top of a mountain.

 

BTW, there are[/] threads complaining about multis and puzzles, mainly from folks who try to hide a cache in a too dense area and bump up against hidden stages. You have fewer threads probably because of population differences in the different cache types.

[Skippermark]

As far as caches being found a lot means folks love them: that's hog wash. Convenient caches get found more often. It's because many LPCs are in convenient locations that they are found more often than a cache hidden behind a hideous puzzle or on top of a mountain.

Even if it's convenient, why would someone want to look for something they don't enjoy? Is the smiley so important that people will force themselves to find something they don't like?

 

If a new cacher places 2 caches, one in a parking lot and the other up on a mountain, the parking lot will most likely get found far more often than the hike up the mountain. When it's time to place another, the new cacher will see 35 finds on the parking lot and 5 on the mountain and figure people would prefer to find a cache in a parking lot and place another just like it.

 

Even if they don't intentionally plan to do it, cachers who find caches they don't like such as LPCs are actually showing their support for them and telling the owner, "I found your cache. If you place another, I'll probably find it too." If people truly don't like them, even if they're convenient, they shouldn't find them. That way, the number of finds will go down and owners will see that people don't want to find them. But, if people keep finding them, owners are going to keep hiding them.

[+doingitoldschool]

 

Even if they don't intentionally plan to do it, cachers who find caches they don't like such as LPCs are actually showing their support for them and telling the owner, "I found your cache. If you place another, I'll probably find it too." If people truly don't like them, even if they're convenient, they shouldn't find them. That way, the number of finds will go down and owners will see that people don't want to find them. But, if people keep finding them, owners are going to keep hiding them.

 

Reminds me of an argument I've heard about drug use and trafficking. Along the lines that it's the customers, not the sellers, that are the real problem. We wouldn't have to worry about the dealers if people would stop buying the drugs.

[Skippermark]

True, but those micros are very addicting. I know I can't drive by one without finding it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

As far as caches being found a lot means folks love them: that's hog wash. Convenient caches get found more often. It's because many LPCs are in convenient locations that they are found more often than a cache hidden behind a hideous puzzle or on top of a mountain.

Gotta agree with this one. It's been my experience that a combination of laziness, a lack of time and the owner's desire for convenient maintenance makes the easy targets the most popular (in terms of find count).

 

That geocachers are lazy is in fact at the core of my hunting style... I look at a cache site with 'were would I put it?' in mind... I know I am lazy, so if the GPS says 'it's up that steep muddy hill' I automatically assume it's lying to me or that there is an easier way to get up there! I think "Nah, that takes too much effort to hide and maintain, look at the easy places" and more likely than not that's where I find it!

[+infiniteMPG]

Exactly, but TAR specifically asked if micros should be listed as a different TYPE of cache.

Seems the question is right up there with asking if an apple should be classified as a different TYPE of fruit just because it's smaller then other apples The TYPE of fruit is an apple, the SIZE of the fruit is small.... hmmm, that's tough to figure out?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Exactly, but TAR specifically asked if micros should be listed as a different TYPE of cache.

Seems the question is right up there with asking if an apple should be classified as a different TYPE of fruit just because it's smaller then other apples The TYPE of fruit is an apple, the SIZE of the fruit is small.... hmmm, that's tough to figure out?

Wrong! A Granny Smith is a different TYPE of apple than a Red Delicious, size has nothing to do with it!

[+Renegade Knight]

Exactly, but TAR specifically asked if micros should be listed as a different TYPE of cache.

Seems the question is right up there with asking if an apple should be classified as a different TYPE of fruit just because it's smaller then other apples The TYPE of fruit is an apple, the SIZE of the fruit is small.... hmmm, that's tough to figure out?

I'd go a little different. Is a tomato worth being classified as a vegitable because it's not like the other fruits?

[+infiniteMPG]

I'd go a little different. Is a tomato worth being classified as a vegitable because it's not like the other fruits?

Was going to use tomato in my example but figured that's cross too many lines.

 

Botanically, a tomato is the ovary, together with its seeds, of a flowering plant: therefore it is a fruit or, more precisely, a berry. The term "vegetable" has no botanical meaning and is purely a culinary term. ~wiki

[+Renegade Knight]

I'd go a little different. Is a tomato worth being classified as a vegitable because it's not like the other fruits?

Was going to use tomato in my example but figured that's cross too many lines.

 

Botanically, a tomato is the ovary, together with its seeds, of a flowering plant: therefore it is a fruit or, more precisely, a berry. The term "vegetable" has no botanical meaning and is purely a culinary term. ~wiki

Exactly. In the edible and practical world it's a vegitable. Micro's are the same. The same and yet different for a lot of reasons.

[+infiniteMPG]

Geocaches are like works of art....give everyone a Nikon D3000 won't get you great photographs. Give everyone an ammo can and you won't get good hides. And there are as many opinions on what's "good" as there are grains of sand.

 

I can remember many years ago talking to my daughter when she was upset because her softball game was getting rained out. I asked her what she was thinking and she said she was mad and it was terrible it rained. I asked her what farmers thought about it and she said they like it because it helps their crops grow. I looked out and said it was the same rain both she and the farmers were looking at. How they felt about it was all in their perspective. If a hide isn't up to your standards, change your perspective and find good in something about it... even if it's as simple as being thankful someone put the hide there for you to find, or thankful that you have the health and freedom that allows you to go out and find it. More then a lot of people in this world can say...

[+trainlove]

Micro's should be another cache type as much as ammo can caches should be a different cache type from lock n'locks. I'm kidding here.

 

But it would be nice to be able to PQ and sort caches that I can visit and not think that bringing my metal detector would be a waste of time. LOL. Sure lock n'locks might be detectable with a metal detector, if they have geocoins or travel bugs in them.

 

Now as for the question at hand, a micro is just a micro, and I know many people who hide micros and do not list the cache size, so should unlisted also be a different type.

[Mushtang]

As far as caches being found a lot means folks love them: that's hog wash. Convenient caches get found more often. It's because many LPCs are in convenient locations that they are found more often than a cache hidden behind a hideous puzzle or on top of a mountain.

Even if it's convenient, why would someone want to look for something they don't enjoy? Is the smiley so important that people will force themselves to find something they don't like?

 

If a new cacher places 2 caches, one in a parking lot and the other up on a mountain, the parking lot will most likely get found far more often than the hike up the mountain. When it's time to place another, the new cacher will see 35 finds on the parking lot and 5 on the mountain and figure people would prefer to find a cache in a parking lot and place another just like it.

 

Even if they don't intentionally plan to do it, cachers who find caches they don't like such as LPCs are actually showing their support for them and telling the owner, "I found your cache. If you place another, I'll probably find it too." If people truly don't like them, even if they're convenient, they shouldn't find them. That way, the number of finds will go down and owners will see that people don't want to find them. But, if people keep finding them, owners are going to keep hiding them.

I gotta agree with this. People don't keep doing things they don't like simply because they're easy to do.

 

I say hogwash to the hogwash, and re-state that since folks are finding LPCs it's because they enjoy them, not because they don't enjoy them.

 

Not everyone has time for a 4 star terrain hike whenever they go out caching, and their choice may be to find the LPC at walmart while running an errand or getting no cache at all. They choose to find the LPC because they enjoy it - not because they don't enjoy it.

 

Some folks find lots of them at a time because they're quick and they're on a numbers run, and it's because they enjoy it - not because they don't enjoy it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Moderator, my question is answered, I go down in resounding defeat on this idea! Close 'er up, please!

Moderator, this one has devolved to the typical micro-bash, please close it.

Thanks!

[+briansnat]

Even if it's convenient, why would someone want to look for something they don't enjoy? Is the smiley so important that people will force themselves to find something they don't like?

 

There are people who would hunt a dog turd if it gave them a smiley.

 

There are also a lot of people who pride themselves in keeping an X mile swath around their home coordinates clear of unfound caches and will hold their nose and go for caches that they really don't care for just to keep the area clear.

 

There are others who cache for the companionship and when with a group will log caches they'd never otherwise consider doing when alone.

Edited November 26, 2008 by briansnat

[+TrailGators]

Even if it's convenient, why would someone want to look for something they don't enjoy? Is the smiley so important that people will force themselves to find something they don't like?

 

There are people who would hunt a dog turd if it gave them a smiley.

 

There is nothing in the guidelines against hiding a nano in a dog turd. Edited November 26, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I'm fine with Micro staying a size designation of a Traditional cache type. I think it would be great if Nano was an additional size designation. At this time, I just assume micro means nano until I find otherwise.

[+Moose Mob]

Closed on OP's request.