What type of caches do you ignore?

[+9Key]

I added one to my ignore list a few minutes ago. It was hidden in a line of holley bushes (sharp leaves) with yucca (very sharp spines) surrounding it in a busy pharmacy parking lot. I drove on by wondering what the CO was thinking when they chose that spot.

[+DanOCan]

Reasons caches have made my Ignore list, which is currently sitting at 75 and counting:

 

-- Requires the use of a canoe or boat which I don't have.

-- Puzzles requiring a degree in computer science, bio-chemistry, or physics.

-- Caches in high visibility locations of little redeeming value (ie: parking lots)

-- Caches where previous finders have mentioned homeless camps

-- Caches in trashy locations or on dumpsters

-- Caches which are "needle in a haystack" type hides

 

I figure with the wide range of caches out there I may as well focus on ones I am likely to enjoy and not waste good PQ data on ones I won't/didn't enjoy. If I am in a group and someone has them in their GPSr, I'll still tag along for the Find. It's not a moral issue, purely an enjoyment one.

 

EOIT: Forgot to include:

 

-- Caches on private property, especially those where permission was unlikely.

Edited December 9, 2008 by DanOCan

[+KBI]

I was asking CoyoteRed to verify his clearly implied premise that a cacher can’t claim to be a true supporter of the game unless that cacher is unduly distressed by the mere existence of caches they don’t like.

That's a long stretch from what I said.

It is?

 

I went back and re-read your comment again just now:

 

The fact that a cache exists that I don't care to ever find doesn't harsh my cachin' buzz in the slightest. I love to be entertained by folks that do mind. Carry on...

This seems to be a new theme for you--being entertained by those who care about this hobby.

Sounds pretty straightforward to me. A strange implication, yet not at all ambiguous.

 

In other words: The amusing people Snoogans refers to – those who are troubled by the mere existence of caches they dislike – are the only people who care about the hobby.

 

You seem to want to equate aesthetic intolerance with "caring" about Geocaching. By making the distinction you are also asking us to accept the contrapositive as a premise: You equate aesthetic broadmindedness with disrespect for the hobby.

 

You seem to believe that anyone (like me) who shares Snoogans' bemusement is an inherent threat to Geocaching, and that one must possess the anguish he describes before one may claim to be a supporter.

 

I might have been personally insulted – if I didn’t know you better. But I’ve learned. Nowadays I simply shake my head and smile, and occasionally ask for clarification when these more outlandish statements pop up. Certainly you didn’t mean your comment to sound the way it sounded ... right? If I am wrong in my interpretation – and I sincerely hope that I am – then please clarify. What did you really mean, Coyote?

[+WebChimp]

I drove on by wondering what the CO was thinking when they chose that spot.

 

Or, the problem may be just the opposite, that the CO wasn't thinking.

[Clan Riffster]

You seem to believe that anyone (like me) who shares Snoogans' bemusement is an inherent threat to Geocaching

I must declare Shenanigans!

Snoogans is the only one who professed to have singlehandedly caused the death of geocaching.

Anyone else is just an evil minion, sharing in his nefarious plot.

[+KBI]

You seem to believe that anyone (like me) who shares Snoogans' bemusement is an inherent threat to Geocaching

I must declare Shenanigans!

Snoogans is the only one who professed to have singlehandedly caused the death of geocaching.

Anyone else is just an evil minion, sharing in his nefarious plot.

Dang, I can never keep up with who's in charge of who.

 

When do we get uniforms?

[+Sioneva]

<snip>

 

Apparently not too many people really like puzzle caches. They do not generate anywhere near the amount of cacher traffic like real geocaches do. That's not to allege that most geocachers can't figure out the puzzle, its just that they don't care to.

 

<snip>

 

Maybe that's true, maybe not. But the logs I get from cachers on my puzzle caches are a lot more cheerful and appreciative then the logs I get on one of my few PnGs. ('Quick find. SL. TFTC') And I certainly enjoy reading those logs a lot more as well!

 

Simple then, don't hide P&G's! lol Not a lot of people leave TNLN logs on my many caches, and none are puzzles! (that I recall, but I could be off on this)

 

Somehow, I don't think that was the point I was trying to make.

 

And you are lucky, or maybe you are just *special*. Who knows? The point I was trying to make, though, was about puzzle caches, not PnG micros.

[Braff-n-MandaRue]

The caches on my ignore list are basically all by a single cacher and his sockpuppets.

 

He is the type that thinks that putting caches on guardrails and road signs in the middle of curves on busy highways is fun. It's not my idea of fun, so I don't hunt them.

 

He is also notorious for doing some pretty lame copy caches. Where he takes everyone else's cool caches, puts his lame twist on them, and hides them.

 

I gave them a try and found a few. His caches were just always lame to me.

 

Not to say they aren't a great deal of fun for others, and I know some people really enjoy his type of hides. They just aren't for me and they wind up on my ignore list.

 

It makes them easier to filter out when I search from my home coords, so they aren't cluttering up my search's.

 

They aren't necessarily stuck their forever either. Sometimes I will hunt for a couple on my ignore list that may be in an interesting area were no other cachers have hidden caches yet.

 

It's kinda like the library analogy, except I just have the books I don't want to read by a certain author I don't like stored in a box. Sometimes I will go to the box and get one or two out on a slow day and give them a read.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Seems like several people have their reasons for using ignore lists or ignoring certain caches once on the scene.

 

I fall into the "don't ignore" camp. I have to wonder if those that fall into the other camp also can be described as:

 

* Has large number of finds

 

For those that have a large number of finds I suspect that it's easier to ignore caches than for those that may not have been caching long. While there are many that will state that they are "not in it for the numbers" I suspect that most, at one time, had goals (for some it might be 1000 finds) the wanted to reach. Once a goal has been met it would be a lot easier to start ignoring caches for whatever reason.

 

I have just over 1300 finds. I've been to enough parking lots, homeless encampments, and caches hidden in full view of homeowners. I got turned off on this type of cache, so I generally don't hunt for them anymore. There are plenty of scenic caches waiting for me to go find them.

 

 

Lives in a cache rich area

 

For those living in a cache rich area it would be a lot easier to ignore certain types of caches when there are lots of unfound caches still within a reasonable proximity to ones home coordinates. As it is, I already drive about 15 miles before I get get to the nearest unfound cache. If I started ignoring caches it would be driving a much greater distance just to find a cache. I have this thing about trying to find every cache within a minimum distance from my home coordinates (currently at just over 14 miles). If I ignored any caches I couldn't say that I found every caches within XX miles.

Once I stopped being a "radius slave" my geocaching became more fun.

I wish I could have as much fun caching as you do.

 

Has a large amount of time to go geocaching

 

I have no idea how much time geocachers in general have available to go geocaching. In my case, I *usually* have maybe 2-3 hours on one of the weekend days that I can go out. If something new comes up I might be able to grab it after work, but only if it's within 5 miles or so from home, and then only if it's in the right direction of where I travel. With a limited amount of time to spend geocaching, and the closest caches around 1/2 hour drive or so from home that often limits the amount of time I'm actively going from cache to cache to an hour or so a week. If I started ignoring caches, at some point I wouldn't have enough time to find *any* geocaches (except for new ones closer to home) in the amount of time I have available to me.

 

I have very little free time for geocaching. I prefer to spend what little time I have finding caches that entertain me most. I'm perfectly content making a 9 hour hike, and finding three caches like I did they day I found #1100. I don't enjoy finding the maximum number of geocaches per hour because most time, caches conducive to this are the most unappealing to me.

 

You have "very little free time for geocaching" yet have the time for a nine hour hike to find some caches? I've only been caching about two years but can only think of one day in which I had more than 6 contiguous hours available to me to go geocaching. Apparently "very little time" means something different for each of us.

 

What I wrote has nothing to do with the number of caches per hour. It has to do with the amount of distance one has to travel to get to any caches that *can* be found. Ignoring some of them means traveling a longer distance before the first find and at some point, given a 3 hour window, there may be no caches that can be reached within that window. So that mean, not caching at all, or at least finding some caches that may less than ideal.

[+Snoogans]

You seem to believe that anyone (like me) who shares Snoogans' bemusement is an inherent threat to Geocaching

I must declare Shenanigans!

Snoogans is the only one who professed to have singlehandedly caused the death of geocaching.

Anyone else is just an evil minion, sharing in his nefarious plot.

Dang, I can never keep up with who's in charge of who.

 

When do we get uniforms?

 

The timetable for that can be answered in post #39 of the What would you change? thread....

 

Here is a preview of what you will be wearing.

 

My Legions of Terror will have helmets with clear plexiglass visors, not face-concealing ones.

 

I will hire a talented fashion designer to create original uniforms for my Legions of Terror, as opposed to some cheap knock-offs that make them look like Nazi stormtroopers, Roman footsoldiers, or savage Mongol hordes. All were eventually defeated and I want my troops to have a more positive mind-set.

 

Since I hail from high speed in-house corporate security forces, I'll go with what I know since I already have all the contacts.... So, expect my designer to make you look something like a S.W.A.T. officer, but probably from the year 2150 A.D.

[+TrailGators]

Since the the advent of the ignore list, i'm curious as to what type of caches you choose to ignore.

 

My ignore list includes parking lot caches, housing tract (including apartment complexes) caches, and trashy area hides. I derive zero pleasure from these caches, so I don't bother hunting them.

I ignore the same ones for the same reasons. I have over a hundred on my list. I could care less if some people don't get why I do it.

[+Snoogans]

You seem to believe that anyone (like me) who shares Snoogans' bemusement is an inherent threat to Geocaching

I must declare Shenanigans!

Snoogans is the only one who professed to have singlehandedly caused the death of geocaching.

Anyone else is just an evil minion, sharing in his nefarious plot.

 

Let's get something straight.

 

I have no actual plot to destroy geocaching. Here's how the urban legend started:

 

Back in 2003 BigRedMed gave prophecy that I would become the destroyer of geocaching, because I advocated "Counting Coup" on travel bugs. The post is easy to look up for verification. Just search the key words "Counting Coup." (We now have the discovery option and geocaching still exists.)

 

In 2005 upon recounting this prophecy to CoastalFinds at an event in DFW, she debunked BRM's prophecy and gave her own: She said "Snoogans won't destroy geocaching by advocating counting coup, but I have no doubt that he WILL one day, eventually destroy geocaching." Ominous, no?

 

In 2006 I most probably became the single largest proliferator of micro caches (the red headed stepchild of ammo cans) when I gave away 300 regular sized caches containing 12,500+ (stopped counting at 12.5K but there were wayyy more) micro seed caches, as part of my One Degree of Separation project, to all the attendees of the Meet and Greet event I hosted before GW4. I just round it up to 13,000 and leave it there, but it was probably several hundred more.

 

In May of 2007, I posted a thread to discuss the progress of the O.D.S. project 1 year after launch that went downhill almost from the start. The knee slapping highlight for me was when one cacher claimed/gave circumstantial evidence that I/my brainchild had managed to destroy the very spirit of geocaching in their neck of the woods...

 

Since then I have embraced my semi-pariahhood and joked from time to time that I have destroyed geocaching when folks whine about micros. I mean, intelligent people neeed a scapegoat, (right? ) so I might as well give 'em one who will give 'em some action if they take the bait, but no one has so far.

 

Disclaimer: This post has been meant to be humorous. If you don't "get" the "humor," please refer this post to RK, Mushtang, or KBI and they my take the time to explain it to you.

[+Kit Fox]

You have "very little free time for geocaching" yet have the time for a nine hour hike to find some caches? I've only been caching about two years but can only think of one day in which I had more than 6 contiguous hours available to me to go geocaching. Apparently "very little time" means something different for each of us.

 

I was referring to free time currently. I made that 9 hour hike a year and two months ago.

 

What I wrote has nothing to do with the number of caches per hour. It has to do with the amount of distance one has to travel to get to any caches that *can* be found. Ignoring some of them means traveling a longer distance before the first find and at some point, given a 3 hour window, there may be no caches that can be reached within that window. So that mean, not caching at all, or at least finding some caches that may less than ideal.

 

Most of my long drives are based on other things (visiting relatives, going to a musuem, zoo, etc.) I place geocaching secondary. I'll run pocket queries, and load my GPS with caches that look interesting, but often times I don't even bother with caching. When gas spiked at $4.67 a gallon, geocaching was not my priority.

I'm content with not finding geocaches at all. When I drove 600 plus miles round trip for Geowoodstock 6, I literally passed several thousand geocaches. I found around 20 on my entire drive.

[+Juicepig]

There is only one cache on my ignore list - I got to ground zero and deemed it too dangerous - which is pretty insane coming from me

 

 

As it is the ONLY one on my ignore list.. that makes it rather HARD to ignore..

 

 

I will likely go back when I have a composition of insane cohorts to get me to the hospital, and some better equipment...

 

 

Ignore lists: Winners do what Losers wont... hahahaha

[CoyoteRed]

I went back and re-read your comment again just now:

No, you didn't. You are mis-quoting me. Don't be going and adding stuff I didn't say. Again, my comments were directed to the statement I quoted, nothing else.

[+9Key]

I went back and re-read your comment again just now:

No, you didn't. You are mis-quoting me. Don't be going and adding stuff I didn't say. Again, my comments were directed to the statement I quoted, nothing else.

I get the idea that you two could argue about whether or not the sky is blue.

[+Kit Fox]

I went back and re-read your comment again just now:

No, you didn't. You are mis-quoting me. Don't be going and adding stuff I didn't say. Again, my comments were directed to the statement I quoted, nothing else.

I get the idea that you two could argue about whether or not the sky is blue.

 

Rather than discussing the details of the topic at hand, the "group" choose to hairsplit, in a "he said she said" fashion. Nearly every thread the "group" posts in turns into drivel. It would be nice of one thread could stay on topic.

[CoyoteRed]

I went back and re-read your comment again just now:

No, you didn't. You are mis-quoting me. Don't be going and adding stuff I didn't say. Again, my comments were directed to the statement I quoted, nothing else.

I get the idea that you two could argue about whether or not the sky is blue.

Only, if he said I said something I didn't say. Ever notice the theme of these arguments? I say something. KBI or his brother respond with by trying to call me down on some twisting of something I said. It's not just me, but they do it to others, as well. I don't know if it's the subject matter or the author, but without discussing the topic, they twist what is said or leverage something no said into something else. Forums are a perfect medium for their type of "play," because, in person, folks wouldn't stand for it--they'd either walk away or pop one of them in the mouth--but also there is no semi-permanent audience to enjoy their brilliant intellect and humor.

 

Too bad they can't argue the actual subject, and have to resort to such tactics. That, in itself, is telling.

[CoyoteRed]

Rather than discussing the details of the topic at hand, the "group" choose to hairsplit, in a "he said she said" fashion. Nearly every thread the "group" posts in turns into drivel. It would be nice of one thread could stay on topic.

I'm starting to think it might not be the sport of simply arguing, but a tactic to hide the posts that actually contribute to the thread in said drivel. Kind of like ignoring all micros, ignoring certain people would increase the experience greatly. Too bad their victims would likely get sucked into the list, as well.

[Mushtang]

I went back and re-read your comment again just now:

No, you didn't. You are mis-quoting me. Don't be going and adding stuff I didn't say. Again, my comments were directed to the statement I quoted, nothing else.

I get the idea that you two could argue about whether or not the sky is blue.

Only, if he said I said something I didn't say. Ever notice the theme of these arguments? I say something. KBI or his brother respond with by trying to call me down on some twisting of something I said. It's not just me, but they do it to others, as well. I don't know if it's the subject matter or the author, but without discussing the topic, they twist what is said or leverage something no said into something else.

And from my point of view the theme is that first you say something in reply to an out of context quote of someone else, you give a strawman argument, or your post is ambiguous enough that I want to ask for clarification, or a combination of the three, or maybe even worse. Then I reply to you to either call you on something or point out a glaring contradiction, and you come back with even more drivel. Eventually you completely run out of logical replies and resort to name calling and then accuse someone of word twisting.

 

Forums are a perfect medium for their type of "play," because, in person, folks wouldn't stand for it--they'd either walk away or pop one of them in the mouth--but also there is no semi-permanent audience to enjoy their brilliant intellect and humor.

For you to assume that someone would pop one of us in the mouth, if in person, for having a discussion and calling that person out on something wrong that they said tells me a lot about how you think discussions face to face should go. I wonder if Sissy ever has to tell people she fell down after disagreeing with you about something?

 

Too bad they can't argue the actual subject, and have to resort to such tactics. That, in itself, is telling.

It's also the pot calling the kettle black. If it were possible I'd love to see a running tally of how often you post off topic when trying to argue a point.

[+Kit Fox]

I went back and re-read your comment again just now:

No, you didn't. You are mis-quoting me. Don't be going and adding stuff I didn't say. Again, my comments were directed to the statement I quoted, nothing else.

I get the idea that you two could argue about whether or not the sky is blue.

Only, if he said I said something I didn't say. Ever notice the theme of these arguments? I say something. KBI or his brother respond with by trying to call me down on some twisting of something I said. It's not just me, but they do it to others, as well. I don't know if it's the subject matter or the author, but without discussing the topic, they twist what is said or leverage something no said into something else.

And from my point of view the theme is that first you say something in reply to an out of context quote of someone else, you give a strawman argument, or your post is ambiguous enough that I want to ask for clarification, or a combination of the three, or maybe even worse. Then I reply to you to either call you on something or point out a glaring contradiction, and you come back with even more drivel. Eventually you completely run out of logical replies and resort to name calling and then accuse someone of word twisting.

 

Forums are a perfect medium for their type of "play," because, in person, folks wouldn't stand for it--they'd either walk away or pop one of them in the mouth--but also there is no semi-permanent audience to enjoy their brilliant intellect and humor.

For you to assume that someone would pop one of us in the mouth, if in person, for having a discussion and calling that person out on something wrong that they said tells me a lot about how you think discussions face to face should go. I wonder if Sissy ever has to tell people she fell down after disagreeing with you about something?

 

Too bad they can't argue the actual subject, and have to resort to such tactics. That, in itself, is telling.

It's also the pot calling the kettle black. If it were possible I'd love to see a running tally of how often you post off topic when trying to argue a point.

 

So how did this "nitpicking" contribute to the topic of this discussion? What type of caches do you ignore?

Edited December 10, 2008 by Kit Fox

[Mushtang]

So how did this "nitpicking" contribute to the topic of this discussion? What type of caches do you ignore?

It didn't. But, um.... well, he started it.

 

[+Quiggle]

Rather than discussing the details of the topic at hand, the "group" choose to hairsplit, in a "he said she said" fashion. Nearly every thread the "group" posts in turns into drivel. It would be nice of one thread could stay on topic.

There are certain people that should just use the ignore feature on certain other people, and these threads would have a much better chance to stay on topic.

[Skippermark]

I added one to my ignore list a few minutes ago. It was hidden in a line of holley bushes (sharp leaves) with yucca (very sharp spines) surrounding it in a busy pharmacy parking lot. I drove on by wondering what the CO was thinking when they chose that spot.

Yeah, what's up with that? It's always interesting to read the online logs that say something like, "Got really cut up on this one. Sorry about bleeding all over the logbook..."

 

Fun.

 

Still, I wouldn't ignore it.

[+Moose Mob]

Please stop the squabbling. Let's only post on the topic. Thanks

[Mushtang]

I added one to my ignore list a few minutes ago. It was hidden in a line of holley bushes (sharp leaves) with yucca (very sharp spines) surrounding it in a busy pharmacy parking lot. I drove on by wondering what the CO was thinking when they chose that spot.

Yeah, what's up with that? It's always interesting to read the online logs that say something like, "Got really cut up on this one. Sorry about bleeding all over the logbook..."

 

Fun.

 

Still, I wouldn't ignore it.

I wouldn't ignore it either. Based on the logs I'd just realize I couldn't find that one in my work clothes during a lunch break, and wait until I was more appropriately dressed for the terrain. Not all caches have to be able to be found at any time.

 

For the record, I'm not at all Anti-Ignore List. I don't think it's a bad thing for people to ignore caches that they don't want to find. I just don't happen to have any caches (yet) that I don't want to consider finding someday and would rather ignore. But that's just me. I play the game differently than others do.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I added one to my ignore list a few minutes ago. It was hidden in a line of holley bushes (sharp leaves) with yucca (very sharp spines) surrounding it in a busy pharmacy parking lot. I drove on by wondering what the CO was thinking when they chose that spot.

Yeah, what's up with that? It's always interesting to read the online logs that say something like, "Got really cut up on this one. Sorry about bleeding all over the logbook..."

 

Fun.

 

Still, I wouldn't ignore it.

 

I'm not overly thrilled with high muggle areas where stealth is a must, but usually impossible (you end up standing out in most cases). I won't ignore most of these, but I won't bother with them unless there's a chance no one is around. It's all about the timing in some cases.

[Skippermark]

When we head out to cache, we generally know what caches we'll be finding, but I don't like to ignore any caches because I may want to do them someday. Some aren't my favorite type, but I might be like, "Hey, let's try this one today..."

 

I'm not anti-ignore list either. I just can't say with 100% certainty that there are caches I'll never want to find and like having my less favorite types get downloaded in my PQ in case I want to go for them.

 

I think I'm the opposite of a lot of people in that if there's a cache type that I don't like as much, I'll often watch it to see what people say about it/them.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Skippermark

[+9Key]

Maybe I need to spin off a new topic like criminal's long running "I found it" topic for caches like these >

I wonder where it is...

Edited December 12, 2008 by 9Key

[+TrailGators]

Maybe I need to spin off a new topic like criminal's long running "I found it" topic for caches like these >

I wonder where it is...

[Mr.Yuck]

Maybe I need to spin off a new topic like criminal's long running "I found it" topic for caches like these >

I wonder where it is...

 

Shirley, you can't be serious.

[+TrailGators]

Maybe I need to spin off a new topic like criminal's long running "I found it" topic for caches like these >

I wonder where it is...

 

Shirley, you can't be serious.

I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

[+Parabola]

Maybe I need to spin off a new topic like criminal's long running "I found it" topic for caches like these >

I wonder where it is...

 

I am speechless and a bit confused. The only word that comes to mind is why?? A ziplock is the container.

[+sbell111]

What the hockey sticks is this thread's topic?

 

A quick check of my ignore list revealed seven caches.

• Three are old archived events that I wasn't interested in attending.
  
• One is an archived virt seemingly on the grounds of an airport in a city that I have never been to that is something like 150 miles from anywhere that I've ever cached. I'm not sure why it's on the list.
  
• One is a multi-ish virt that would require going to all 50 states to complete. It's on the list because the owner (at least at one time) would change the coords so it popped on in my area. Iggy fixed that problem.
  
• One is a puzzle that I have no clue how to solve and got bored trying.
  
• One is a Wherigo cache that requires a boat. While I may one day cobble together the equipment necessary to do a Wherigo, I still won't have a boat.
  
• I would also iggy caches that I couldn't find after repeated attempts if the attempts weren't fun for me, but I haven't apparently iggied any for this reason yet.
  

Since I have ignored caches but not railed about them, does that mean that I hate the game?

[Mr.Yuck]

Maybe I need to spin off a new topic like criminal's long running "I found it" topic for caches like these >

I wonder where it is...

 

Shirley, you can't be serious.

I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

 

Hmm. I never saw that one coming. That cache is from a zero find, one hide account. I'll bet it's a sock puppet, trying to be funny. A good candidate for that current joke cache thread, I think.

[+TrailGators]

Maybe I need to spin off a new topic like criminal's long running "I found it" topic for caches like these >

I wonder where it is...

 

Shirley, you can't be serious.

I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

 

Hmm. I never saw that one coming.

Huh? That line was straight from Airplane. I couldn't resist.

[+pppingme]

None, some day soon I'll be able to say "I've found all caches within 100 miles of me".

[+niraD]

Since the the advent of the ignore list, i'm curious as to what type of caches you choose to ignore.

Which caches do I ignore? Or which caches are on my ignore list?

 

I've never used my ignore list. But I have ignored a couple caches that have showed up at the top of my "nearest to home" list. One was a series final (mystery cache) that was 10-20 miles away from its posted coordinates. I have no idea why its posted coordinates were so far from its actual location. There were problems with several of the caches in the series, and I had no desire to seek them or the series final. Eventually the series final disappeared. Or maybe the coordinates were corrected so it's no longer on my "nearest to home list". Either way, I no longer need to ignore it.

 

And at the moment, there is a (grandfathered) traveling cache that shows up near my home, but which is now miles away.

[+Max and 99]

I ignore caches that others have indicated are amongst rubble and you have to search thru trash to find it. Who would want to do that? Genrally speaking, I ignore caches at the owner's house UNLESS I have met them personally and feel comfortable going on their property.

[+DK Dogs]

Since I am really new at this I can tell you already that I dont like spending my time looking for micros-nanos. I almost always take my daughter so if there is not something to trade than she looses intrest fast. She is 3 and loves the ones she can take something from and add something too.

Thanks

Dave

[+Pat in Louisiana]

My ignore list just contains the caches I own.

[+Knight2000]

Since the the advent of the ignore list, i'm curious as to what type of caches you choose to ignore.

No caches. Cachers, yes. You know- the ones who hide rusty skoal cans at McDonalds.

[+sbell111]

Since the the advent of the ignore list, i'm curious as to what type of caches you choose to ignore.

No caches. Cachers, yes. You know- the ones who hide rusty skoal cans at McDonalds.

Huzzah! Another problem solved by the makers of plastic.

[+WHO-DEY]

As I go with my son, I ignore ALL micros and nano's. Hate em. I found a few, but they are a waste of time and server space IMHO. I hid one, because I had the container and log given to me. AND IT IS DEEP IN THE WOODS..not in a PG light skirt. The container is big enough for a coin or small TB. Very small TB. But I will never hide another.

Micro's and Nano's are lazy caches IMHO.

[+KBI]

I ignore caches that others have indicated are amongst rubble and you have to search thru trash to find it. Who would want to do that?

Well, since you asked: Me.

 

Just a few days ago I found a micro (logged under my other account) which was hidden among the trash in a trash-strewn vacant lot in an industrial area.

 

It was one of the most cleverly designed hides I have ever seen. It demonstrated both inspired creativity and deft craftsmanship. I was stumped at first, and then I laughed out loud when I finally found it. It made my day. I’d love to describe the hide in more detail, but I’ve probably spoiled it too much already.

 

Ammo cans in the woods are little more entertaining than skirt-lifters; they give me something enjoyable to do, but that’s usually about it. Most of them are about the same.

 

But you never know what to expect. It is the promise of the occasional and outstandingly impressive surprise, the unexpected and entertaining burst of playful originality, that keeps me caching.

 

You never really know for sure which hides are going to be the really great ones until you actually find them. Even the online logs won’t always reliably tell. That’s why I never ignore ANY caches.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Puzzles, hate hate hate. I am not the brightest and I truly don't need a stinking puzzle to remind me of this!

[+Star*Hopper]

"Which caches do I ignore?"

 

Well, the one in a pickle park in Goldsboro where you gotta "wade thru ankle-deep used condoms", for one.

 

Won't even drive my Blazer down the road to it, in fact.

And can't help but wonder how those who "don't ignore any caches" would handle that'n.

 

(& right now, after typing 'handle', have a strong urge to go wash my hands.)

~*

[+OienLabs]

I tend to ignore all caches in close proximity to private homes.

 

It is of course easy to be stealhty hiding such caches, but retrieving them may be not.

 

There are enough stories of the police have been called due to suspicious behavour.

 

And I can think of several othe reasons to stay away from those caches.

[+KBI]

"Which caches do I ignore?"

 

Well, the one in a pickle park in Goldsboro where you gotta "wade thru ankle-deep used condoms", for one.

 

Won't even drive my Blazer down the road to it, in fact.

 

And can't help but wonder how those who "don't ignore any caches" would handle that'n.

Well wonder no more.

 

I am one of "those" who "don't ignore any caches." When I find myself in any place I judge to be too uncomfortable, too unsafe, too weird, too unsanitary, too high, too wet, too dark, too hot, too cold – or in any other way too unpleasant for caching – I simply turn around and leave.

 

Shocked? Surprised? I ask because I can't help but wonder how those who "ignore certain caches" assumed those of us who "don't ignore any caches" thought we handled it.

[+Rockin Roddy]

"Which caches do I ignore?"

 

Well, the one in a pickle park in Goldsboro where you gotta "wade thru ankle-deep used condoms", for one.

 

Won't even drive my Blazer down the road to it, in fact.

 

And can't help but wonder how those who "don't ignore any caches" would handle that'n.

Well wonder no more.

 

I am one of "those" who "don't ignore any caches." When I find myself in any place I judge to be too uncomfortable, too unsafe, too weird, too unsanitary, too high, too wet, too dark, too hot, too cold – or in any other way too unpleasant for caching – I simply turn around and leave.

 

Shocked? Surprised? I ask because I can't help but wonder how those who "ignore certain caches" assumed those of us who "don't ignore any caches" thought we handled it.

 

Wait, you mean to tell me that you have a choice when you get to GZ?