Jump to content

Micros, micros, and more micros


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Ok folks, be prepared for a short, but heartfelt rant.

 

This past Friday after work, I took off to go caching. I drove about 15 minutes northwest of my house, which is enough to get you into a semi-rural area... lots of country lanes, big fields, horses, goats, country houses more than a mile apart each, few cars and people.

 

As I started caching, I realized that literally every single cache in this area was placed by the same person and of two types: magnetic nano or plastic micro seed tube, and in one of two locations: stop sign pole, or attached to the underside of a fire hydrant. After finding 17 caches, of which the two notable exceptions were a decon box at the beginning of the hunt and a giant bucket at the end, it seemed as if EVERY SINGLE cache within three square miles was a micro of this type.

 

Given the undeveloped country location with soooooooooo many good places to hide something bigger, something more interesting, something more fun to find.....

 

WHAT IS UP WITH ALL THE MICROS???

 

I'm not fundamentally opposed to micros - when well thought out and interspersed with other types of caches they can be a nice challenge and change of pace, but really.... three square miles of the exact same hide?

 

I realize this has all been addressed before, but I just had to vent.

 

I return you now to your regularly scheduled program -

BlueDamsel

Link to comment

Ok folks, be prepared for a short, but heartfelt rant.

 

This past Friday after work, I took off to go caching. I drove about 15 minutes northwest of my house, which is enough to get you into a semi-rural area... lots of country lanes, big fields, horses, goats, country houses more than a mile apart each, few cars and people.

 

As I started caching, I realized that literally every single cache in this area was placed by the same person and of two types: magnetic nano or plastic micro seed tube, and in one of two locations: stop sign pole, or attached to the underside of a fire hydrant. After finding 17 caches, of which the two notable exceptions were a decon box at the beginning of the hunt and a giant bucket at the end, it seemed as if EVERY SINGLE cache within three square miles was a micro of this type.

 

Given the undeveloped country location with soooooooooo many good places to hide something bigger, something more interesting, something more fun to find.....

 

WHAT IS UP WITH ALL THE MICROS???

 

I'm not fundamentally opposed to micros - when well thought out and interspersed with other types of caches they can be a nice challenge and change of pace, but really.... three square miles of the exact same hide?

 

I realize this has all been addressed before, but I just had to vent.

 

I return you now to your regularly scheduled program -

BlueDamsel

Yes, I agree with your observations, as I suspect that any sane reader would. The rapidly escalating proliferation of lame urban micros is a bizarre phenomenon, and yet no one seems to be able take responsibility for the placement of all these weird lame urban micros. It is almost as if they had all been placed by ghosts, as if an occult hand had reached down from above and and moved the ghostly placers like pawns upon some giant chessboard,

 

To some extent, you can avoid at least some of the lame urban micros by running a PQ and eliminating micros in the search criteria, but this also eliminates the good micros as well, and it also fails to exclude the many lame micros where the cache owner, trying to be cute, has left container size unspecified or has deliberately lied and stated the size as small or regular. I personally feel that all these offenses should be punishable by the death penalty (with a bit of waterboarding first, just as a warmup...), but that is just my own addled opinion, and I am hardly the sharpest knife in the drawer!

 

.

Link to comment

And just one more thought....

 

You could always consider the option of holding a Burning Micro event, a la the Burning Man Festival, but, in this case, instead of burning a wooden giant effigy of a man, you would ask attendees to collect all the lame urban micros within a fifty mile radius, and then burn them in a bonfire. However, I have been hearing rumors lately that the admins at Groundspeak may no longer be enamored of this practice, and that they may have stopped listing such events on their site. And, there is one additional problem as well: many of these lame urban micros are constructed out of plastics, and, when they are burned at temperatures commonly found in a bonfire, they tend to emit large amounts of toxic airborne pollutants as they burn; this means that you could easily run afoul of EPA guidelines for smokestack and bonfire airborne emissions.

 

.

Link to comment

If you knew what the caches were and you knew that you weren't enjoying finding them, why did you continue looking for them? Generally, if I'm not enjoying what I am doing, I alter my behavior.

 

My usual caching procedure is to drive to an area and clean up every cache there, to save driving time and gas. I also don't usually look at the cache notes until I get to the site - because I usually like surprises. Unfortunately, Friday's caching was just not a good surprise. As Vinny mentioned, excluding all micros from a pocket query up front would also exclude micros that are well thought out and well placed with unique containers. I don't necessarily want to exclude all micros for this reason.

 

However, I will have to say that Friday's experience definitely changed my caching on Saturday and Sunday. I found myself looking at the cache notes up front to see what size the container was. However (and this is the problem with excluding micros) I did visit one micro which was nearby a larger cache just because it was there and a very short walk from the larger one, and it turned out to be a nice little micro that was a bit of an unusual find in a park I would enjoy visiting again, that I didn't know was there. I would have missed it if I'd just ignored it.

 

Therefore, excluding all micros isn't really a good option.

 

However I might start excluding all caches by one particular person :laughing:

Edited by BlueDamsel
Link to comment

And just one more thought....

 

You could always consider the option of holding a Burning Micro event, a la the Burning Man Festival, but, in this case, instead of burning a wooden giant effigy of a man, you would ask attendees to collect all the lame urban micros within a fifty mile radius, and then burn them in a bonfire. However, I have been hearing rumors lately that the admins at Groundspeak may no longer be enamored of this practice, and that they may have stopped listing such events on their site. And, there is one additional problem as well: many of these lame urban micros are constructed out of plastics, and, when they are burned at temperatures commonly found in a bonfire, they tend to emit large amounts of toxic airborne pollutants as they burn; this means that you could easily run afoul of EPA guidelines for smokestack and bonfire airborne emissions.

 

.

 

Somehow I knew that I'd get a Vinny response. I'm smiling now. Rant over! :laughing:

Link to comment

"Micro" is a size, not a measure of quality. (Borrowed from the "Micro is a size, not a type" mantra.)

 

I've taken to filtering out all micros beyond a certain distance from my home coordinates. This doesn't eliminate all lame caches, but it hacks out the majority. You'll still get a few larger caches that aren't well placed as using too-small container is not the only way to mess up a placement.

 

I think far too many cachers are simply lazy. Any one particular spot can be much more easily served by placing a micro. It can be real work to place a larger cache. That's not say a regular automatically makes a great cache. The journey, the location, the size and type of container are all factors that make an entertaining cache. Fail in any one and the entertainment value drops.

 

It seems as though the typical micro has become the "anti-cache" cache. There's rarely any trinkets and most are in less-than-interesting locations. Think of the typical fantastic cache and take away everything that makes it fantastic and you now have your typical micro.

Link to comment

And just one more thought....

 

... collect all the lame urban micros within a fifty mile radius, and then burn them in a bonfire. However, I have been hearing rumors lately that the admins at Groundspeak may no longer be enamored of this practice, and that they may have stopped listing such events on their site...

The rumor is that they are changing the policy to allow you to burn the hider of lame urban micos, instead of the micros themselves. There will be very strict guidelines (not rules) for how this will be done. :laughing:

Link to comment
.. excluding all micros from a pocket query up front would also exclude micros that are well thought out and well placed with unique containers. I don't necessarily want to exclude all micros for this reason.
You're not the first one to use this excuse, and you won't be the last.

 

It's such a lame excuse and an obvious way for people to still be able to complain about the micros they hate while playing the victim with no choices. Eliminating micros from your PQ will leave you with more caches than you can ever find, and they'll all be closer to what you prefer. That's why the option to customize a PQ exists.

 

Granted, if you do that you'll miss some good micros. But if you don't eliminate them from your PQ you're going to miss some good non-micros. Which option will bring you the most satisfaction?

 

I don't get why people seem to think that the rest of the hiders owe them a hide that fits within their preferences.

Link to comment

The greatest thing about geocaching is the variety of hides and hiders out there. The trick is figuring out what you want to hunt on a particular day and who has hid those cache where you want to go caching.

 

I had a lot of FUN Saturday caching in the freezing rain because I did my homework and planned an appropriate route that gave me a mix of locations but minimized my exposure to the elements. It wasn't a good day for a long hike in the woods to find some ammo cans at nice views. Maybe I'll do that next weekend though.

Link to comment

Another good antidote for a case of the "micro-blahs" is ensuring that you are caching with others that are fun to be with. Then, on those occasions when your percepton of a cache is less-than-satisfying, you'll likely never really know it (or at least, won't be tempted to angst over it), cause you are having too much fun just enjoying your friends and companions.

 

Works like a charm.

Link to comment

And just one more thought....

 

You could always consider the option of holding a Burning Micro event, a la the Burning Man Festival, but, in this case, instead of burning a wooden giant effigy of a man, you would ask attendees to collect all the lame urban micros within a fifty mile radius, and then burn them in a bonfire. However, I have been hearing rumors lately that the admins at Groundspeak may no longer be enamored of this practice, and that they may have stopped listing such events on their site. And, there is one additional problem as well: many of these lame urban micros are constructed out of plastics, and, when they are burned at temperatures commonly found in a bonfire, they tend to emit large amounts of toxic airborne pollutants as they burn; this means that you could easily run afoul of EPA guidelines for smokestack and bonfire airborne emissions.

 

 

Somehow I knew that I'd get a Vinny response. I'm smiling now. Rant over! :D

 

I thought the OP was pretty much about the proliferation of rural roadside micros, not urban micros. But I guess if the OP didn't correct Vinny, I must have been wrong. I have, for the record, seen an explosion of rural roadside micros, and I'm sure I will continue to. :D

 

Blue Damsel, you won't get much sympathy from the staunch defenders around here if you are finding these caches, or like to "clear out an area" a term I hear so much. Ignore, Ignore, Ignore. :laughing:

Link to comment

My usual ice cream eating procedure is to drive to the supermarket and eat up every ice cream flavor there, to save driving time and gas. I also don't usually look at the ice cream ingredients until I get to the site - because I usually like surprises. Unfortunately, Friday's ice cream eating was just not a good surprise. As Vinny mentioned, excluding all raspberry ice cream from a pocket query up front would also exclude raspberry ice cream that is well thought out and well made with fresh raspberries. I don't necessarily want to exclude all raspberries for this reason.

 

However, I will have to say that Friday's experience definitely changed my caching on Saturday and Sunday. I found myself looking at the ice cream ingredients up front to see what flavor the ice cream was. However (and this is the problem with excluding raspberry) I did eat one raspberry ice cream which was nearby a vanilla ice cream just because it was there and a right next to it in the freezer case, and it turned out to be a nice little raspberry that was a bit of an unusual flavor in a supermarket I would enjoy visiting again, that I didn't know was there. I would have missed it if I'd just ignored it.

 

Therefore, excluding all raspberry isn't really a good option.

 

However I might start excluding all ice cream by one particular manufacturer :laughing:

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

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

 

If you insist on clearing out all the caches in a area (or eating all the ice cream in a supermarket) you will get sick. When you stop having fun stop for a while or move on to a different area. Some people enjoy finding micros hidden in the same familiar locations be it stop signs or lamp posts. They are happy to be able to find a lot of caches and they don't care about variety. Other people enjoy variety and get bored quickly if they visit an an area where someone has decided to hide a lot of similar caches. There really isn't much that can be done if some local hider has decided to saturate an area with lots of similar caches other than to move on to a new area when you find yourself bored - or to check out who hid the cache and skip the ones by that hider. Whatever you do, remember that we aren't caching in Lake Wobegon where all the caches are above average.

Link to comment
.. excluding all micros from a pocket query up front would also exclude micros that are well thought out and well placed with unique containers. I don't necessarily want to exclude all micros for this reason.
You're not the first one to use this excuse, and you won't be the last.

 

It's such a lame excuse and an obvious way for people to still be able to complain about the micros they hate while playing the victim with no choices. Eliminating micros from your PQ will leave you with more caches than you can ever find, and they'll all be closer to what you prefer. That's why the option to customize a PQ exists.

 

Granted, if you do that you'll miss some good micros. But if you don't eliminate them from your PQ you're going to miss some good non-micros. Which option will bring you the most satisfaction?

 

I don't get why people seem to think that the rest of the hiders owe them a hide that fits within their preferences.

 

This is one of the best posts you have made Mushtang!

 

BlueDamsel,

 

Try checking out my Recipe for fun ( Share your techniques for avoiding caches you dislike. )thread.

 

I recently went on a 7 miles hike, and I actually favorited a nano at the top of a ridge. The cache was a tough find, but the location was the real treasure. I used Geocaching Google maps to find caches in the vicinity of my hike.

Link to comment

And just one more thought....

 

... collect all the lame urban micros within a fifty mile radius, and then burn them in a bonfire. However, I have been hearing rumors lately that the admins at Groundspeak may no longer be enamored of this practice, and that they may have stopped listing such events on their site...

The rumor is that they are changing the policy to allow you to burn the hider of lame urban micos, instead of the micros themselves. There will be very strict guidelines (not rules) for how this will be done. :laughing:

From what I have heard privately, Groundspeak admins will allow events which burn hiders of lame urban micros so long as the burning is done only in compliance with EPA guidelines for incineration of toxin-laden bodies: using a car-towed propane gas-fired portable incinerator that incinerates the body at temperatures above 2,600 F to in order to drastically reduce airborne emissions, and which employs a small gas scrubber at the bottom of the smokestack to capture and sequester at least 90% of the mercury and lead found in the exhaust gas (this stipulation was enacted because hiders of lame urban micros have been found to have, on average, three times as much mercury and four times as much lead in their blood as normal unafflicted hiders.)

 

Gosh, it is almost as if an occult hand had...

 

.

Link to comment

...I'm not fundamentally opposed to micros - when well thought out and interspersed with other types of caches they can be a nice challenge and change of pace, but really...

 

I've seldom seen a hide that would lose it's integrety if it were a small instead of a micro. That said you can filter out all micro's and hunt the larger caches. On the rare occasion that a micro that rises above the unsung masses of chaff comes to your attention you can hunt that one and enjoy the change of pace.

Link to comment
many of these lame urban micros are constructed out of plastics, and, when they are burned at temperatures commonly found in a bonfire, they tend to emit large amounts of toxic airborne pollutants as they burn

Which is worse? Air pollution or creativity pollution? :D:D

 

OK, back on topic:

 

Eliminating micros from your PQ will leave you with more caches than you can ever find

That's been my experience. Early on I discovered that I did not need to find every cache, and decided to focus on maximizing the amount of fun I had on each excursion. Since the local caching population is hiding caches in numbers far greater than my ability to find them, I'll likely never run out of caches which fit my rather biased aesthetics, even after excluding all micros.

 

On a similar note:

 

Another good antidote for a case of the "micro-blahs" is ensuring that you are caching with others that are fun to be with.

My wife Viv, (the brighter half of the Riffster Clan), likes nothing more than poking around for those pesky micros which I loath so much. Since I love spending time with her, regardless of our activities, I have a separate PQ running weekly that covers all the micros & unlisted. When we go out together, these are the ones we hunt for. The end result is, we've kept an area around our home free of unfound caches, without ever intentionally setting this as a goal.

 

Note: This combination of methods does not remove the majority of puzzle caches from my area, as I am dumber than a bag of hammers.

If only we could get a Yahoo puzzle cheat group around here, I'd be in business.... unless I became outraged... :laughing:

Link to comment

Another good antidote for a case of the "micro-blahs" is ensuring that you are caching with others that are fun to be with. Then, on those occasions when your percepton of a cache is less-than-satisfying, you'll likely never really know it (or at least, won't be tempted to angst over it), cause you are having too much fun just enjoying your friends and companions.

 

Works like a charm.

 

You know, this was actually a useful suggestion unlike some other replies here. You'd probably be a fun person to cache with. And you're correct, even the most boring hide is a lot more fun with fun company along.

 

I think some folks really misread my original post. I wasn't making excuses or even asking for advice. You know, I usually don't even dislike stop sign post micros.... it was just this last trip went kind of over the top. Sort of like having the lunchroom serve eggs every day for a month. Even though you might like eggs normally, the mundane menu of only eggs could be enough to make you not want to eat eggs again for a little while!

 

(Yes, we have a lunchroom here. And this problem actually happened in our lunchroom... they served a meal that everyone liked, and the feedback was positive, so they started serving this same meal about twice a week for a loooooong time. Now, whenever I see it on the menu, for some funny reason, I get a bad taste in my mouth.)

 

Anyway, thanks for the truly helpful suggestion. It's refreshing to read some positive replies instead of the snarkiness that seems prevalent on these boards. I always love it when people start complaining about someone making a complaint. :laughing:

 

BlueDamsel

Link to comment

As with nearly every other aspect of this basically inane game, there's pros & cons both ways - and just as many 'likes' and 'dislikes' about every element of the ultimate endgame - finding a hidden object.

 

With that realization, I'd have to ask myself, why do I play - or, what is it about the game that I enjoy, and keeps me playing?

 

Some don't like micros. So what's the difference in the detested micro & the all-holy ammo box they'd prefer? Nothing but the volume of swag it'll hold, the way I see it. Yet what good does it do to find the containers sufficiently large to hold swag, travel bugs &c, when the large majority of those containers, after a month or two in the wild, are either empty, junk, or worse. Yet they'll be the first to claim "it's not about the swag". Sure, I'd love to find huge buckets of gold & diamonds & stacks of money; we all would. But face it - that just ain't gonna happen. So what is it about?

 

"I want a good / long / leisurely / challenging / scenic -- insert superlative scenario of choice - HIKE to the cache's Ground Zero....something I can remember!!" Size doesn't dictate yay or nay on that.

 

Is there something about ammo cans or large Tupperware that automatically connects it with being in a great, scenic location, with an awesome view? No. Besides, a micro can provide all that.

 

Micro's are usually associated with a Park & Grab. If that's what you hate, why not park a mile away & hike to the cache -- ever heard of anybody doing that? No....they park as close by as possible (and how many times have we seen folks carp about "no convenient parking")....grab.....and claim the Smiley. The Smiley!!

 

"It's not about the numbers!!" (aka 'Finds') OK....fine. Take away all the micros you've found from your Find 'score'. What're you left with? A lower score. (And note how people will fight to maintain theirs - keep it up there, & Gawd HELP the CO who "robs" them of one find!! But that's not what it's about, right? Right! BUT, there's another side to that coin. Y'ever consider that without all those micros being hidden, what you'd have left to 'hunt'? Would you prefer that Geocaching be something that you engage in maybe once or twice a year? Again....what would you be hunting if Micros weren't there? I'm bettin' you'd have cleaned out everything within your reach, & your GPSr would be gatherin' dust somewhere. Maybe golfing.

 

Look - I & most anyone else could sit here & think of a thousand different scenarios, favorable and not, with another thousand elements, liked & hated equally, with an equal amount of agree- and disagreement. We all know them, have seen 'em dozens of times, so hashing 'em over again is basically a waste of time. As WG alluded above, one of the great things about the game is the variety of people that play it. To me, in the end, it's all about finding the hidden object, whatever it is, wherever it is....and I happen to be one who also gets enjoyment, & prolly just as much, hiding objects ('gamepieces') so others can continue playing the game.

 

Micros are easy to come by, usu. easier to hide, & in a wider variety of places. Like it or not, they're a part of the game. And finding one counts just as much as a double-size ammo can. As the sign on Mom's kitchen wall said, "You've got two choices - take it or leave it."

 

And as some other wizened Geocacher has said - "If you ain't havin' fun, you're doing something wrong!"

Your call.

 

~*

Link to comment

And just one more thought....

 

You could always consider the option of holding a Burning Micro event, a la the Burning Man Festival, but, in this case, instead of burning a wooden giant effigy of a man, you would ask attendees to collect all the lame urban micros within a fifty mile radius, and then burn them in a bonfire. However, I have been hearing rumors lately that the admins at Groundspeak may no longer be enamored of this practice, and that they may have stopped listing such events on their site. And, there is one additional problem as well: many of these lame urban micros are constructed out of plastics, and, when they are burned at temperatures commonly found in a bonfire, they tend to emit large amounts of toxic airborne pollutants as they burn; this means that you could easily run afoul of EPA guidelines for smokestack and bonfire airborne emissions.

 

 

Somehow I knew that I'd get a Vinny response. I'm smiling now. Rant over! :D

 

I thought the OP was pretty much about the proliferation of rural roadside micros, not urban micros. But I guess if the OP didn't correct Vinny, I must have been wrong. I have, for the record, seen an explosion of rural roadside micros, and I'm sure I will continue to. :D

 

Blue Damsel, you won't get much sympathy from the staunch defenders around here if you are finding these caches, or like to "clear out an area" a term I hear so much. Ignore, Ignore, Ignore. :laughing:

 

This was partially my point. I can really understand micros everywhere in urban spaces where other things can't be hidden... but it's just kind of a waste of good real estate to put them every 10th of a mile in places such as I described, where more variety is possible. I'll still look for and log these sorts of micros when I feel like it, but it seems like a waste to me to having NOTHING but this type of cache in this type of location, and will continue to seem like a waste, despite the comments to ignore.

Link to comment

I'll have to agree a bit here. Very notably on 2 recent cache outings, I saw a very large number of very very rural micro caches. In most cases, a much larger cache could very easily have been hidden in exactly the same spot. We are talking rarely travelled dirt roads a good 25 miles from the nearest town of any description. Leaky film cans. I am not a huge micro fan but I understand them in most urban settings. I include them in my queries because they do offer a chance to see some things. I usually target rural areas because that offers the best chance of both larger containers and worthwhile destinations. However - when it is the only cache within 10 miles out in the middle of a field out in the middle of nowhere - then I start to wonder...........

Link to comment
You know, this was actually a useful suggestion unlike some other replies here.
Yeah, the suggestions telling you that you could have avoided your day of too many micros easily were completely useless. :laughing: Of course it's easier to complain about the micros if you ignore suggestions like that.

 

(Yes, we have a lunchroom here. And this problem actually happened in our lunchroom... they served a meal that everyone liked, and the feedback was positive, so they started serving this same meal about twice a week for a loooooong time. Now, whenever I see it on the menu, for some funny reason, I get a bad taste in my mouth.)
Do you have multiple choices of foods to eat from your lunchroom, or is it just the eggs twice a week or nothing?

 

I think a better example would be a restaurant with a large menu and lots of things to choose from, but you not wanting eggs. Perhaps every single time you look at the entire menu you'll see that there are eggs available, but if you never order them you can always have the foods you like. Right? It would be possible to eat 3 meals a day and never have eggs if you didn't want to. The occasional egg might hit the spot, and you could go back to the non-egg meals.

 

But that wouldn't let you complain about eggs, so that's no good.

Link to comment
.. excluding all micros from a pocket query up front would also exclude micros that are well thought out and well placed with unique containers. I don't necessarily want to exclude all micros for this reason.
You're not the first one to use this excuse, and you won't be the last.

 

It's such a lame excuse and an obvious way for people to still be able to complain about the micros they hate while playing the victim with no choices. Eliminating micros from your PQ will leave you with more caches than you can ever find, and they'll all be closer to what you prefer. That's why the option to customize a PQ exists.

 

Baloney.

 

I just ran a filter on my NotYetFound GSAK database which contains the 500 closest caches I have not found to filter out micros. It reduced the number of caches to 351. While that is still a large number, I have already found every cache within almost 15 miles which essentially eliminates the possibility of geocaching on days that I work. Reducing the available caches that I can find means that I have to travel further and further from home to find *any* caches at all. At some point, I essentially won't have enough free time available to me to find any caches because the distance I have to travel to get them will be too far. The thing is, I like to find geocaches. It's an activity that I enjoy. Like most activities I enjoy I like to do it as often as possible. Filtering out certain types of caches effectively reduces the amount of time I can can go geocaching.

 

If you live in a cache rich area, applying filters may not have much of an impact on ones ability to find caches but in more sparsely populated (by geocaches) areas it can have a significant impact.

Link to comment
.. excluding all micros from a pocket query up front would also exclude micros that are well thought out and well placed with unique containers. I don't necessarily want to exclude all micros for this reason.
You're not the first one to use this excuse, and you won't be the last.

 

It's such a lame excuse and an obvious way for people to still be able to complain about the micros they hate while playing the victim with no choices. Eliminating micros from your PQ will leave you with more caches than you can ever find, and they'll all be closer to what you prefer. That's why the option to customize a PQ exists.

Baloney.

 

I just ran a filter on my NotYetFound GSAK database which contains the 500 closest caches I have not found to filter out micros. It reduced the number of caches to 351. While that is still a large number, I have already found every cache within almost 15 miles which essentially eliminates the possibility of geocaching on days that I work. Reducing the available caches that I can find means that I have to travel further and further from home to find *any* caches at all. At some point, I essentially won't have enough free time available to me to find any caches because the distance I have to travel to get them will be too far. The thing is, I like to find geocaches. It's an activity that I enjoy. Like most activities I enjoy I like to do it as often as possible. Filtering out certain types of caches effectively reduces the amount of time I can can go geocaching.

 

If you live in a cache rich area, applying filters may not have much of an impact on ones ability to find caches but in more sparsely populated (by geocaches) areas it can have a significant impact.

I never said it would leave you with unlimited caches within walking distance.

 

So you're entitled to hiders putting out non-micros just so you don't have to drive further to find a cache? That's what is baloney.

 

If you don't want to drive too far to find caches, then you get what you can find near you. If you don't like what's near you, then you need to drive a little further to cache.

 

I've never thought about complaining to Waffle House that they didn't serve pancakes or french fries simply because a restaurant that did serve them was too far away. That would be stupid.

Link to comment
But that wouldn't let you complain about eggs, so that's no good.
And it won't prevent you from completely missing the point, will it?

 

Over and out.

I think I got the point. You didn't like finding so many micros while you were on your hunt, but it took finding 17 until you realized all you were looking for were micros. You said:
After finding 17 caches... it seemed as if EVERY SINGLE cache within three square miles was a micro of this type.
And it makes me wonder why you didn't know before going to even the first one that you'd be looking for micros. The size is listed on every cache page, so how was it a surprise to you each time?

 

It seemed like the menu contained more than eggs yet you kept ordering eggs and were upset when that's all you got.

 

What point am I missing? Help me understand the problem.

 

Drive to a different part of town that has a higher percentage of non-micros. Filter micros out completely so you can avoid them. Spend a little time and do the little effort it takes to avoid the caches you don't want to find.

Link to comment

 

Baloney.

 

I just ran a filter on my NotYetFound GSAK database which contains the 500 closest caches I have not found to filter out micros. It reduced the number of caches to 351. While that is still a large number, I have already found every cache within almost 15 miles which essentially eliminates the possibility of geocaching on days that I work. Reducing the available caches that I can find means that I have to travel further and further from home to find *any* caches at all. At some point, I essentially won't have enough free time available to me to find any caches because the distance I have to travel to get them will be too far. The thing is, I like to find geocaches. It's an activity that I enjoy. Like most activities I enjoy I like to do it as often as possible. Filtering out certain types of caches effectively reduces the amount of time I can can go geocaching.

 

If you live in a cache rich area, applying filters may not have much of an impact on ones ability to find caches but in more sparsely populated (by geocaches) areas it can have a significant impact.

 

I solved this "problem" by finding other activities to entertain myself with, when i'm not in the mood to hunt lame caches.

Link to comment

(Yes, we have a lunchroom here. And this problem actually happened in our lunchroom... they served a meal that everyone liked, and the feedback was positive, so they started serving this same meal about twice a week for a loooooong time. Now, whenever I see it on the menu, for some funny reason, I get a bad taste in my mouth.)

Of course this is exactly the reason for the snarkyness of some of the response you got. It is so common for people who had a experience like yours to come into the forums and rant about all the boring micros they found over the weekend that every thread like this leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

 

Some people don't like to be told that if they are not having fun it's their fault. Nobody has to find every cache and there are ways to filter what you search for to increase your chances of having fun. But even then there is no guarantee that every cache you find will be up to your standards. Some people prefer hiding micros in places where you might have possibly hidden a larger cache. Strangely, some people enjoy finding these. My take here is that the OP prefers variety and simple was disappointed in every caches being a micro on a stop sign or on fire hydrant. The easiest way to avoid this is to skip to a different area or if these were all placed by the same hider(s) skip any other caches they have hidden. You may need to drive a bit farther. It's your call how much you are willing to spend to have fun. I don't complain when the $2 cinema shows the real clunkers and if I want to see a good movie I have to spend $10.

Link to comment

Another good antidote for a case of the "micro-blahs" is ensuring that you are caching with others that are fun to be with. Then, on those occasions when your percepton of a cache is less-than-satisfying, you'll likely never really know it (or at least, won't be tempted to angst over it), cause you are having too much fun just enjoying your friends and companions.

 

Works like a charm.

 

You know, this was actually a useful suggestion unlike some other replies here. You'd probably be a fun person to cache with. And you're correct, even the most boring hide is a lot more fun with fun company along....

 

Keeping good company is always good advice. In my group we will drive up to a cache take a look out the window and ask. "You feelin it?" Sometimes the answer is no and we go do something else, or go on to the next cache.

Link to comment
If you knew what the caches were and you knew that you weren't enjoying finding them, why did you continue looking for them? Generally, if I'm not enjoying what I am doing, I alter my behavior.
My usual caching procedure is to drive to an area and clean up every cache there, to save driving time and gas. I also don't usually look at the cache notes until I get to the site - because I usually like surprises. Unfortunately, Friday's caching was just not a good surprise. As Vinny mentioned, excluding all micros from a pocket query up front would also exclude micros that are well thought out and well placed with unique containers. I don't necessarily want to exclude all micros for this reason. ...
Let's look at those three statements:
  • My usual caching procedure is to drive to an area and clean up every cache there
  • I also don't usually look at the cache notes until I get to the site - because I usually like surprises
  • excluding all micros from a pocket query up front would also exclude micros that are well thought out and well placed with unique containers

I would recommend trying to 'clean up every cache in an area' if you are finding yourself dissatisfied with some caches. A better plan is try to concentrate on those caches that you are most likely to enjoy and avoid those caches that you are most likely to not enjoy.

 

I would also recommend against not looking at the cache page prior to looking for a cache, if you find that you are not always satisfied with the caches that you find. An ounce of prevention and all that.

 

Your comment that by excluding all micros you are excluding some good ones is an interesting one. While it is true that in my previous post I didn't suggest that you ignore all micros, let's take a look at that idea. Ask yourself what percentage of micros you actually don't enjoy. If that is a fairly high percentage, it might be in your best interest to exclude all micros from your primary PQs.

 

Here's what I would recommend as a solution to your problem. First, I would exclude micros from my primary PQs. I would then pull up the cache pages as I received notifications of new caches in my area. If any of these micro caches look interesting, I'd add them to a bookmark list. If anyone told me of a good micro, I'd put it on the same list. I would then pull a PQ of the bookmark list. I'd merge this PQ with my regular one in GSAK.

 

This would result in you looking for primarily those caches that you like while not being bothered by those that you don't.

 

<Note: I started this reply at least four hours ago. Someone may have since proposed this scheme.>

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Another good antidote for a case of the "micro-blahs" is ensuring that you are caching with others that are fun to be with. ...
You know, this was actually a useful suggestion unlike some other replies here. ...

 

I think some folks really misread my original post. I wasn't making excuses or even asking for advice. ...

So basically, you just wanted to start a thread to complain, but you didn't want any suggestions from anyone else. I'm thinking that this kind of runs contrary to the purposes of a forum. Perhaps a blog would be more to your liking.

 

I'm also reminded of half the arguments I've had with my wife over the years. It turns out that she isn't looking for suggestions, she just wants to vent (except those times when she is looking for solutions and I don't give one.)

I'll have to agree a bit here. Very notably on 2 recent cache outings, I saw a very large number of very very rural micro caches. In most cases, a much larger cache could very easily have been hidden in exactly the same spot. We are talking rarely travelled dirt roads a good 25 miles from the nearest town of any description. Leaky film cans. I am not a huge micro fan but I understand them in most urban settings. I include them in my queries because they do offer a chance to see some things. I usually target rural areas because that offers the best chance of both larger containers and worthwhile destinations. However - when it is the only cache within 10 miles out in the middle of a field out in the middle of nowhere - then I start to wonder...........
I wonder why you believe that everyone likes exactly the same thing as you.
.. excluding all micros from a pocket query up front would also exclude micros that are well thought out and well placed with unique containers. I don't necessarily want to exclude all micros for this reason.
You're not the first one to use this excuse, and you won't be the last.

 

It's such a lame excuse and an obvious way for people to still be able to complain about the micros they hate while playing the victim with no choices. Eliminating micros from your PQ will leave you with more caches than you can ever find, and they'll all be closer to what you prefer. That's why the option to customize a PQ exists.

Baloney.

 

I just ran a filter on my NotYetFound GSAK database which contains the 500 closest caches I have not found to filter out micros. It reduced the number of caches to 351. While that is still a large number, I have already found every cache within almost 15 miles which essentially eliminates the possibility of geocaching on days that I work. Reducing the available caches that I can find means that I have to travel further and further from home to find *any* caches at all. At some point, I essentially won't have enough free time available to me to find any caches because the distance I have to travel to get them will be too far. The thing is, I like to find geocaches. It's an activity that I enjoy. Like most activities I enjoy I like to do it as often as possible. Filtering out certain types of caches effectively reduces the amount of time I can can go geocaching.

 

If you live in a cache rich area, applying filters may not have much of an impact on ones ability to find caches but in more sparsely populated (by geocaches) areas it can have a significant impact.

I'm confused by your post.

 

I live by the belief that all of my fellow cachers should not be required to please me. As such, I understand that not all caches will be my cup of tea, and that's OK. My 'findable' caches is comprised of all the caches less those that are too far away, less the ones that I've found, less the ones that I don't care to find. Any caches in this subset are fair game. It makes no difference how many caches are not within this subset.

 

<Once again, I've finished a post over an hour after I began it. Perhaps some of this drivel was already suggested by someone more timely.>

Link to comment

Fill the log sheet with your log.

Then post "Needs Maintenance" Log Full.

 

If everyone does this, cachers may place larger caches that will accommodate a larger log book that will take more than "B+R " and require fewer maintenance visits.

 

 

:laughing:

I suspect that doing thusly would result in other negative reactions.

Link to comment
.. excluding all micros from a pocket query up front would also exclude micros that are well thought out and well placed with unique containers. I don't necessarily want to exclude all micros for this reason.
You're not the first one to use this excuse, and you won't be the last.

 

It's such a lame excuse and an obvious way for people to still be able to complain about the micros they hate while playing the victim with no choices. Eliminating micros from your PQ will leave you with more caches than you can ever find, and they'll all be closer to what you prefer. That's why the option to customize a PQ exists.

Baloney.

 

I just ran a filter on my NotYetFound GSAK database which contains the 500 closest caches I have not found to filter out micros. It reduced the number of caches to 351. While that is still a large number, I have already found every cache within almost 15 miles which essentially eliminates the possibility of geocaching on days that I work. Reducing the available caches that I can find means that I have to travel further and further from home to find *any* caches at all. At some point, I essentially won't have enough free time available to me to find any caches because the distance I have to travel to get them will be too far. The thing is, I like to find geocaches. It's an activity that I enjoy. Like most activities I enjoy I like to do it as often as possible. Filtering out certain types of caches effectively reduces the amount of time I can can go geocaching.

 

If you live in a cache rich area, applying filters may not have much of an impact on ones ability to find caches but in more sparsely populated (by geocaches) areas it can have a significant impact.

I'm confused by your post.

 

I live by the belief that all of my fellow cachers should not be required to please me. As such, I understand that not all caches will be my cup of tea, and that's OK. My 'findable' caches is comprised of all the caches less those that are too far away, less the ones that I've found, less the ones that I don't care to find. Any caches in this subset are fair game. It makes no difference how many caches are not within this subset.

 

<Once again, I've finished a post over an hour after I began it. Perhaps some of this drivel was already suggested by someone more timely.>

 

I understand that not all caches will be that kind that I would most like to find, but perhaps I'm less discriminating about the caches I don't look for, because I have, overall, fewer caches to look for that are Not too far way.

 

Using the same criteria that you've given, at some point in the future the number of caches which you identify as fair game will approach zero, primarily due to the available time I have compared to the distance required to get to the closest unfound cache. If I place further limits by excluding caches I might not care to find as much as others, the time will come sooner rather than later when I will essentially only be able to go geocaching while traveling on business or vacation. Someone living in a very cache rich area may not ever see this as a problem as the total number of "fair game" caches may still be relatively large and the number of new caches published might significantly exceed that seen in a less active area.

 

I'd be curious in finding out, for those that get instant notification of new caches, how many new caches are published in a week/month, and what the distance value they might be using. I have mine set to 50 miles and, at least over the winter months might see 4-5 new caches a week over that distance.

Link to comment

Another good antidote for a case of the "micro-blahs" is ensuring that you are caching with others that are fun to be with. Then, on those occasions when your percepton of a cache is less-than-satisfying, you'll likely never really know it (or at least, won't be tempted to angst over it), cause you are having too much fun just enjoying your friends and companions.

 

Works like a charm.

 

You know, this was actually a useful suggestion unlike some other replies here. You'd probably be a fun person to cache with. And you're correct, even the most boring hide is a lot more fun with fun company along.

 

I think some folks really misread my original post. I wasn't making excuses or even asking for advice. You know, I usually don't even dislike stop sign post micros.... it was just this last trip went kind of over the top. Sort of like having the lunchroom serve eggs every day for a month. Even though you might like eggs normally, the mundane menu of only eggs could be enough to make you not want to eat eggs again for a little while!

 

(Yes, we have a lunchroom here. And this problem actually happened in our lunchroom... they served a meal that everyone liked, and the feedback was positive, so they started serving this same meal about twice a week for a loooooong time. Now, whenever I see it on the menu, for some funny reason, I get a bad taste in my mouth.)

 

Anyway, thanks for the truly helpful suggestion. It's refreshing to read some positive replies instead of the snarkiness that seems prevalent on these boards. I always love it when people start complaining about someone making a complaint. :laughing:

 

BlueDamsel

Good suggestion. Another thing to do after a day like that is to plan a day of nothing but hiking in the woods. I do that after a day of park and grabs just to keep it all in balance. I like all kinds of caches (some much more than others) and I like to keep mixing it up. I hope to get out in the kayak this Sunday to find one or two after possibly finding a lot of easy caches on Saturday. It's all good in moderation, at least it is for me.

Link to comment
So what's the difference in the detested micro & the all-holy ammo box they'd prefer?

The biggest difference I've noticed is the amount of effort expended by the hider. Obviously my observations are somewhat tinted by my personal caching bias, and this could be naught but a local phenomenon, but around here, when a cache hider uses a film can, they often put as much effort into selecting the location, and developing their hide technique, as they do in acquiring and filling their container, resulting in what is, to me, an uninspired hide. The same logic seems to hold true for ammo cans. The cacher who spends $8 on an ammo can, a couple hours on camo and $50 on swag, will typically expend a great deal more effort in creating their hide, which results in an experience more closely aligned with my caching aesthetics.

 

Naturally, this would be reversed for someone who preferred crappy containers in insipid locations.

 

Yet they'll be the first to claim "it's not about the swag".

I'll gladly leap upon that bandwagon. For me, it's not about the swag. Does that make me a hypocrite in your eyes? I almost never trade, yet I leave signature swag in any cache large enough to hold it. I do however, thoroughly enjoy pawing through swag. Is there an inconsistency there that I don't see?

 

Size doesn't dictate yay or nay on that.

From my experience, it quite often does. Not always mind you, but often enough that I see a definite trend.

 

Y'ever consider that without all those micros being hidden, what you'd have left to 'hunt'?

Uh... Smalls, regulars and larges? :laughing:

Link to comment
.. excluding all micros from a pocket query up front would also exclude micros that are well thought out and well placed with unique containers. I don't necessarily want to exclude all micros for this reason.
You're not the first one to use this excuse, and you won't be the last.

 

It's such a lame excuse and an obvious way for people to still be able to complain about the micros they hate while playing the victim with no choices. Eliminating micros from your PQ will leave you with more caches than you can ever find, and they'll all be closer to what you prefer. That's why the option to customize a PQ exists.

Baloney.

 

I just ran a filter on my NotYetFound GSAK database which contains the 500 closest caches I have not found to filter out micros. It reduced the number of caches to 351. While that is still a large number, I have already found every cache within almost 15 miles which essentially eliminates the possibility of geocaching on days that I work. Reducing the available caches that I can find means that I have to travel further and further from home to find *any* caches at all. At some point, I essentially won't have enough free time available to me to find any caches because the distance I have to travel to get them will be too far. The thing is, I like to find geocaches. It's an activity that I enjoy. Like most activities I enjoy I like to do it as often as possible. Filtering out certain types of caches effectively reduces the amount of time I can can go geocaching.

 

If you live in a cache rich area, applying filters may not have much of an impact on ones ability to find caches but in more sparsely populated (by geocaches) areas it can have a significant impact.

I'm confused by your post.

 

I live by the belief that all of my fellow cachers should not be required to please me. As such, I understand that not all caches will be my cup of tea, and that's OK. My 'findable' caches is comprised of all the caches less those that are too far away, less the ones that I've found, less the ones that I don't care to find. Any caches in this subset are fair game. It makes no difference how many caches are not within this subset.

 

<Once again, I've finished a post over an hour after I began it. Perhaps some of this drivel was already suggested by someone more timely.>

I understand that not all caches will be that kind that I would most like to find, but perhaps I'm less discriminating about the caches I don't look for, because I have, overall, fewer caches to look for that are Not too far way.

 

Using the same criteria that you've given, at some point in the future the number of caches which you identify as fair game will approach zero, primarily due to the available time I have compared to the distance required to get to the closest unfound cache. If I place further limits by excluding caches I might not care to find as much as others, the time will come sooner rather than later when I will essentially only be able to go geocaching while traveling on business or vacation. Someone living in a very cache rich area may not ever see this as a problem as the total number of "fair game" caches may still be relatively large and the number of new caches published might significantly exceed that seen in a less active area.

 

I'd be curious in finding out, for those that get instant notification of new caches, how many new caches are published in a week/month, and what the distance value they might be using. I have mine set to 50 miles and, at least over the winter months might see 4-5 new caches a week over that distance.

Four or five new caches per week pretty much guarantees that you won't run out of caches to look for. Of course, if you did run out of caches in your PQs using the method that I discussed earlier in the thread, you could take a closer look at those micros that were placed prior to implementation of The Method. This review would no doubt turn up more interesting caches to look for. If you were one day to run out of all the caches in your PQs and you ran out of potential good caches in the 'older micro' subset, you could do a few things. You could 1) Look for caches further away, 2) Look for some of those micros that you had been putting off, or 3) hide a few caches. Hiding caches that you like to find often spurs other people to hide similar caches.
Link to comment

Then don't search for micros! I love geocaching for many reasons. Some times I only am able to run out and find a quick micro. Sometimes I like to run around in the woods looking for regular caches. You have the choice to filter any caches you don't like and have free will to only search for what you want. Start a group in your area of people who place regular caches. A you publish a regular and I'll publish a regular sort of thing. I don't like coffee but I'm not angry that every restaurant serves it. I also don't dislike people who drink coffee. I simply don't order it.

Link to comment
However I might start excluding all caches by one particular person :laughing:
Honestly, BlueDamsel this is your best option! Once I learn the microspew droppers I ignore all of their caches that are in my range. It takes time but it's worth it! Some of these folks have hundreds of hides, so I've been asking for this feature. I really think caching boils down to finding caches from people with similar tastes. So eliminating caches hidden by people with very dissimiliar tastes from your PQs is the way to go! :D
Link to comment
Some of these folks have hundreds of hides, so I've been asking for this feature.

That would be my idea of Nirvana. :lol:

 

Then don't search for micros!

For the most part, I don't. Why? Because, (again, for the most part), they are utterly void of even the slightest hint of creativity.

"Hey, Look! A sign post! Let's plop out a film can there! Whoo Hoo!! I know folks love these, 'cuz there are so many finds on them!" <_<

Personally, if my time was so limited that I could only search for these insipid stinkers, I'd open a book.

But that's just me... B)

Link to comment
I know that people love these because they have said so.
Wow... sbell111 says people love micros, it must be so! <_<

 

That's like saying "I know that people love sardines because they have said so."

 

Looking at the discussions that take place here, it seems to me a lot more people come in here starting threads about how micros are bad than "I love micro" threads.

Link to comment

The greatest thing about geocaching is the variety of hides and hiders out there. The trick is figuring out what you want to hunt on a particular day and who has hid those cache where you want to go caching.

 

Indeed variety is nice. Unfortunately in many areas there is little variety.

Link to comment
So what's the difference in the detested micro & the all-holy ammo box they'd prefer?

The biggest difference I've noticed is the amount of effort expended by the hider. Obviously my observations are somewhat tinted by my personal caching bias, and this could be naught but a local phenomenon, but around here, when a cache hider uses a film can, they often put as much effort into selecting the location, and developing their hide technique, as they do in acquiring and filling their container, resulting in what is, to me, an uninspired hide. The same logic seems to hold true for ammo cans. The cacher who spends $8 on an ammo can, a couple hours on camo and $50 on swag, will typically expend a great deal more effort in creating their hide, which results in an experience more closely aligned with my caching aesthetics.

 

Naturally, this would be reversed for someone who preferred crappy containers in insipid locations.

 

Yet they'll be the first to claim "it's not about the swag".

I'll gladly leap upon that bandwagon. For me, it's not about the swag. Does that make me a hypocrite in your eyes? I almost never trade, yet I leave signature swag in any cache large enough to hold it. I do however, thoroughly enjoy pawing through swag. Is there an inconsistency there that I don't see?

 

Size doesn't dictate yay or nay on that.

From my experience, it quite often does. Not always mind you, but often enough that I see a definite trend.

 

Y'ever consider that without all those micros being hidden, what you'd have left to 'hunt'?

Uh... Smalls, regulars and larges? :lol:

 

Now, you wouldn't be one to contextualize on me would'ja, CR? <_<

 

ie, last first - maybe you live in a very cache-rich area. How many smalls, regulars & large within your 'home turf' have you not found? If not all, I'd venture it's relatively few....and when those are found, what then? You want to stand on the position of "oh there'll be plenty more new ones hidden by that time?" Yeah? -- tell me how many (what %) of the new ones won't be micros. Bet?

 

Next-to-last: trend's fine, & again, your area's sheer numbers might afford you plenty of available sport. But the absolute is, size alone DOES NOT dictate the quality of a cache. Just as I said, and you admitted.

 

Next-up: "Is there an inconsistency there that I don't see?"

Ermmmm.....yes! Re-read what you wrote.....all, and take it literally.

Maybe I misinterpret your words. Not to put a label on it, just remember I didn't say hypocrite, but I see what I see. & I mean that in a good way. Let's call it, a conflict of thought & inference.

 

~*

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...