Mushtang Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 If there were 10 ammo cans in the park instead of 10 micros, would you be equally upset about all the spaces being taken up and no room left for those that prefer something else?I doubt anyone would be upset about 10 ammo cans in a forest/park. Can you point me to forum posts where people are complaining about too many regular size caches in the forest? I think the problem with micros are that they usually indicate a cache placed with little care and thought (not all of them, but from my experience most of them - maybe one in 50 are placed because it's the only size that will fit in the interesting location). A micro in a forest generally indicates a placement done because it's cheap - a piece of paper for a logbook, a free film canister, often not even a pencil provided (when a small one will fit - but the cache owner doesn't want to have to cut one down to size). But the fact is that every one of those micros in the park, the evil micros that are keeping the beloved ammo cans out, are getting tons of finds and are enjoyed by lots of people. These micros may not be the types of caches that YOU prefer. They're certainly not my preference either. The problem I have with this thread is the mindset that some people have, that if other people are enjoying the game playing it differently - they're obviously doing it WRONG. If they hide too many micros, they're obviously not thinking of other cachers, they're only thinking of themselves. How dare they! Nevermind the fact that the hiders of these evil micros probably had fun hiding them, and have fun getting the notifications that they've been found (again and again and again). Since these notifications are short logs and not long rambling stories about how great the caching experience was, the cache owner couldn't possibly be enjoying them. The (very many) people that are finding these caches couldn't possibly be enjoying them as much as an ammo can full of worthless crap, therefore these evil micros are wasting space. They're hogging valuable real estate that ammo cans could occupy, which would bring more enjoyment to the caching community. How dare the owners of these evil micros not play the game the right way, and hide stuff that WE like. I just can't bring myself to look down upon someone else that is playing the same game I am, because they're not playing it the way that I do or the way I'd prefer that they do. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 ...But the fact is that every one of those micros in the park, the evil micros that are keeping the beloved ammo cans out, are getting tons of finds and are enjoyed by lots of people. ... Adding to that simple fact is that a larger container would be enjoyed even more by yet more cachers all other things being equil. If the goal is fun, more of it had by more people is better. If the goal is less fun had by less people, that does fit some owners intent and if that's their intent well heck, I won't begrudge them that. Quote Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 It's the whole premise here that is wrong: Wasting great Swag space... Yes, a lot of micros are a waste. Poorly done and poorly hidden numbers inflaters. If well done, a lot of micros are great, and a lot of fun! We have a devious and ingenious local cacher, who mostly hides small to micro caches in the woods. Any and all of them are great fun! He once commented that he had been considering that area where I hid an ammo can for a hide. I'm almost sorry that my ammo can got in his way. His hides are more fun! As to my one 'micro in the woods'. One has to realize my sense of satire and sarcasm... The state park it is in is almost 4000 acres, and has three caches. One of which is an ammo can of mine. Yes, the micro is a bison tube, stuffed up the rear of a three pound metal rabbit sculpture, hidden in a tree stump. Nothing hard about finding it, and it is fun (or so I think). Wasting space? The park is almost 4000 acres! Wanna hide some more ammo cans? There's lots of room! Go for it! Quote Link to comment
+david5kfull Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I found all of these posts pretty interesting. You can obviously tell that there are just as many ways to play this game as there are opinions to this issue. My expectation is that the more urban the cache, the smaller it will typically be. However, “expectation” is the key word here. I like all types of hides but don’t typically find a lot of enjoyment from those that seemed “thrown” in an area rather than planned. I don’t have a lot placed because I take a lot of time looking for an enjoyable location and spending time constructing a cache that others will appreciate. You can’t control what others do or how they play the game, but you can control how you do it. If the caches are boring in that area, then don’t search for them. The cache page provides all of the information that you need to determine if this particular hide is something that you are interested in. If you want to improve your area, it is up to you as the cacher. I have several that I will be placing soon that I am sure no one has seen before. If you establish a reputation that your caches are truly unique, then your caches will be favorites and you will in turn raise the bar to other cachers in your area. That is what I am trying to do… I hope it works… Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 You can’t control what others do or how they play the game, but you can control how you do it. That is so often the key to individual happiness. Quote Link to comment
Mushtang Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ...But the fact is that every one of those micros in the park, the evil micros that are keeping the beloved ammo cans out, are getting tons of finds and are enjoyed by lots of people. ... Adding to that simple fact is that a larger container would be enjoyed even more by yet more cachers all other things being equil. If the goal is fun, more of it had by more people is better. If the goal is less fun had by less people, that does fit some owners intent and if that's their intent well heck, I won't begrudge them that. Once again, someone suggesting that the ammo can is obviously the "right" way to have done it, so therefore the cache owner did it wrong. Simple Traditionals are probably enjoyed by more cachers than 10 stage multi caches with hard puzzles are. Does that mean if someone puts out a difficult puzzle their goal, or intent, must be less fun for less people? Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ...But the fact is that every one of those micros in the park, the evil micros that are keeping the beloved ammo cans out, are getting tons of finds and are enjoyed by lots of people. ... Adding to that simple fact is that a larger container would be enjoyed even more by yet more cachers all other things being equil. If the goal is fun, more of it had by more people is better. If the goal is less fun had by less people, that does fit some owners intent and if that's their intent well heck, I won't begrudge them that. Once again, someone suggesting that the ammo can is obviously the "right" way to have done it, so therefore the cache owner did it wrong. Simple Traditionals are probably enjoyed by more cachers than 10 stage multi caches with hard puzzles are. Does that mean if someone puts out a difficult puzzle their goal, or intent, must be less fun for less people? Wright and wrong is different than more fun and less fun. Some cache owners could simply use a larger container in their hide and up the enjoyment factor with no negative consequence whatsoever. If there actually were some kind of issue then at least they thought about it. This is pretty simple stuff, but it only applies if you are interested in increasing the enjoyment people have in finding your caches. Your argument is one against control but perhaps you should be focusing on why a larger container is less fun, and how kids hate swag and beg their parents to hunt micros and such. It's the opposite of what I've seen but maybe you have better experience. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) People hide caches that they would like to find. They should not hide the cache that the most people would like to find as this would result in nothing but vanilla caches. This is pretty simple stuff. Edited June 11, 2009 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
Mushtang Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 People hide caches that they would like to find. They should not hide the cache that the most people would like to find as this would result in nothing but vanilla caches. This is pretty simple stuff. I would say that people hide caches that they would like to hide. It's even simpler. Quote Link to comment
Mushtang Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 ...But the fact is that every one of those micros in the park, the evil micros that are keeping the beloved ammo cans out, are getting tons of finds and are enjoyed by lots of people. ... Adding to that simple fact is that a larger container would be enjoyed even more by yet more cachers all other things being equil. If the goal is fun, more of it had by more people is better. If the goal is less fun had by less people, that does fit some owners intent and if that's their intent well heck, I won't begrudge them that. Once again, someone suggesting that the ammo can is obviously the "right" way to have done it, so therefore the cache owner did it wrong. Simple Traditionals are probably enjoyed by more cachers than 10 stage multi caches with hard puzzles are. Does that mean if someone puts out a difficult puzzle their goal, or intent, must be less fun for less people? Wright and wrong is different than more fun and less fun. Some cache owners could simply use a larger container in their hide and up the enjoyment factor with no negative consequence whatsoever. If there actually were some kind of issue then at least they thought about it. This is pretty simple stuff, but it only applies if you are interested in increasing the enjoyment people have in finding your caches. Your argument is one against control but perhaps you should be focusing on why a larger container is less fun, and how kids hate swag and beg their parents to hunt micros and such. It's the opposite of what I've seen but maybe you have better experience. Right and wrong is different than more fun and less fun... but if I hide a micro cache that you think is "less fun" and you complain about it in the forums because it's not the kind of cache that holds swag that more people would enjoy, are you not suggesting that I should have hidden a larger cache? That seems like you're saying it was wrong to me. Quote Link to comment
+TeamFiestyMidgets Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 I feel like we are playing the game at the fair....where the gopher comes out of the hole and you try to hit it. But very few REALLY hit the target! I find it funny all the people that are telling me what I AM SAYING. LOL and WHERE my park is. I will admit that the title was a bit to much.....wasting great swag space . SHould have read......Balance is the Key. Still I think that would have been back at the gopher game! Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) You stated that there was a problem with caches in a specific park, but chose to not give the actual location. Others had to suss out the park for themselves, only to find that no real problem exists. If you don't care for the micros hidden in this small park, don't look for them. Go after the three larger caches and the earthcache, instead. If you want to hide yet another cache in this park, you very likely can. If you can't do so, then you should have done it prior to the end of this last December when the micros that you object to were hidden. First come, first served is a good rule that has served the game well for many years. The simple fact is that there will never be true balance, but given that the game has been around for nearly a decade, the community has certainly gotten what it wants. I'm personally not going to get too upset to find that what the community wants differs from what some individual cachers demand. Edited June 11, 2009 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+TeamFiestyMidgets Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 You stated that there was a problem with caches in a specific park, but chose to not give the actual location. Others had to suss out the park for themselves, only to find that no real problem exists. If you don't care for the micros hidden in this small park, don't look for them. Go after the three larger caches and the earthcache, instead. If you want to hide yet another cache in this park, you very likely can. If you can't do so, then you should have done it prior to the end of this last December when the micros that you object to were hidden. First come, first served is a good rule that has served the game well for many years. The simple fact is that there will never be true balance, but given that the game has been around for nearly a decade, the community has certainly gotten what it wants. I'm personally not going to get too upset to find that what the community wants differs from what some individual cachers demand. BOINGGGGG.........BOINGGGGG.........BOINGGGGGG..........MISS Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 You stated that there was a problem with caches in a specific park, but chose to not give the actual location. Others had to suss out the park for themselves, only to find that no real problem exists. If you don't care for the micros hidden in this small park, don't look for them. Go after the three larger caches and the earthcache, instead. If you want to hide yet another cache in this park, you very likely can. If you can't do so, then you should have done it prior to the end of this last December when the micros that you object to were hidden. First come, first served is a good rule that has served the game well for many years. The simple fact is that there will never be true balance, but given that the game has been around for nearly a decade, the community has certainly gotten what it wants. I'm personally not going to get too upset to find that what the community wants differs from what some individual cachers demand. BOINGGGGG.........BOINGGGGG.........BOINGGGGGG..........MISS Way to add to the discussion. Quote Link to comment
+chuckwagon101 Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) **Voice of Hector Elizondo in "Valdez is Coming"** "What is all this talk of container size? You want me to clear up the problem? I go. First you get a big pile of sticks for WHATEVER container you choose. Next you SHUN all containers that do not have the Big Pile of Sticks. Then you plow salt into the ground of all caches that do not meet the criteria of The Big Pile Of Sticks. Now.....let us go look for some suitable branches...and bits of bark....and chunks of lovely blowdown!" Edited June 11, 2009 by chuckwagon101 Quote Link to comment
+wandrlust Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Why is it so hard for people to get the point of the OP posts? It doesn't seem that difficult to me, yet it is flying right over so many heads. Weird...I usually suck at whack-a-mole. Quote Link to comment
+Zolgar Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Zolgar understands what the OP was trying to say. Zolgar understood it from reading the first post. He even agrees with it, to an extent. However he finds the OPs statement amusing. There is a 3 mile hike, Zolgar will assume that this 3 mile hike is diagonally across a small feild, with LOTS of zigging and zagging, making the field barely more than 1 square mile. Within a 1 square mile field there is space for 100 geocaches according to the rules. (1/10th a mile in any direction), so even if we presume they are placed such that they could somehow take up 2 spots, that would still leave 50 spots. The OP expresses that the area is "filled" by 10 micros. Zolgar is willing to bet that with a little creativity and the willingness to do a bit of bushwhacking, the OP could hide several larger caches in the same area. Quote Link to comment
Mushtang Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Zolgar is willing to bet that with a little creativity and the willingness to do a bit of bushwhacking, the OP could hide several larger caches in the same area. Mushtang agree with Zolgar! But the OP doesn't want to hide more caches. She just wants to complain that there isn't enough of a variety out there, and that the selfish hiders didn't take into account HER preferences before they selfishly hid the caches that THEY wanted to hide. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.