Need 26 reason not to find/hide micros.

[+sbell111]

Especially with an expressed concern that people will filter them based on size.

Perhaps that's a clue that people really don't want to hunt them?

YES! Thank you for saying that.

 

If I don't WANT to see a ton of Micros on my PQ then I shouldn't have to. Market this multi to your TARGET AUDIENCE: Micro lovers. Leave those of us who don't like Micros, and don't want to spend our time hunting them down, to do our own thing, please and thank you.

While I agree that the OP's logic appears to be flawed, it should be noted that no one is forcing you to do anything.

Did I somehow imply I felt I was being forced to do something??

Please see the bolded bit.

 

To the topic:

 

C - Chigger-free cache.

Edited October 5, 2009 by sbell111

[+Haffy]

Micros would be ideal for this farmland with a lot of suspicious farmers anything larger would most certainly get the cops called. A cacher making a quick stop at a guardrail or stop sign would be a much better fit for the area.

 

It's still your usual micro in a guardrail or stop sign so what's the sense in that? I don't get it.

[+Haffy]

 

Again thanks for all the reasons not to hide or find. How about all the reasons TO hide or find Micros now?

 

Edit for spelling.

 

There is no reason.

[+Wogus!]

Please see the bolded bit.

I guess I'm not being clear. I was referencing the OP's reference to not wanting people to be able to filter out these particular Micros. I was trying to say that doing anything along those lines - preventing people from being able to filter-out these particular Micros - would not be to my liking.

[+Renegade Knight]

...How about all the reasons TO hide or find Micros now?...

1) No other container will work to fit the vision demanded by your muse.

2) The only other choice is no cache at all.

 

That's it so far as I can tell.

[+Sol seaker]

Sorry, I've got to add one more "not to".

 

that is my biggest annoyance: micros in the woods that people cant' find so they trash the woods looking for them. any micro that is hard to find in the woods will incur this damage.

 

(regulars can too, but most damage I've seen is from micros)

 

Reasons for micros? In overlooks of beautiful places where there is no room for a large cache.

Any beautiful or interesting place to bring people to that there is no room for a standard size cache in the area.

[GOF and Bacall]

A = Appropriate container for an interesting location. That also works this way.

I = Interesting location where a micro would be the appropriate size container.

 

I do wish that was the case with all micros. The reality is that most do not fall into such a description.

[+Knight2000]

31 replies and nobody has harped on the use of commercially available stamps in a letterbox hybrid?

 

I'm shocked.

Geocachers aren't as hip to the letterbox scene.

 

I like the idea except maybe the theme. I'd imitate it if I wasn't so against placing a micro just for a smiley. I'd be afraid that I would lose respect because our regular hides are a bit unusual.

 

I'd like to see what your result is. Please keep us updated.

[+uxorious]

While I agree that the OP's logic appears to be flawed, it should be noted that no one is forcing you to do anything.

 

But of course the CO would be forcing you to do something you did not want to do, if they could hide the fact these are micros.

Groundspeak gives you the ability to filter for the kind of search you want. If a CO doesn't respect that and finds a way for the cache to show up on your pocket query, or where ever you are filtering. I would say you are being forced to see those caches you should have a right to ignore.

You should not only have a right not to seek them, you should have a right not to have them clutter your list of caches to hunt.

I do not filter for anything, and do not even use the pocket query feature. However, if I did and you found a way to get around my filter, I would just consider you rude.

[modernman]

my 5 year olds reaction to micros

"No prizes"

[+KBI]

While I agree that the OP's logic appears to be flawed, it should be noted that no one is forcing you to do anything.

But of course the CO would be forcing you to do something you did not want to do, if they could hide the fact these are micros.

Groundspeak gives you the ability to filter for the kind of search you want. If a CO doesn't respect that and finds a way for the cache to show up on your pocket query, or where ever you are filtering. I would say you are being forced to see those caches you should have a right to ignore.

You should not only have a right not to seek them, you should have a right not to have them clutter your list of caches to hunt.

I do not filter for anything, and do not even use the pocket query feature. However, if I did and you found a way to get around my filter, I would just consider you rude.

If you dislike a certain cache size that much, then maybe you should consider NOT hunting any caches for which the owner has declined to list the cache size.

 

PQ or no PQ, nobody is forcing anybody to hunt mystery-sized caches.

[+L0ne.R]

If you dislike a certain cache size that much, then maybe you should consider NOT hunting any caches for which the owner has declined to list the cache size.

 

PQ or no PQ, nobody is forcing anybody to hunt mystery-sized caches.

 

My understanding from the guidelines is that all physical caches should have one of the following cache sizes:

 

Cache Sizes

 

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.

 

* Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)

* Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L – holds trade items as well as a logbook)

* Regular (plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox)

* Large (5 gallon/20 L bucket or larger)

[+KBI]

My understanding from the guidelines is that all physical caches should have one of the following cache sizes:

 

Cache Sizes

 

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.

 

* Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)

* Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L – holds trade items as well as a logbook)

* Regular (plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox)

* Large (5 gallon/20 L bucket or larger)

My understanding from the Report a New Cache page, by way of which every new cache is submitted, is that the cache owner can select from among the four choices you listed OR he can select one of these additional cache size options from the same menu:

 

* Not listed

* Other (see cache description)

 

Each of these additional 'sizes' can also be filtered, either for or against, in every Pocket Query.

 

Either of those two selections can be used by the owner to mask the existence of a micro. Therefore, and as I said before: If you dislike a certain cache size that much, then maybe you should consider NOT hunting any caches for which the owner has declined to list the cache size.

[+uxorious]

If you dislike a certain cache size that much, then maybe you should consider NOT hunting any caches for which the owner has declined to list the cache size.

 

I personally do not have a problem of caches of any size, I look for them all. However, I do dislike those people who want to find a way to get their cache on someone else's Pocket query, when they are trying to filter them out.

There are reasons to list a cache as unknown, and people sometimes make a mistake and list a micro as a small. But if someone does that type of thing to get around anothers filter, that person is not worth getting banned by saying what I think of them.

[+KBI]

If you dislike a certain cache size that much, then maybe you should consider NOT hunting any caches for which the owner has declined to list the cache size.

I personally do not have a problem of caches of any size, I look for them all. However, I do dislike those people who want to find a way to get their cache on someone else's Pocket query, when they are trying to filter them out.

There are reasons to list a cache as unknown, and people sometimes make a mistake and list a micro as a small. But if someone does that type of thing to get around anothers filter, that person is not worth getting banned by saying what I think of them.

Do you think there are cache owners out there who mask their cache size only for the purpose of tricking micro-haters, for example, into hunting their micro? What benefit would any owner hope to gain from intentionally annoying another cacher?

 

It has always been my assumption that the only purpose to masking the cache size is to increase the difficulty. Most caches are easier to locate if you know the size; some hiders like to do what they can to increase the challenge.

[+JohnE5]

Everyone chill. I have no intention on using anything other than micro as the size. People in my area will be free to filter them out as necessary. Get over it, you don't cache here!

[+Castle Mischief]

It has always been my assumption that the only purpose to masking the cache size is to increase the difficulty. Most caches are easier to locate if you know the size; some hiders like to do what they can to increase the challenge.

 

I assume that's the CO's intention too. I don't think it "increases the challenge" any more than using soft coordinates or posting a traditional cache under the "?" cache type "increases the challenge". It does increase the challenge of me filtering them out of my PQ- intentional or not.

[+Castle Mischief]

Everyone chill. I have no intention on using anything other than micro as the size. People in my area will be free to filter them out as necessary. Get over it, you don't cache here!

 

It kind of sounded like you were planning that.

 

On the other hand I don't want people of filter them directly out because of their size.

 

And, we get to have opinions no matter were the caches are. Although, in retrospect it might have been a little OT for the thread.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+Knight2000]

My understanding from the guidelines is that all physical caches should have one of the following cache sizes:

 

Cache Sizes

 

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.

 

* Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)

* Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L – holds trade items as well as a logbook)

* Regular (plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox)

* Large (5 gallon/20 L bucket or larger)

Umm, all caches are one of those sizes.

[+uxorious]

It has always been my assumption that the only purpose to masking the cache size is to increase the difficulty. Most caches are easier to locate if you know the size; some hiders like to do what they can to increase the challenge.

 

I'm sure that this is the main reason to mask cache size. I know that sometimes cache size is rated as unknown because the type of cache makes it hard to list a size. However, I have read several posts in these forums that indicate some people would like to mask cache size so it will show up on filtered caches. I have no real idea whether that happens or not. But that is what would chap my hide.

 

Otherwise I agree with you totally. If you don't like it don't hunt it. There are lots of different players in this game, sometimes how one plays will affect you, or how you play will affect others. As long as we are not intentionally annoying another cacher, we are OK.

 

Everyone chill. I have no intention on using anything other than micro as the size. People in my area will be free to filter them out as necessary. Get over it, you don't cache here!

 

If these where near me I would look for them sounds like a fun series.

[+bittsen]

Do you think there are cache owners out there who mask their cache size only for the purpose of tricking micro-haters, for example, into hunting their micro?

 

Yes.

[+JohnE5]

My understanding from the guidelines is that all physical caches should have one of the following cache sizes:

 

Cache Sizes

 

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.

 

* Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)

* Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L – holds trade items as well as a logbook)

* Regular (plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox)

* Large (5 gallon/20 L bucket or larger)

Umm, all caches are one of those sizes.

Which size would a "No Trespassing" sign with a sheet of write-in-rain sheet glued to the back?

[GOF and Bacall]

Do you think there are cache owners out there who mask their cache size only for the purpose of tricking micro-haters, for example, into hunting their micro?

 

Yes.

 

And I've heard some state so at events.

[+sbell111]

Do you think there are cache owners out there who mask their cache size only for the purpose of tricking micro-haters, for example, into hunting their micro?

 

Yes.

 

And I've heard some state so at events.

It is human nature to want to punish those with extreme viewpoints.

[+JohnE5]

I have a method that will prevent any leaking micros. (And no, it is not placing them in an ammo can.)

 

You can't just toss that out there and then move on (like a film can on the highway). Spill it. What's your trick?

I use a section of bicycle tire to fit around it. Like a second skin...or first skin since they don't have any to start with.

 

Water proofs the entire film can, even the magnet attached to the side.