Jump to content

Micros Micros Micros


Batman1USA

Recommended Posts

I'm with you man!

Some will say: how dare you challenge the established system!

And I say: let's make the system better! there are so many caches now, it's time to focus on quality instead of quantity. A micro with a log isn't even a cache. The word "cache" implies there is stuff there. :lol:

I'm amused that you came to this conclusion after finding exactly one cache. It made me laugh when I noted that the one cache that you had found wasn't even a micro.

 

Thanks for letting the rest of us know that we are doing it all wrong. What did we ever do with your help?

I absolutely love hunting for micros that are creative, challenging, and brings me to an interesting location. I also hate hunting for micros that have been placed without a purpose, or thought put behind it. “Hey look! It’s a random bush next to a Wal-Mart! Let’s put a geocache there.”

 

My issue is, when I am traveling to a new town, it is hard to guess if a micro is placed in an awe inspiring location, or just tossed into some random weeds until I actually get on scene. :o

 

I do not want to ignore ALL micros. I just want to magically ignore the worthless ones. :lol:

Please realise that this very thread comes around with great frequency. When it does, I (and others) often explain a method that you can use to greatly limit the number of these so-called 'worthless micros' that you are forced to find. Many people have deployed this method with good effect.

 

Unfortunately, I do not feel like spoon feeding you this information at this time. Why don't you do a forum search?

I absolutely love hunting for micros ammo cans that are creative, challenging, and brings me to an interesting location. I also hate hunting for micros ammo cans that have been placed without a purpose, or thought put behind it. “Hey look! It’s a random bush next to a Wal-Mart! Let’s put a geocache there.”

 

My issue is, when I am traveling to a new town, it is hard to guess if a micro ammo can is placed in an awe inspiring location, or just tossed into some random weeds until I actually get on scene. :angry:

 

I do not want to ignore ALL micros ammo cans. I just want to magically ignore the worthless ones. :lol:

There, fixed it for ya! :lol:
Really??? You somehow identified that heyjonathan101 was wrong about what he liked and disliked, so you fixed it. That's very impressive.

 

What am I thinking right now?

Link to comment

My only gripe on the proliferation of micros is they are not suitable for most travelbugs and geocoins.

 

In some environments it's about the only container one can manage to place with a fair degree of certainty it will not be instantly muggled.

 

I'm somewhat put off, however, when I'm in an area which is highly suitable for large containers, but the radius of 528 feet is claimed by a pill bottle or such.

Link to comment
Please realise that this very thread comes around with great frequency. When it does, I (and others) often explain a method that you can use to greatly limit the number of these so-called 'worthless micros' that you are forced to find. Many people have deployed this method with good effect.

 

I recall that method being something along the lines of filtering out micros and low terrain/difficulty caches, which is like using a chainsaw to prune a rose bush.

Link to comment
Please realise that this very thread comes around with great frequency. When it does, I (and others) often explain a method that you can use to greatly limit the number of these so-called 'worthless micros' that you are forced to find. Many people have deployed this method with good effect.

 

I recall that method being something along the lines of filtering out micros and low terrain/difficulty caches, which is like using a chainsaw to prune a rose bush.

That pretty well sums up my thinking on that particular "filtering" methodology.

Link to comment
Please realise that this very thread comes around with great frequency. When it does, I (and others) often explain a method that you can use to greatly limit the number of these so-called 'worthless micros' that you are forced to find. Many people have deployed this method with good effect.

 

I recall that method being something along the lines of filtering out micros and low terrain/difficulty caches, which is like using a chainsaw to prune a rose bush.

You are close, but off.

 

The initial step was to temporarily filter out low terrain/difficulty micros, but the steps are taken to ensure that the good ones can get back in.

 

Either way, you have made it crystal clear that you have no interest in any method to reduce 'stinkers', so I have no interest in spending much time on your misconceptions.

Link to comment

Really??? You somehow identified that heyjonathan101 was wrong about what he liked and disliked, so you fixed it. That's very impressive.

 

Actually no, I showed how that post applies equally well to any sort of container, so using that logic to fuss about only micros makes no sense.

 

What am I thinking right now?

Dude! That's disgusting! I can't say because my Mama taught me not to say things like that out loud. :o

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

This old cacher hasnt cleared out her neighborhood. There are some within a mile of me I just havent gotten around to. Some of them I am eager to find too lol. I would much rather go look for interesting ones in another area than waste time clearing out my neighborhood of every single cache. Thats far too task oriented for me to enjoy.

The way I look at it, gas is too cheap right now to clear out my local area. Now is the time to clear out more distant areas. I will come back and clear mine out when gas goes back up to $4/gal or more.
Link to comment

I do not want to ignore ALL micros. I just want to magically ignore the worthless ones. :o

Once you've got that algorithm developed and shared with the community, there will be some kind of monument to you set up next to Ulmer's GCF cache in Oregon!

 

I've noticed that it is often a handful of people that hide hundreds of these "types of caches" in each area. We can ignore these caches but when one person hides hundreds that can get very tedious. So I proposed an idea a while back to be able to ignore all the caches hidden any cacher with one click. The nice thing about this idea is that it promotes a "live and let live" philosophy." This would also allow my 500 cache PQ to contain many more caches that I'm likely to enjoy.
Link to comment
It is my experience that micros are, by far, the most popular conrainer that cachers WANT to look for.

 

My data is from my own experiments.

I have Micro, Small, and Regular sized caches in the field right now.

 

My micros were all found withina couple hours. Each one has more finds than my small or regular sized caches.

My small cache has had more finds than my regular caches but the FTF didn't come until a day after publication.

My regular caches have the fewest finds and the FTF can take days. The shortest amount of time on one of my regular sized caches was about 16 hours.

 

So, it's clear that if I want people to find my caches, I must place micros.

Let's look at your caches:

 

Cache Name: Size - D/T Published FTF Date

The Forgotten Road: Reg - 2/2.5 Pub 12/20/09 FTF 12/21/09 (@ 3:47am)

Brrr, the water is cold!: Reg - 2.5/3.5 Pub 12/10/09 FTF 12/11/09 (STF was at 2:30am)

M.H.V.8: Sm - 2/1.5 Pub 12/01/09 FTF 12/01/09

To Grandmothers House We Go: Reg - 3/3 Pub 11/25/09 FTF 11/25/09

M.H.V.7: Sm - 2.5/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/09/09 (@5:20am)

M.H.V.6: Mic - 3/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/08/09 (STF 10/10!)

M.H.V.5: Mic - 1.5/1 Pub 10/07/09 FTF 10/08/09 (Found in AM)

M.H.V.4: Sm - 2/2.5 Pub 09/11/09 FTF 09/11/09

M.H.V.3: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 08/08/09 FTF 08/08/09

M.H.V.2: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

M.H.V.1: Mic - 3/2.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

Go West Young Man: Reg - 2/2 Pub 06/27/09 FTF 06/27/09

 

If there are cachers in your area willing to go after a cache at 3 am, I bet it isn't because it languished all day unfound and they couldn't wait a moment longer. It was likely published somewhere around 11 pm to midnight. So, it looks like none of your caches had to wait long to be found, micro or not. I happened to notice that on MHV6, nobody bothered for two whole more days after FTF was gone. Sounds like people were banging down doors to get to that micro. . .

 

As far as the number of finds on micros vs anything larger, if one looks at the terrain ratings on your caches, they might see why there are more finds on the micros. All but one are 1.5 terrain or less, and none of your Reg sized ones are less than a 2 terrain.

Edited by Too Tall John
Link to comment
It is my experience that micros are, by far, the most popular conrainer that cachers WANT to look for.

 

My data is from my own experiments.

I have Micro, Small, and Regular sized caches in the field right now.

 

My micros were all found withina couple hours. Each one has more finds than my small or regular sized caches.

My small cache has had more finds than my regular caches but the FTF didn't come until a day after publication.

My regular caches have the fewest finds and the FTF can take days. The shortest amount of time on one of my regular sized caches was about 16 hours.

 

So, it's clear that if I want people to find my caches, I must place micros.

Let's look at your caches:

 

Cache Name: Size - D/T Published FTF Date

The Forgotten Road: Reg - 2/2.5 Pub 12/20/09 FTF 12/21/09 (@ 3:47am)

Brrr, the water is cold!: Reg - 2.5/3.5 Pub 12/10/09 FTF 12/11/09 (STF was at 2:30am)

M.H.V.8: Sm - 2/1.5 Pub 12/01/09 FTF 12/01/09

To Grandmothers House We Go: Reg - 3/3 Pub 11/25/09 FTF 11/25/09

M.H.V.7: Sm - 2.5/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/09/09 (@5:20am)

M.H.V.6: Mic - 3/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/08/09 (STF 10/10!)

M.H.V.5: Mic - 1.5/1 Pub 10/07/09 FTF 10/08/09 (Found in AM)

M.H.V.4: Sm - 2/2.5 Pub 09/11/09 FTF 09/11/09

M.H.V.3: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 08/08/09 FTF 08/08/09

M.H.V.2: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

M.H.V.1: Mic - 3/2.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

Go West Young Man: Reg - 2/2 Pub 06/27/09 FTF 06/27/09

 

If there are cachers in your area willing to go after a cache at 3 am, I bet it isn't because it languished all day unfound and they couldn't wait a moment longer. It was likely published somewhere around 11 pm to midnight. So, it looks like none of your caches had to wait long to be found, micro or not. I happened to notice that on MHV6, nobody bothered for two whole more days after FTF was gone. Sounds like people were banging down doors to get to that micro. . .

 

As far as the number of finds on micros vs anything larger, if one looks at the terrain ratings on your caches, they might see why there are more finds on the micros. All but one are 1.5 terrain or less.

 

Interesting empirical evidence TTJ. Thanks. I agree, it's not about cache size.

Popular is a relative term too. If bittsen uses the term to mean: "regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general" then just because a cache is visited more often doesn't mean it's regarded with approval and affection (one would have to read the logs to make that determination). It more likely means the D/T was easy, it was a traditional cache, and it was close to parking or a trailhead. As we've read in this thread many micros, are visited in order to clear an area, not because people like them.

Link to comment
It is my experience that micros are, by far, the most popular conrainer that cachers WANT to look for.

 

My data is from my own experiments.

I have Micro, Small, and Regular sized caches in the field right now.

 

My micros were all found withina couple hours. Each one has more finds than my small or regular sized caches.

My small cache has had more finds than my regular caches but the FTF didn't come until a day after publication.

My regular caches have the fewest finds and the FTF can take days. The shortest amount of time on one of my regular sized caches was about 16 hours.

 

So, it's clear that if I want people to find my caches, I must place micros.

Let's look at your caches:

 

Cache Name: Size - D/T Published FTF Date

The Forgotten Road: Reg - 2/2.5 Pub 12/20/09 FTF 12/21/09 (@ 3:47am)

Brrr, the water is cold!: Reg - 2.5/3.5 Pub 12/10/09 FTF 12/11/09 (STF was at 2:30am)

M.H.V.8: Sm - 2/1.5 Pub 12/01/09 FTF 12/01/09

To Grandmothers House We Go: Reg - 3/3 Pub 11/25/09 FTF 11/25/09

M.H.V.7: Sm - 2.5/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/09/09 (@5:20am)

M.H.V.6: Mic - 3/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/08/09 (STF 10/10!)

M.H.V.5: Mic - 1.5/1 Pub 10/07/09 FTF 10/08/09 (Found in AM)

M.H.V.4: Sm - 2/2.5 Pub 09/11/09 FTF 09/11/09

M.H.V.3: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 08/08/09 FTF 08/08/09

M.H.V.2: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

M.H.V.1: Mic - 3/2.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

Go West Young Man: Reg - 2/2 Pub 06/27/09 FTF 06/27/09

 

If there are cachers in your area willing to go after a cache at 3 am, I bet it isn't because it languished all day unfound and they couldn't wait a moment longer. It was likely published somewhere around 11 pm to midnight. So, it looks like none of your caches had to wait long to be found, micro or not. I happened to notice that on MHV6, nobody bothered for two whole more days after FTF was gone. Sounds like people were banging down doors to get to that micro. . .

 

As far as the number of finds on micros vs anything larger, if one looks at the terrain ratings on your caches, they might see why there are more finds on the micros. All but one are 1.5 terrain or less.

 

Interesting empirical evidence TTJ. Thanks. I agree, it's not about cache size.

Popular is a relative term too. If bittsen uses the term to mean: "regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general" then just because a cache is visited more often doesn't mean it's regarded with approval and affection (one would have to read the logs to make that determination). It more likely means the D/T was easy, it was a traditional cache, and it was close to parking or a trailhead. As we've read in this thread many micros, are visited in order to clear an area, not because people like them.

This is very true. The number of visits to a cache is meaningless because there are many reasons that this could happen besides being good. Is it an old cache? Is it easy to get to? Is it quick and easy to find? Is it well-maintained? Is it in a higher population area? Etc., etc.

 

I agree that log length and content is the best indicator of enjoyment. You'll have to ignore the cut and pasters even with these caches. Finally, how many times a cache has been added to someone's "favorites" or "must-do" list is an indicator of excellence. I been manually compiling an SD Consensus Favorites List for a few years now. Someday, maybe the site might offer an automated system to do this...

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
It is my experience that micros are, by far, the most popular conrainer that cachers WANT to look for.

 

My data is from my own experiments.

I have Micro, Small, and Regular sized caches in the field right now.

 

My micros were all found withina couple hours. Each one has more finds than my small or regular sized caches.

My small cache has had more finds than my regular caches but the FTF didn't come until a day after publication.

My regular caches have the fewest finds and the FTF can take days. The shortest amount of time on one of my regular sized caches was about 16 hours.

 

So, it's clear that if I want people to find my caches, I must place micros.

Let's look at your caches:

 

Cache Name: Size - D/T Published FTF Date

The Forgotten Road: Reg - 2/2.5 Pub 12/20/09 FTF 12/21/09 (@ 3:47am)

Brrr, the water is cold!: Reg - 2.5/3.5 Pub 12/10/09 FTF 12/11/09 (STF was at 2:30am)

M.H.V.8: Sm - 2/1.5 Pub 12/01/09 FTF 12/01/09

To Grandmothers House We Go: Reg - 3/3 Pub 11/25/09 FTF 11/25/09

M.H.V.7: Sm - 2.5/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/09/09 (@5:20am)

M.H.V.6: Mic - 3/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/08/09 (STF 10/10!)

M.H.V.5: Mic - 1.5/1 Pub 10/07/09 FTF 10/08/09 (Found in AM)

M.H.V.4: Sm - 2/2.5 Pub 09/11/09 FTF 09/11/09

M.H.V.3: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 08/08/09 FTF 08/08/09

M.H.V.2: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

M.H.V.1: Mic - 3/2.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

Go West Young Man: Reg - 2/2 Pub 06/27/09 FTF 06/27/09

 

If there are cachers in your area willing to go after a cache at 3 am, I bet it isn't because it languished all day unfound and they couldn't wait a moment longer. It was likely published somewhere around 11 pm to midnight. So, it looks like none of your caches had to wait long to be found, micro or not. I happened to notice that on MHV6, nobody bothered for two whole more days after FTF was gone. Sounds like people were banging down doors to get to that micro. . .

 

As far as the number of finds on micros vs anything larger, if one looks at the terrain ratings on your caches, they might see why there are more finds on the micros. All but one are 1.5 terrain or less.

 

Interesting empirical evidence TTJ. Thanks. I agree, it's not about cache size.

Popular is a relative term too. If bittsen uses the term to mean: "regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general" then just because a cache is visited more often doesn't mean it's regarded with approval and affection (one would have to read the logs to make that determination). It more likely means the D/T was easy, it was a traditional cache, and it was close to parking or a trailhead. As we've read in this thread many micros, are visited in order to clear an area, not because people like them.

Just because the micro-haters in here claim that people don't like these micros doesn't make it true.

Link to comment
It is my experience that micros are, by far, the most popular conrainer that cachers WANT to look for.

....

So, it's clear that if I want people to find my caches, I must place micros.

Let's look at your caches:

....

As far as the number of finds on micros vs anything larger, if one looks at the terrain ratings on your caches, they might see why there are more finds on the micros. All but one are 1.5 terrain or less.

Interesting empirical evidence TTJ. Thanks. I agree, it's not about cache size.

Popular is a relative term too. If bittsen uses the term to mean: "regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general" then just because a cache is visited more often doesn't mean it's regarded with approval and affection (one would have to read the logs to make that determination). It more likely means the D/T was easy, it was a traditional cache, and it was close to parking or a trailhead. As we've read in this thread many micros, are visited in order to clear an area, not because people like them.

Just because the micro-haters in here claim that people don't like these micros doesn't make it true.
Your response, will, of course, be a maddeningly smug "I didn't call you a micro hater," but I'll bite anyways...

 

My post has nothing to do with hating micros, it is all about refuting the statements contained in bittsen's post, quoted above. He tried to bring his caches in as an example of how people prefer micros, I pointed out the lack of evidence. I don't believe Lone R said anything about hating micros, either. Of course, I welcome you to show me the error in my way of thinking.

 

Oh, and if you were not calling either Lone R or me "micro-haters," you may have done well not to quote us. Any fifth grader knows how to read what is inferred in a post like that. Your attempts to label & dismiss are noted.

Link to comment
For some cachers it's not enough just to dislike a certain type of cache; they also have to try to convince themselves that nobody else likes that type of cache either, even in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Not me. I know that many people like any type of cache. Some are even my caching buddies. I just don't log the ones that I think aren't worth logging and add those to my ignore list later to get them out of my PQs. I think they understand... :laughing:
Link to comment

For some cachers it’s not enough just to dislike a certain type of cache; they also have to try to convince themselves that nobody else likes that type of cache either, even in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

You may be right. I've certainly seen similar claims in these forums, though I've never actually witnessed it for myself. I would think that anyone coming in here espousing the belief that no one liked micros would be shouted down pretty kwick. Even the polite folks would be offering evidence to the contrary.

Link to comment
It is my experience that micros are, by far, the most popular conrainer that cachers WANT to look for.

 

My data is from my own experiments.

I have Micro, Small, and Regular sized caches in the field right now.

 

My micros were all found withina couple hours. Each one has more finds than my small or regular sized caches.

My small cache has had more finds than my regular caches but the FTF didn't come until a day after publication.

My regular caches have the fewest finds and the FTF can take days. The shortest amount of time on one of my regular sized caches was about 16 hours.

 

So, it's clear that if I want people to find my caches, I must place micros.

Let's look at your caches:

 

Cache Name: Size - D/T Published FTF Date

The Forgotten Road: Reg - 2/2.5 Pub 12/20/09 FTF 12/21/09 (@ 3:47am)

Brrr, the water is cold!: Reg - 2.5/3.5 Pub 12/10/09 FTF 12/11/09 (STF was at 2:30am)

M.H.V.8: Sm - 2/1.5 Pub 12/01/09 FTF 12/01/09

To Grandmothers House We Go: Reg - 3/3 Pub 11/25/09 FTF 11/25/09

M.H.V.7: Sm - 2.5/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/09/09 (@5:20am)

M.H.V.6: Mic - 3/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/08/09 (STF 10/10!)

M.H.V.5: Mic - 1.5/1 Pub 10/07/09 FTF 10/08/09 (Found in AM)

M.H.V.4: Sm - 2/2.5 Pub 09/11/09 FTF 09/11/09

M.H.V.3: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 08/08/09 FTF 08/08/09

M.H.V.2: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

M.H.V.1: Mic - 3/2.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

Go West Young Man: Reg - 2/2 Pub 06/27/09 FTF 06/27/09

 

If there are cachers in your area willing to go after a cache at 3 am, I bet it isn't because it languished all day unfound and they couldn't wait a moment longer. It was likely published somewhere around 11 pm to midnight. So, it looks like none of your caches had to wait long to be found, micro or not. I happened to notice that on MHV6, nobody bothered for two whole more days after FTF was gone. Sounds like people were banging down doors to get to that micro. . .

 

As far as the number of finds on micros vs anything larger, if one looks at the terrain ratings on your caches, they might see why there are more finds on the micros. All but one are 1.5 terrain or less, and none of your Reg sized ones are less than a 2 terrain.

 

I love how you took the time to research my caches so thoroughly. For the record, the STF on the "brr" cache was my friend and he did it that late as a challenge. But, my observations are unchanged.

 

You want to mention terrain as to why people don't find the larger caches, fine, you made my point for me. People like micros because they are EASIER to find (or should I say "seek") since they are usually in urban settings.

Something you missed in your research of my caches is that all my larger caches are outside of urban settings and all my smaller ones are within urban settings. And the odd "small" cache I have is in between urban and rural. That one is interesting because it's the easiest one to see/find but seems to be sought out the least. (Of course it is a little devious being "hidden" in plain sight)

 

And, for those other arguments I just have to say how much I love semantics.

Link to comment
It is my experience that micros are, by far, the most popular conrainer that cachers WANT to look for.

 

My data is from my own experiments.

I have Micro, Small, and Regular sized caches in the field right now.

 

My micros were all found withina couple hours. Each one has more finds than my small or regular sized caches.

My small cache has had more finds than my regular caches but the FTF didn't come until a day after publication.

My regular caches have the fewest finds and the FTF can take days. The shortest amount of time on one of my regular sized caches was about 16 hours.

 

So, it's clear that if I want people to find my caches, I must place micros.

Let's look at your caches:

 

Cache Name: Size - D/T Published FTF Date

The Forgotten Road: Reg - 2/2.5 Pub 12/20/09 FTF 12/21/09 (@ 3:47am)

Brrr, the water is cold!: Reg - 2.5/3.5 Pub 12/10/09 FTF 12/11/09 (STF was at 2:30am)

M.H.V.8: Sm - 2/1.5 Pub 12/01/09 FTF 12/01/09

To Grandmothers House We Go: Reg - 3/3 Pub 11/25/09 FTF 11/25/09

M.H.V.7: Sm - 2.5/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/09/09 (@5:20am)

M.H.V.6: Mic - 3/1.5 Pub 10/08/09 FTF 10/08/09 (STF 10/10!)

M.H.V.5: Mic - 1.5/1 Pub 10/07/09 FTF 10/08/09 (Found in AM)

M.H.V.4: Sm - 2/2.5 Pub 09/11/09 FTF 09/11/09

M.H.V.3: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 08/08/09 FTF 08/08/09

M.H.V.2: Mic - 1.5/1.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

M.H.V.1: Mic - 3/2.5 Pub 07/22/09 FTF 07/22/09

Go West Young Man: Reg - 2/2 Pub 06/27/09 FTF 06/27/09

 

If there are cachers in your area willing to go after a cache at 3 am, I bet it isn't because it languished all day unfound and they couldn't wait a moment longer. It was likely published somewhere around 11 pm to midnight. So, it looks like none of your caches had to wait long to be found, micro or not. I happened to notice that on MHV6, nobody bothered for two whole more days after FTF was gone. Sounds like people were banging down doors to get to that micro. . .

 

As far as the number of finds on micros vs anything larger, if one looks at the terrain ratings on your caches, they might see why there are more finds on the micros. All but one are 1.5 terrain or less.

 

Interesting empirical evidence TTJ. Thanks. I agree, it's not about cache size.

Popular is a relative term too. If bittsen uses the term to mean: "regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general" then just because a cache is visited more often doesn't mean it's regarded with approval and affection (one would have to read the logs to make that determination). It more likely means the D/T was easy, it was a traditional cache, and it was close to parking or a trailhead. As we've read in this thread many micros, are visited in order to clear an area, not because people like them.

Just because some forum regulars claim that people don't like these micros doesn't make it true.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
It is my experience that micros are, by far, the most popular conrainer that cachers WANT to look for.

....

So, it's clear that if I want people to find my caches, I must place micros.

Let's look at your caches:

....

As far as the number of finds on micros vs anything larger, if one looks at the terrain ratings on your caches, they might see why there are more finds on the micros. All but one are 1.5 terrain or less.

Interesting empirical evidence TTJ. Thanks. I agree, it's not about cache size.

Popular is a relative term too. If bittsen uses the term to mean: "regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general" then just because a cache is visited more often doesn't mean it's regarded with approval and affection (one would have to read the logs to make that determination). It more likely means the D/T was easy, it was a traditional cache, and it was close to parking or a trailhead. As we've read in this thread many micros, are visited in order to clear an area, not because people like them.

Just because the micro-haters in here claim that people don't like these micros doesn't make it true.
Your response, will, of course, be a maddeningly smug "I didn't call you a micro hater," but I'll bite anyways...

 

My post has nothing to do with hating micros, it is all about refuting the statements contained in bittsen's post, quoted above. He tried to bring his caches in as an example of how people prefer micros, I pointed out the lack of evidence. I don't believe Lone R said anything about hating micros, either. Of course, I welcome you to show me the error in my way of thinking.

 

Oh, and if you were not calling either Lone R or me "micro-haters," you may have done well not to quote us. Any fifth grader knows how to read what is inferred in a post like that. Your attempts to label & dismiss are noted.

Fifth graders should be better educated than you are giving them credit for.
Link to comment
I love how you took the time to research my caches so thoroughly. For the record, the STF on the "brr" cache was my friend and he did it that late as a challenge. But, my observations are unchanged.
The fact remains, if he was STF at 2:30am, that means FTF was before that. Just showing that the cache certainly didn't sit for a long time.
You want to mention terrain as to why people don't find the larger caches, fine, you made my point for me. People like micros because they are EASIER to find (or should I say "seek") since they are usually in urban settings.

Something you missed in your research of my caches is that all my larger caches are outside of urban settings and all my smaller ones are within urban settings. And the odd "small" cache I have is in between urban and rural. That one is interesting because it's the easiest one to see/find but seems to be sought out the least. (Of course it is a little devious being "hidden" in plain sight)

So, your argument is that regulars must be less popular than micros because more people find the micros you've hidden in a densely populated area than the regulars you've hidden in a sparely populated, harder to reach, area? You do see the problem with that logic, right? It has nothing to do with size, and everything to do with location. I bet if you found a lamppost big enough to accommodate an ammo can, you'd have people raving about it for miles. . .
And, for those other arguments I just have to say how much I love semantics.
Finally, someone who is willing to admit that their argument is all about semantics. :laughing:
Link to comment
Oh, and if you were not calling either Lone R or me "micro-haters," you may have done well not to quote us. Any fifth grader knows how to read what is inferred in a post like that. Your attempts to label & dismiss are noted.
Fifth graders should be better educated than you are giving them credit for.
Fine. Any first grader knows how to draw an inference like the one you laid out in your post. If you are trying to say that a 5th grader would see that your intent was not to infer that the people quoted were micro-haters, what, pray tell, were you trying to say?
Link to comment
For some cachers it’s not enough just to dislike a certain type of cache; they also have to try to convince themselves that nobody else likes that type of cache either, even in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

You may be right. I've certainly seen similar claims in these forums, though I've never actually witnessed it for myself. I would think that anyone coming in here espousing the belief that no one liked micros would be shouted down pretty kwick. Even the polite folks would be offering evidence to the contrary.

Then maybe you missed it:

 

As we've read in this thread many micros, are visited in order to clear an area, not because people like them.

This is very true. The number of visits to a cache is meaningless because there are many reasons that this could happen besides being good.

Link to comment
Oh, and if you were not calling either Lone R or me "micro-haters," you may have done well not to quote us. Any fifth grader knows how to read what is inferred in a post like that. Your attempts to label & dismiss are noted.
Fifth graders should be better educated than you are giving them credit for.
Fine. Any first grader knows how to draw an inference like the one you laid out in your post. If you are trying to say that a 5th grader would see that your intent was not to infer that the people quoted were micro-haters, what, pray tell, were you trying to say?

  1. First graders have no clue what an inference is.
  2. Fifth graders would be smart enough to take a look at the sentence being replied to to see who the reply referred to.
  3. If you would like to discuss this more, feel free to send a PM.

Link to comment
Then maybe you missed it:

 

As we've read in this thread many micros, are visited in order to clear an area, not because people like them.

This is very true. The number of visits to a cache is meaningless because there are many reasons that this could happen besides being good.

Nope. I saw both of those. The ones I've missed were the posts where folks were trying to convince themselves, (or others for that matter), that nobody else likes a certain type of cache. All I see in the two quotes you provided was someone pointing out that there may be other reasons folks hunt a certain type of cache besides the possibility that they love them. Since many cachers have posted in these forums that they'll hunt caches which they don't love, just to keep their radius clear, then I'd have to agree with both of the provided quotes. Loving a particular type of cache is only one of many reasons folks will visit it.

Link to comment
I love how you took the time to research my caches so thoroughly. For the record, the STF on the "brr" cache was my friend and he did it that late as a challenge. But, my observations are unchanged.
The fact remains, if he was STF at 2:30am, that means FTF was before that. Just showing that the cache certainly didn't sit for a long time

 

Yes, and it hasn't been found since.

 

FTF's aside, the pattern is there, and if you dare, look at the FTF pattern as well.

 

Micro FTF attampts are made (and usually completed) in less than an hour after publication.

My larger caches didn't get their FTF for hours. And in one case, days.

 

Check!

Link to comment
Then maybe you missed it:

 

As we've read in this thread many micros, are visited in order to clear an area, not because people like them.

This is very true. The number of visits to a cache is meaningless because there are many reasons that this could happen besides being good.

Nope. I saw both of those. The ones I've missed were the posts where folks were trying to convince themselves, (or others for that matter), that nobody else likes a certain type of cache. All I see in the two quotes you provided was someone pointing out that there may be other reasons folks hunt a certain type of cache besides the possibility that they love them. Since many cachers have posted in these forums that they'll hunt caches which they don't love, just to keep their radius clear, then I'd have to agree with both of the provided quotes. Loving a particular type of cache is only one of many reasons folks will visit it.

You'll note that the first quote doesn't suggest that some people find micros only to clear an area. It states that some micros are found only to clear areas.

 

I assume that you failed to take note of the difference prior to drafting your post.

Link to comment
Then maybe you missed it:

 

As we've read in this thread many micros, are visited in order to clear an area, not because people like them.

This is very true. The number of visits to a cache is meaningless because there are many reasons that this could happen besides being good.

Nope. I saw both of those. The ones I've missed were the posts where folks were trying to convince themselves, (or others for that matter), that nobody else likes a certain type of cache. All I see in the two quotes you provided was someone pointing out that there may be other reasons folks hunt a certain type of cache besides the possibility that they love them. Since many cachers have posted in these forums that they'll hunt caches which they don't love, just to keep their radius clear, then I'd have to agree with both of the provided quotes. Loving a particular type of cache is only one of many reasons folks will visit it.

"Love" is your attempt at spin. "Love" does not appear anywhere in the quoted text.

Link to comment
I love how you took the time to research my caches so thoroughly. For the record, the STF on the "brr" cache was my friend and he did it that late as a challenge. But, my observations are unchanged.
The fact remains, if he was STF at 2:30am, that means FTF was before that. Just showing that the cache certainly didn't sit for a long time
Yes, and it hasn't been found since.
By that, I assume you are saying the cache has few visits & supports your regular-haters theory. The cache hasn't even been active 2 weeks, and is a 3.5 terrain. 'Round here, that's par for the course, regular size or micro aside.
FTF's aside, the pattern is there, and if you dare, look at the FTF pattern as well.
I already did, didn't I? :laughing:
Micro FTF attampts are made (and usually completed) in less than an hour after publication.

My larger caches didn't get their FTF for hours. And in one case, days.

 

Check!

Going out after a micro on the corner and hiking to a cache somewhere are two different endeavors. I would hope cachers take more time preparing for a 3.5 terrain hike than they do for that LPC.

 

By the way, which of your caches went days w/out a FTF? None, from what I can see...

 

Mate!

Link to comment
I love how you took the time to research my caches so thoroughly. For the record, the STF on the "brr" cache was my friend and he did it that late as a challenge. But, my observations are unchanged.
The fact remains, if he was STF at 2:30am, that means FTF was before that. Just showing that the cache certainly didn't sit for a long time
Yes, and it hasn't been found since.
By that, I assume you are saying the cache has few visits & supports your regular-haters theory. The cache hasn't even been active 2 weeks, and is a 3.5 terrain. 'Round here, that's par for the course, regular size or micro aside.
FTF's aside, the pattern is there, and if you dare, look at the FTF pattern as well.
I already did, didn't I? :laughing:
Micro FTF attampts are made (and usually completed) in less than an hour after publication.

My larger caches didn't get their FTF for hours. And in one case, days.

 

Check!

Going out after a micro on the corner and hiking to a cache somewhere are two different endeavors. I would hope cachers take more time preparing for a 3.5 terrain hike than they do for that LPC.

 

By the way, which of your caches went days w/out a FTF? None, from what I can see...

 

Mate!

 

Not mate. You cheated.

 

You said I said "regular haters" which is not even close to the truth. I said micros were more popular.

 

You did catch me on the couple of days for the FTF thing. For some reason I thought I waited for days for the FTF on "Go West young man"

My obvious mistake.

Link to comment
Not mate. You cheated.

 

You said I said "regular haters" which is not even close to the truth. I said micros were more popular.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't say you said regular haters, though. I just implied it. But, as sbell111 will tell you, any 5th grader would have understood what was meant. I suppose my using the phrase had to do with always reading sbell111's posts, where anyone who thinks ammo cans are better than film ones are "micro haters."

 

I should just stop reading his posts. He's a bad influence. :laughing:

You did catch me on the couple of days for the FTF thing. For some reason I thought I waited for days for the FTF on "Go West young man"

My obvious mistake.

Well, it was at least the 2nd time you tried to make that point, and after the time before, I proved it to be untrue. Edited by Too Tall John
Link to comment
"Love" is your attempt at spin. "Love" does not appear anywhere in the quoted text.

Sure. Let's change "love" to "enjoy", "like" or "prefer".

The principle still stands.

Many posters in these forums have stated that they often hunt for caches they don't "like/enjoy/prefer", simply to clear out their radius.

Neither post reflected what you claimed, which was:

"they also have to try to convince themselves that nobody else likes that type of cache either"

Have you seen any posts that do indicate this? :laughing:

Link to comment

You are close, but off.

 

The initial step was to temporarily filter out low terrain/difficulty micros, but the steps are taken to ensure that the good ones can get back in.

How? The example of the Sandstone Overlook that I mentioned earlier really doesn't provide much of a clue as to the significance of the site (or the great view) on the cache page. You have to GO there and discover it.
Link to comment
I've noticed that it is often a handful of people that hide hundreds of these "types of caches" in each area. We can ignore these caches but when one person hides hundreds that can get very tedious. So I proposed an idea a while back to be able to ignore all the caches hidden any cacher with one click.

Alas, still too broad a cut. We have, um, some cachers out here in Colorado that are known to put out quite a few "stinkers", but have also placed some really good ones. Hate to give up the latter since they've provided some serious caching entertainment.

 

Like most things, you wind up taking the good with the bad.

Link to comment

I love to find micros.

But if all that existed were micros, I wouldn't be a cacher.

 

I would LOVE to do a power trail.

But if all that existed were power trails, I wouldn't be a cacher.

 

I would LOVE to do a tree climb cache.

But if all that existed were tree climbing caches, I wouldn't be a cacher.

 

I would LOVE to do a 20 mile hike to a cache.

But if all that existed were 20 mile hike caches, i wouldn't be a cacher.

 

I LOVED my first nano cache.

But if all that existed were nano caches, i wouldn't be a cacher.

 

I LOVE ammo cans caches.

But if all that existed were ammo can caches, I would get bored and stop being a cacher.

 

I LOVED my first evil cache find.

But if all that existed were evil hides, i wouldn't be a cacher.

 

I LOVE guardrail and lamp post skirt caches

But if all that existed were GR and LPC caches, I wouldn't be a cacher.

 

I hope you are getting the point.

 

Well said Bittsen! I am almost always geocaching with a child - either my son or my special needs students - and I'm afraid most children don't really like micros so we usually go for the little bit bigger caches. I also prefer the larger caches, though micros can be fun sometimes! Although I prefer larger, I am happy that there are all kinds of caches in the geocaching world...just like people: if we were all the same, life would be so darn boring! Different caches also make like more interesting! :laughing:

Link to comment

Many posters in these forums have stated that they often hunt for caches they don't "like/enjoy/prefer", simply to clear out their radius.

To be a bit more clear about that statement -- we don't always know whether we will like/enjoy/prefer a given cache until it's been found. As I noted above, we've got cachers that drop a pile of 35s in places that don't really mean anything, and then pop up with a real gem in the mix.

 

Let me add to the 'area' and 'micro' issue. There's another cacher that doesn't frequent these boards - he goes by the handle Spammer - that makes runs with me during lunch. We operate on a time limit, so that limits the radius. We work in an urban/suburban area. We're not going to be wandering out into the hinterlands searching for Regular size caches. We take what we get. When they're big enough for trade items, we're pleased to find them. When they're clever, we're pleased to find them. The rest are what they are. There are indeed a few larger caches in the area, but they usually require a bit of a walk, so we tackle those singly knowing full well that the idea of a lunch "hour" is already out of the question! Ditto with difficult hides where we may have to return several times to bag them.

 

When we were working in Golden, there were a heck of a lot more options due to the quick access to the mountains during lunch. That's just not an option now.

 

Sooner or later we're branching out so far to reach any unfound caches that it begins to take too long, and we await new hides ('member those blemishes on the map I was talking about?) to give us some caching amusement at noon.

Link to comment

I am almost always geocaching with a child - either my son or my special needs students - and I'm afraid most children don't really like micros so we usually go for the little bit bigger caches. I also prefer the larger caches, though micros can be fun sometimes! Although I prefer larger, I am happy that there are all kinds of caches in the geocaching world...just like people: if we were all the same, life would be so darn boring! Different caches also make like more interesting! :laughing:

 

I too prefer caches that can handle swag. As far as micros go I appreciate those that were placed appropriately -- to bring someone to a scenic/interesting location where a larger cache wouldn't fit or the kind that are creative, designed to make a cacher smile or think Wow! or Clever! or Cool!

Link to comment
Neither post reflected what you claimed, which was:

"they also have to try to convince themselves that nobody else likes that type of cache either"

Have you seen any posts that do indicate this? :laughing:

Yes, I have.

 

Your interpretation of those posts is obviously different from mine, and you clearly have no interest in examining them from another point of view.

 

So what purpose does this exchange serve? Shall we continue to repeat?

Link to comment
Please realise that this very thread comes around with great frequency. When it does, I (and others) often explain a method that you can use to greatly limit the number of these so-called 'worthless micros' that you are forced to find. Many people have deployed this method with good effect.

 

I recall that method being something along the lines of filtering out micros and low terrain/difficulty caches, which is like using a chainsaw to prune a rose bush.

You are close, but off.

 

The initial step was to temporarily filter out low terrain/difficulty micros, but the steps are taken to ensure that the good ones can get back in.

 

Either way, you have made it crystal clear that you have no interest in any method to reduce 'stinkers', so I have no interest in spending much time on your misconceptions.

 

To the contrary I would absolutely love an easy way to filter out caches that don't interest me. The only methods that have been suggested to me involved mass filtering of caches by terrain and/or size which is not acceptable.

Link to comment

I understand.

I also like to clear an area... and I don't mind SOME micros. Even if they are boring, 1/1 unimaginative random micros.

But sometimes there are too many in one area.

I have been to some areas that have a lot of caches, but obviously you have not been in Mayes County Oklahoma, home of 8-10 caches, several of which are disabled, and 2-3 which are muggled and not being maintained. After one clears out the whole county, then what?

Link to comment
I've noticed that it is often a handful of people that hide hundreds of these "types of caches" in each area. We can ignore these caches but when one person hides hundreds that can get very tedious. So I proposed an idea a while back to be able to ignore all the caches hidden any cacher with one click.

Alas, still too broad a cut. We have, um, some cachers out here in Colorado that are known to put out quite a few "stinkers", but have also placed some really good ones. Hate to give up the latter since they've provided some serious caching entertainment.

 

Like most things, you wind up taking the good with the bad.

 

It's not a perfect system and only really works for people that place a high majority of caches that you don't prefer. It is easy to un-ignore any cache that is recommended.
Link to comment
Your interpretation of those posts is obviously different from mine, and you clearly have no interest in examining them from another point of view.

It's all good. I did look at what you quoted, and I tried my darnedest to see it in that light, however, as I am oft cited as being dumber than a bag of hammers, I just couldn't make the connection. Obviously my interest is there, it's just my abilities that fail. Shall we part ways till the next micro bashing thread? :laughing:

Link to comment
Not mate. You cheated.

 

You said I said "regular haters" which is not even close to the truth. I said micros were more popular.

Sorry, my bad. I didn't say you said regular haters, though. I just implied it. But, as sbell111 will tell you, any 5th grader would have understood what was meant. I suppose my using the phrase had to do with always reading sbell111's posts, where anyone who thinks ammo cans are better than film ones are "micro haters."

 

I should just stop reading his posts. He's a bad influence. :laughing:

Until you can stop misrepresenting my posts, I'd just as soon that you stop reading them, also.
You are close, but off.

 

The initial step was to temporarily filter out low terrain/difficulty micros, but the steps are taken to ensure that the good ones can get back in.

How? The example of the Sandstone Overlook that I mentioned earlier really doesn't provide much of a clue as to the significance of the site (or the great view) on the cache page. You have to GO there and discover it.
Have no other geocachers ever found the cache? What does the maps turn up for that cache? Is it on any public bookmark lists? Does the cache page really give you no information at all that might suggest that the cache is either good or bad?
I've noticed that it is often a handful of people that hide hundreds of these "types of caches" in each area. We can ignore these caches but when one person hides hundreds that can get very tedious. So I proposed an idea a while back to be able to ignore all the caches hidden any cacher with one click.
Alas, still too broad a cut. We have, um, some cachers out here in Colorado that are known to put out quite a few "stinkers", but have also placed some really good ones. Hate to give up the latter since they've provided some serious caching entertainment.

 

Like most things, you wind up taking the good with the bad.

Every method is going to get rid of some good with the bad. In my opinion, if the method takes away more bad than good and still leaves you with plenty of good to find, it's a useful method.
I wasn't aware that there were any micro-haters in here? :) Even the OP didn't stoop to the level of hate. Just frustration. :D
Micro-haters only hate a tiny bit. Nano-haters hate even less.
:laughing:
I too prefer caches that can handle swag. As far as micros go I appreciate those that were placed appropriately -- to bring someone to a scenic/interesting location where a larger cache wouldn't fit or the kind that are creative, designed to make a cacher smile or think Wow! or Clever! or Cool!
It's somewhat likely that you are using a definition for 'appropriate' that differes from the standard. In doing so, you are kinda setting yourself up for failure. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Please realise that this very thread comes around with great frequency. When it does, I (and others) often explain a method that you can use to greatly limit the number of these so-called 'worthless micros' that you are forced to find. Many people have deployed this method with good effect.
I recall that method being something along the lines of filtering out micros and low terrain/difficulty caches, which is like using a chainsaw to prune a rose bush.
You are close, but off.

 

The initial step was to temporarily filter out low terrain/difficulty micros, but the steps are taken to ensure that the good ones can get back in.

 

Either way, you have made it crystal clear that you have no interest in any method to reduce 'stinkers', so I have no interest in spending much time on your misconceptions.

To the contrary I would absolutely love an easy way to filter out caches that don't interest me.
I see. I guess that we are ignoring the fact that you are on record as not being willing to prescreen caches at all, because "it's not the way you like to cache" and imagine that you are truly trying to converse in good faith, unlike every one of the other similar threads.
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...