Jump to content

Micros Micros Micros


Batman1USA

Recommended Posts

This thread is fifteen tons of liquid awesome in a titanium barrel of coolness. I pray for it's continued existence.

 

Funny. In keeping with the season, I view it as a triple-decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce. :):laughing::laughing:

 

grinch3_18101208.gif

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

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"

 

I'm travelling to Texas and I'm going to stay at the Dallas Marriot, zip code: 75207

I have a rental car and on Wednesday I have 3 hours in the morning to find caches. There are 692 caches within a 10 mile radius of the hotel. I want to maximize my fun and go to caches that the majority of cachers have found to be scenic, or clever, or beautiful, or funny or well worth the visit (size, type and D/T doesn't matter, if it's good I want to seek it).

 

I've got to read the logs for 692 caches.

Let's say I give myself 2 minutes per cache to read a few of the recent logs.

It'll take 23 hours of research.

Let's say I aside 2 hours a day to do the reading.

It will take 11.5 days to find the caches that on average cachers enjoyed.

 

If the cache is really good I might drive out as far as 25 miles to get to it then work my way backwards towards the hotel. That's 5756 caches to read through. 192 hours of research at 2 hours per day = 96 days of research.

Link to comment

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"

 

I'm travelling to Texas and I'm going to stay at the Dallas Marriot, zip code: 75207

I have a rental car and on Wednesday I have 3 hours in the morning to find caches. There are 692 caches within a 10 mile radius of the hotel. I want to maximize my fun and go to caches that the majority of cachers have found to be scenic, or clever, or beautiful, or funny or well worth the visit (size, type and D/T doesn't matter, if it's good I want to seek it).

 

I've got to read the logs for 692 caches.

Let's say I give myself 2 minutes per cache to read a few of the recent logs.

It'll take 23 hours of research.

Let's say I aside 2 hours a day to do the reading.

It will take 11.5 days to find the caches that on average cachers enjoyed.

 

If the cache is really good I might drive out as far as 25 miles to get to it then work my way backwards towards the hotel. That's 5756 caches to read through. 192 hours of research at 2 hours per day = 96 days of research.

While it is true that the 'easy peasey' method has received a few small tweaks over the years to improve it's performance and ease of use, it never began with "Read all the cache pages for every cache in the area".
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.

 

True I prefer the days when I could load a PQ into my GPS and let it take me to some very cool places, but those days are long gone in most places. If there is an easy way to screen out the caches placed for the sake of placing a cache I'm all eyes.

 

Methods that screen out all caches of a certain size and/or terrain level are not acceptable because I thoroughly enjoy caches of all sizes and terrain levels.

Link to comment

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"

 

I'm travelling to Texas and I'm going to stay at the Dallas Marriot, zip code: 75207

I have a rental car and on Wednesday I have 3 hours in the morning to find caches. There are 692 caches within a 10 mile radius of the hotel. I want to maximize my fun and go to caches that the majority of cachers have found to be scenic, or clever, or beautiful, or funny or well worth the visit (size, type and D/T doesn't matter, if it's good I want to seek it).

 

I've got to read the logs for 692 caches.

Let's say I give myself 2 minutes per cache to read a few of the recent logs.

It'll take 23 hours of research.

Let's say I aside 2 hours a day to do the reading.

It will take 11.5 days to find the caches that on average cachers enjoyed.

 

If the cache is really good I might drive out as far as 25 miles to get to it then work my way backwards towards the hotel. That's 5756 caches to read through. 192 hours of research at 2 hours per day = 96 days of research.

While it is true that the 'easy peasey' method has received a few small tweaks over the years to improve it's performance and ease of use, it never began with "Read all the cache pages for every cache in the area".

What is this 'easy peasy' method you speak of?

Link to comment

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"

I'm travelling to Texas and I'm going to stay at the Dallas Marriot, zip code: 75207

I have a rental car and on Wednesday I have 3 hours in the morning to find caches. There are 692 caches within a 10 mile radius of the hotel. I want to maximize my fun and go to caches that the majority of cachers have found to be scenic, or clever, or beautiful, or funny or well worth the visit (size, type and D/T doesn't matter, if it's good I want to seek it).

I've got to read the logs for 692 caches.

Let's say I give myself 2 minutes per cache to read a few of the recent logs.

It'll take 23 hours of research.

Let's say I aside 2 hours a day to do the reading.

It will take 11.5 days to find the caches that on average cachers enjoyed.

If the cache is really good I might drive out as far as 25 miles to get to it then work my way backwards towards the hotel. That's 5756 caches to read through. 192 hours of research at 2 hours per day = 96 days of research.

What are you doing wasting time in the forums? You'd better get busy!! :laughing:
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.

 

True I prefer the days when I could load a PQ into my GPS and let it take me to some very cool places, but those days are long gone in most places. If there is an easy way to screen out the caches placed for the sake of placing a cache I'm all eyes.

 

Methods that screen out all caches of a certain size and/or terrain level are not acceptable because I thoroughly enjoy caches of all sizes and terrain levels.

That's great.

 

That being said, are their any size/terrain/difficulty combos that tend to give you more stinkers than other combos do?

Link to comment

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"

 

I'm travelling to Texas and I'm going to stay at the Dallas Marriot, zip code: 75207

I have a rental car and on Wednesday I have 3 hours in the morning to find caches. There are 692 caches within a 10 mile radius of the hotel. I want to maximize my fun and go to caches that the majority of cachers have found to be scenic, or clever, or beautiful, or funny or well worth the visit (size, type and D/T doesn't matter, if it's good I want to seek it).

 

I've got to read the logs for 692 caches.

Let's say I give myself 2 minutes per cache to read a few of the recent logs.

It'll take 23 hours of research.

Let's say I aside 2 hours a day to do the reading.

It will take 11.5 days to find the caches that on average cachers enjoyed.

 

If the cache is really good I might drive out as far as 25 miles to get to it then work my way backwards towards the hotel. That's 5756 caches to read through. 192 hours of research at 2 hours per day = 96 days of research.

While it is true that the 'easy peasey' method has received a few small tweaks over the years to improve it's performance and ease of use, it never began with "Read all the cache pages for every cache in the area".

What is this 'easy peasy' method you speak of?

A method to weed out 'stinkers' that has been discussed in several of these threads.

Link to comment

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"

 

I'm travelling to Texas and I'm going to stay at the Dallas Marriot, zip code: 75207

I have a rental car and on Wednesday I have 3 hours in the morning to find caches. There are 692 caches within a 10 mile radius of the hotel. I want to maximize my fun and go to caches that the majority of cachers have found to be scenic, or clever, or beautiful, or funny or well worth the visit (size, type and D/T doesn't matter, if it's good I want to seek it).

 

I've got to read the logs for 692 caches.

Let's say I give myself 2 minutes per cache to read a few of the recent logs.

It'll take 23 hours of research.

Let's say I aside 2 hours a day to do the reading.

It will take 11.5 days to find the caches that on average cachers enjoyed.

 

If the cache is really good I might drive out as far as 25 miles to get to it then work my way backwards towards the hotel. That's 5756 caches to read through. 192 hours of research at 2 hours per day = 96 days of research.

While it is true that the 'easy peasey' method has received a few small tweaks over the years to improve it's performance and ease of use, it never began with "Read all the cache pages for every cache in the area".

What is this 'easy peasy' method you speak of?

A method to weed out 'stinkers' that has been discussed in several of these threads.

Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.

Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.

 

I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.

Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.

 

I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.

Have you ever tried it?

Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.

 

I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.

Have you ever tried it?

 

Not interested because I thoroughly enjoy many micros and low terrain/difficulty caches. I include some among my all time favorites.

 

It's kind of like using a guillotine to give a haircut.

Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.

 

I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.

It's strange that as many times as we've walked you through the aforementioned method, you still don't understand it.

Link to comment
While it is true that the 'easy peasey' method has received a few small tweaks over the years to improve it's performance and ease of use, it never began with "Read all the cache pages for every cache in the area".

What is this 'easy peasy' method you speak of?

A method to weed out 'stinkers' that has been discussed in several of these threads.

Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.

My method boils down to this:

  1. Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.
  2. During caching days, take a quick read of the cache page for the 'next' cache. If it looks like a stinker, skip it and toss it on the ignore list.
  3. If someone tells you of a good cache that you've filtered out, place it on a watch list. Run a PQ on this list and merge it with your other PQs in GSAK.
  4. As caches are listed, take a look at the cache pages for those that would be filtered by your PQs. Those that look tasty go on the watch list. Obvious stinkers get ignored.
  5. As time permits, take a look at the non-ignored, filtered caches. Those that seem good go on the watch list. Those that stink up the place get ignored. NOTE: There is no hurry to do this step as long as there are other caches to look for.

EDITED to note that the only hardcore 'research' that my method entails is in step 5. It should be noted that for nearly all of us that step will never be more than optional. Steps 2 and 4 do require the review of cache pages, but not more than one or two at a time (unless your area has tons of 'filtered' caches being listed all the time. In which case, aren't you glad you are filtering?)

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.

I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.

Have you ever tried it?

Not interested because I thoroughly enjoy many micros and low terrain/difficulty caches. I include some among my all time favorites.

 

It's kind of like using a guillotine to give a haircut.

I think you should try it then. Get the exact details from Sbell and give it a shot -- an honest and open-minded try, not just an eye-rolling pretend-at -- and let us know how it worked for you.

 

Either it will work for you, or it won’t

 

If it works you’ll be a happier cacher. Everybody wins.

 

If it doesn’t, you will have accomplished several things: You will have (1) proved Sbell wrong, (2) added one more item to the list of methods you KNOW to be ineffective, and (3) this tedious and chronically-repeated conversation will finally go away for good. Everybody wins.

 

Either way, everybody wins.

 

On the other hand, until you try it you really have no valid grounds to criticize it.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.

 

I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.

It's strange that as many times as we've walked you through the aforementioned method, you still don't understand it.

Well is that the method you are advocating as easy peasy? What is it that briansnat doesn't understand about it? I can understand his claim that it's like using a guillotine to cut your hair -- it's clumsy, cuts off too much or too little and doesn't leave a nice neat haircut with layers and feathering in the bangs - a haircut you'd be happy to pay $30 for (i.e. premium membership fee).

 

What do folks do who enjoy the clever caches that are easy to get too but have a fun or wow factor. Filtering out micros and 1-1.5 D/T would eliminate some of those - like the cache on a flat easy rail trail about 250 feet from the trailhead under a racoon skin. The plastic bat in a tree with a bison tube inserted inside. The LPC with a funny twist. The easy cache find in a gorgeous public garden.

Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.

 

I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.

It's strange that as many times as we've walked you through the aforementioned method, you still don't understand it.

 

I'm stupid. But You already know that.

Link to comment

[*]Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.

 

It may be fine for you to miss out on good caches in an area but I'd feel rather disappointed, especially if it's an area I can't go back to -- maybe I'm going to only get a once in a lifetime chance to visit the Adirondacks, and will never go back. Can you guarantee that there are going to be plenty more equally awesome caches that I will find while I'm there?

Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.

 

I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.

It's strange that as many times as we've walked you through the aforementioned method, you still don't understand it.

 

I'm stupid. But You already know that.

I have never posted that I thought you were stupid. You have a number of qualities that I do not desire, but stupidity is not one of them.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

My method boils down to this:

  1. Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.
  2. During caching days, take a quick read of the cache page for the 'next' cache. If it looks like a stinker, skip it and toss it on the ignore list.
  3. If someone tells you of a good cache that you've filtered out, place it on a watch list. Run a PQ on this list and merge it with your other PQs in GSAK.
  4. As caches are listed, take a look at the cache pages for those that would be filtered by your PQs. Those that look tasty go on the watch list. Obvious stinkers get ignored.
  5. As time permits, take a look at the non-ignored, filtered caches. Those that seem good go on the watch list. Those that stink up the place get ignored. NOTE: There is no hurry to do this step as long as there are other caches to look for.

EDITED to note that the only hardcore 'research' that my method entails is in step 5. It should be noted that for nearly all of us that step will never be more than optional. Steps 2 and 4 do require the review of cache pages, but not more than one or two at a time (unless your area has tons of 'filtered' caches being listed all the time. In which case, aren't you glad you are filtering?)

 

Your method is best suited to local caches. It doesn't really address the issue of cache hunts while on vacation when time and money (rental car/gas) are limited.

Edited by Lone R
Link to comment

[*]Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.

 

It may be fine for you to miss out on good caches in an area but I'd feel rather disappointed, especially if it's an area I can't go back to -- maybe I'm going to only get a once in a lifetime chance to visit the Adirondacks, and will never go back. Can you guarantee that there are going to be plenty more equally awesome caches that I will find while I'm there?

If you are only going there once, step one will leave you with lots of caches that will tend to be of higher quality.

Link to comment
My method boils down to this:
  1. Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.
  2. During caching days, take a quick read of the cache page for the 'next' cache. If it looks like a stinker, skip it and toss it on the ignore list.
  3. If someone tells you of a good cache that you've filtered out, place it on a watch list. Run a PQ on this list and merge it with your other PQs in GSAK.
  4. As caches are listed, take a look at the cache pages for those that would be filtered by your PQs. Those that look tasty go on the watch list. Obvious stinkers get ignored.
  5. As time permits, take a look at the non-ignored, filtered caches. Those that seem good go on the watch list. Those that stink up the place get ignored. NOTE: There is no hurry to do this step as long as there are other caches to look for.

EDITED to note that the only hardcore 'research' that my method entails is in step 5. It should be noted that for nearly all of us that step will never be more than optional. Steps 2 and 4 do require the review of cache pages, but not more than one or two at a time (unless your area has tons of 'filtered' caches being listed all the time. In which case, aren't you glad you are filtering?)

Your method is best suited to local caches. It doesn't really address the issue of cache hunts while on vacation when time and money (rental car/gas) are limited.
Of course that is true.

 

When you are on vacation, you have limited time to find caches, so you can really tweak your PQs to give you those caches kinds of caches that you absolutely prefer.

 

In these situations, it really is time to pull out BS's guillotine. Chop away at your PQs until you are left with a select number of caches of the type that you really prefer. Also, in these situations, it is really helpful to interface with the locals. Find out if there are bookmark lists that identify those caches that you really love. These bookmarks will be much more helpful to you as a visitor than they would be as a local, since locals would quickly exhaust these 'best' lists.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Now that we’re talking about cache quality in addition to talking about cache size, allow me to offer this reminder:

 

100% of all caches are hidden by amateurs.

 

One of my favorite elements of this hobby is that each time you head for the next cache you never know exactly what you’re getting into.

 

Yet some folks will whine no matter what kind of free entertainment is offered.

 

All caches are amateur-produced. The upside is that there is almost no limit to the creativity, inspiration, originality, and inventiveness one will find while caching. The guidelines for listing caches on this site are extremely liberal; they basically say nothing more than "have fun, just don’t cause any trouble." Thus, the only real limits to the available entertainment are the hiders’ imaginations.

 

Amateurs make this possible. There is some breathtakingly wonderful entertainment here that cannot be had from ANY commercial entertainment business at ANY price. And it's all free, provided just for your pleasure, by amateurs.

 

The downside is that, unlike the capitalist free market, there is very little natural pressure to prevent the less-then-exhilarating offerings from hanging around alongside the excellent ones. Amateur, unpaid, unpolished, untrained, inexperienced and semi-inspired cache hiders – all of us, in other words – sometimes amaze, but don’t always produce gold.

 

You can chuck all that uncertainty anytime you like, of course. You can leave this hobby behind and pay someone to entertain you instead. Nobody is forcing anyone to cache. There are books, online games, movies, golf, cable TV, bus tours, skydiving – a whole world of commercial entertainment waiting to take your money. In the capitalist market you get what you pay for, and businesses work hard to prevent disappointment. The cool-to-lame ratio on the shelf at the bookstore, for example, is WAY above that of the typical Pocket Query.

 

Some folks demand never to be disappointed, which is fine. But for me, it is that very uncertainty that keeps me caching. I can find five or ten or even twenty lame caches in a row and still be happy, not only because I am outside and playing with my GPS, but because I always know that the very next find has as good a chance as any to be amazingly awesome and memorable. Scientists call it "intermittent gratification," and it is a known and powerful reinforcer of addictions such as gambling. Maybe I am addicted; all I know is that the uncertainty itself makes me want to cache more, not less.

 

Some folks share my craving for the Amateur Excitement/Disappointment Random Spin Wheel. To them I say: Ain’t it COOL?

 

Other folks have little tolerance for unpredictability in their free entertainment. To them I say: Have you considered that maybe this hobby just isn’t for you?

Link to comment

My method boils down to this:

  1. Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.
  2. During caching days, take a quick read of the cache page for the 'next' cache. If it looks like a stinker, skip it and toss it on the ignore list.
  3. If someone tells you of a good cache that you've filtered out, place it on a watch list. Run a PQ on this list and merge it with your other PQs in GSAK.
  4. As caches are listed, take a look at the cache pages for those that would be filtered by your PQs. Those that look tasty go on the watch list. Obvious stinkers get ignored.
  5. As time permits, take a look at the non-ignored, filtered caches. Those that seem good go on the watch list. Those that stink up the place get ignored. NOTE: There is no hurry to do this step as long as there are other caches to look for.

EDITED to note that the only hardcore 'research' that my method entails is in step 5. It should be noted that for nearly all of us that step will never be more than optional. Steps 2 and 4 do require the review of cache pages, but not more than one or two at a time (unless your area has tons of 'filtered' caches being listed all the time. In which case, aren't you glad you are filtering?)

 

Your method is best suited to local caches. It doesn't really address the issue of cache hunts while on vacation when time and money (rental car/gas) are limited.

 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.

It may be fine for you to miss out on good caches in an area but I'd feel rather disappointed, especially if it's an area I can't go back to -- maybe I'm going to only get a once in a lifetime chance to visit the Adirondacks, and will never go back. Can you guarantee that there are going to be plenty more equally awesome caches that I will find while I'm there?

Can you guarantee yourself that you won’t be disappointed in a new and unfamiliar place without first doing some kind of homework?

 

When you’re on vacation and you want to eat out do you consider your personal preference, ask for recommendations, read the restaurant signs and check the fullness of the parking lots? Or do you blindly walk into any restaurant at random and then whine that "this is a Taco Bell, I wanted ambiance and crab legs, DANGIT!" I don't know about you, but I always "filter fast food out of my PQ" when I'm on vacation.

 

Those who refuse to take responsibility for their own entertainment have no grounds to complain when they become disappointed.

Link to comment

The criticism of the "easy-peasy" method sounds much like the OP saying that he likes to clear out an area and that's why he can't avoid micros. I think the first thing people need to learn is that they don't have to find every cache. The "easy-peasy" method is a way to get a selection of caches that you will have a higher probability of enjoying. Will you miss some caches you would have enjoyed? Yes. Will you still find some stinkers? Yes. But instead of "60% of them are random micros with no purpose or value to show cachers anything" you will find a tiny percentage that you find lame and a high percentage of ones you will enjoy. For briansnat it will be like going back to the days when he could search for everything and not be disappointed very often. There have been many ways shown to tweek the "easy-peasy" method so that if you hear about an urban micros that is in a really cool place you can add it to your list. Or, if the method is chopping out too many potentially fun micros, you can add a few back in by looking at the logs on a few micros and picking ones that have logs with more than "TFTC" in them.

 

If you won't try this method because you fear you'll miss one good cache or if you feel you need to clear out all the caches in some area, and then you complain that there are too many lame micros, all I can say is :D

Link to comment

Find out if there are bookmark lists that identify those caches that you really love. These bookmarks will be much more helpful to you as a visitor than they would be as a local, since locals would quickly exhaust these 'best' lists.

If only there were a way to search for helpful bookmark lists.

Link to comment

[*]Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.

 

It may be fine for you to miss out on good caches in an area but I'd feel rather disappointed, especially if it's an area I can't go back to -- maybe I'm going to only get a once in a lifetime chance to visit the Adirondacks, and will never go back. Can you guarantee that there are going to be plenty more equally awesome caches that I will find while I'm there?

If you were able to surgically remove every stinker from your database, would you have enough vacation time to find every remaining cache?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.

It may be fine for you to miss out on good caches in an area but I'd feel rather disappointed, especially if it's an area I can't go back to -- maybe I'm going to only get a once in a lifetime chance to visit the Adirondacks, and will never go back. Can you guarantee that there are going to be plenty more equally awesome caches that I will find while I'm there?

Can you guarantee yourself that you won’t be disappointed in a new and unfamiliar place without first doing some kind of homework?

I don't mind some homework, but come on, 96 hours! That's a lot to ask of a person.

Link to comment

Find out if there are bookmark lists that identify those caches that you really love. These bookmarks will be much more helpful to you as a visitor than they would be as a local, since locals would quickly exhaust these 'best' lists.

If only there were a way to search for helpful bookmark lists.

There is a way. I skillfully hid it in the sentence that came rigt before the bit that you quoted. Here it is:

Also, in these situations, it is really helpful to interface with the locals.
Link to comment

[*]Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.

 

It may be fine for you to miss out on good caches in an area but I'd feel rather disappointed, especially if it's an area I can't go back to -- maybe I'm going to only get a once in a lifetime chance to visit the Adirondacks, and will never go back. Can you guarantee that there are going to be plenty more equally awesome caches that I will find while I'm there?

If you were able to surgically remove every stinker from your database, would you have enough vacation time to find every remaining cache?

 

Probably. It would probably leave me with 50 good caches. Then I could read through the logs of 50 caches for the cream-of-the-crop caches and probably narrow it to 25 caches. There's a good possibility I could handle 25 caches.

Link to comment
Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.

It may be fine for you to miss out on good caches in an area but I'd feel rather disappointed, especially if it's an area I can't go back to -- maybe I'm going to only get a once in a lifetime chance to visit the Adirondacks, and will never go back. Can you guarantee that there are going to be plenty more equally awesome caches that I will find while I'm there?

Can you guarantee yourself that you won’t be disappointed in a new and unfamiliar place without first doing some kind of homework?

I don't mind some homework, but come on, 96 hours! That's a lot to ask of a person.

Who said that you would have to do 96 hours of research? (I mean, other than you.)
Link to comment

[*]Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.

 

It may be fine for you to miss out on good caches in an area but I'd feel rather disappointed, especially if it's an area I can't go back to -- maybe I'm going to only get a once in a lifetime chance to visit the Adirondacks, and will never go back. Can you guarantee that there are going to be plenty more equally awesome caches that I will find while I'm there?

If you were able to surgically remove every stinker from your database, would you have enough vacation time to find every remaining cache?

 

Probably. It would probably leave me with 50 good caches. Then I could read through the logs of 50 caches for the cream-of-the-crop caches and probably narrow it to 25 caches. There's a good possibility I could handle 25 caches.

How many caches live in your database (prior to surgical excision)? Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Find out if there are bookmark lists that identify those caches that you really love. These bookmarks will be much more helpful to you as a visitor than they would be as a local, since locals would quickly exhaust these 'best' lists.

If only there were a way to search for helpful bookmark lists.

There is a way. I skillfully hid it in the sentence that came rigt before the bit that you quoted. Here it is:

Also, in these situations, it is really helpful to interface with the locals.

 

If you were to ask me about bookmark lists in my area, I couldn't tell you. I could tell you about my own though. I suppose that would help but it only gives a cacher my perspective of a good cache - mostly I bookmark caches that involve a nice quiet walk with my dog.

Link to comment
Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.

It may be fine for you to miss out on good caches in an area but I'd feel rather disappointed, especially if it's an area I can't go back to -- maybe I'm going to only get a once in a lifetime chance to visit the Adirondacks, and will never go back. Can you guarantee that there are going to be plenty more equally awesome caches that I will find while I'm there?

Can you guarantee yourself that you won’t be disappointed in a new and unfamiliar place without first doing some kind of homework?

I don't mind some homework, but come on, 96 hours! That's a lot to ask of a person.

You spend 96 hours selecting a restaurant? :D

Link to comment

Find out if there are bookmark lists that identify those caches that you really love. These bookmarks will be much more helpful to you as a visitor than they would be as a local, since locals would quickly exhaust these 'best' lists.

If only there were a way to search for helpful bookmark lists.

There is a way. I skillfully hid it in the sentence that came rigt before the bit that you quoted. Here it is:

Also, in these situations, it is really helpful to interface with the locals.

 

If you were to ask me about bookmark lists in my area, I couldn't tell you. I could tell you about my own though. I suppose that would help but it only gives a cacher my perspective of a good cache - mostly I bookmark caches that involve a nice quiet walk with my dog.

If I contacted someone who I thought liked similar caches as I do and they were unable to point me towards some good local caches, I would ask someone else. If they were able to tell me one good cache, then I could easily identify who else to ask. Heck, that cache might even be on a public bookmark list.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

[*]Run initial PQs that filter out the bulk of the caches that you don't like. In the case of the OP, it would be micros with a low difficulty/terrain rating. It's fine that this also filters out some good caches because 1) there's plenty more awesome ones to find and 2) you can get them back in later.

 

It may be fine for you to miss out on good caches in an area but I'd feel rather disappointed, especially if it's an area I can't go back to -- maybe I'm going to only get a once in a lifetime chance to visit the Adirondacks, and will never go back. Can you guarantee that there are going to be plenty more equally awesome caches that I will find while I'm there?

If you were able to surgically remove every stinker from your database, would you have enough vacation time to find every remaining cache?

 

Probably. It would probably leave me with 50 good caches. Then I could read through the logs of 50 caches for the cream-of-the-crop caches and probably narrow it to 25 caches. There's a good possibility I could handle 25 caches.

It's a lot easier to post in the local thread asking what the "must-do" caches are in the area. Then make a bookmark of those and run a PQ. I do this whenever I travel.
Link to comment

He's not alone. I've met geocachers who do this. Some are friends of mine. They complain about the same kinds of caches that the OP is complaining about, but have a need to keep an X mile radius around their home clear of unfound caches and will hunt caches they find unappealing. One described it as a sickness. Maybe it is, but I don't think there is medication available for it yet.

It's some sort of OCD related to maps. I confess to having a similar compulsion.

 

Heck, I not only have that map-clearing compulsion... I also can't stand to have forum threads with the "new post" icon showing!

 

Must...clear...all...

 

On the other hand, there's an evil underground cache that requires both solving a puzzle and navigating through the sewer system. And the starting coordinates are right there (he said, pointing out the office window). I realized early on that there is NO WAY I'm going in there. Never. So I found the "ignore" button and now I don't have to see that evil Question Mark blotting my beautiful clear map.

 

(Nothing wrong with puzzles, I enjoy them. But I don't do Urban Spelunking.)

Link to comment

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

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!

 

As soon as Groundspeak implements a rating system like GCVote, and modifies the Pocket Query generation screen to allow me to ignore "below average" caches, we will have that ability. Can I have the cash instead of spending it on a monument to me.?

Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.
I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.
Have you ever tried it?
Not interested because I thoroughly enjoy many micros and low terrain/difficulty caches. I include some among my all time favorites.

 

It's kind of like using a guillotine to give a haircut.

Really? So if gc.com decided to no longer list micros or any caches with a D or T level less than 2, geocaching would be dead to you? You honestly can't do without those caches and still enjoy playing the game with the much higher ratio of caches that you'd like made available?

 

When you say things like this, it shows me that after all these years you still don't understand the benefit of the easy-peasy method to you. You're ignoring the benefit just so you can complain about the small downside that you always bring up.

Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.
I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.
Have you ever tried it?
Not interested because I thoroughly enjoy many micros and low terrain/difficulty caches. I include some among my all time favorites.

 

It's kind of like using a guillotine to give a haircut.

Really? So if gc.com decided to no longer list micros or any caches with a D or T level less than 2, geocaching would be dead to you? You honestly can't do without those caches and still enjoy playing the game with the much higher ratio of caches that you'd like made available?

 

When you say things like this, it shows me that after all these years you still don't understand the benefit of the easy-peasy method to you. You're ignoring the benefit just so you can complain about the small downside that you always bring up.

He's not likely to answer that. Not soon, anyway.

 

I assume he's too busy taking me up on my suggestion.

Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.
I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.
Have you ever tried it?
Not interested because I thoroughly enjoy many micros and low terrain/difficulty caches. I include some among my all time favorites.

 

It's kind of like using a guillotine to give a haircut.

Really? So if gc.com decided to no longer list micros or any caches with a D or T level less than 2, geocaching would be dead to you? You honestly can't do without those caches and still enjoy playing the game with the much higher ratio of caches that you'd like made available?

 

That's entirely possible. Filtering out all micros with a D or T less than two could very well result in a a reduction in the number of available caches to the point that the all of the remaining caches within a feasible driving distance would be found in a couple of weekends. In a cache rich area, filtering out caches may only have a negligible effect on the number of available caches. However, in a cache sparse area, such a filter may reduce the number of available cache to the point that the distance one must travel to find a cache would take longer than the amount of time one has available.

 

The suggestion that there is one method (even if it is called easy peasy) for selecting caches to be found will work in all cache environments just doesn't make sense to me. When you look in some areas and find that there are 10,000 total caches available and contrast to areas with the same number of square miles and find that there are only 200 available or less it seems ludicrous to suggest that the same caching strategy will work in both locations.

Link to comment

I'm travelling to Texas and I'm going to stay at the Dallas Marriot, zip code: 75207

I have a rental car and on Wednesday I have 3 hours in the morning to find caches. There are 692 caches within a 10 mile radius of the hotel. I want to maximize my fun and go to caches that the majority of cachers have found to be scenic, or clever, or beautiful, or funny or well worth the visit (size, type and D/T doesn't matter, if it's good I want to seek it).

 

I've got to read the logs for 692 caches.

Let's say I give myself 2 minutes per cache to read a few of the recent logs.

It'll take 23 hours of research.

Let's say I aside 2 hours a day to do the reading.

It will take 11.5 days to find the caches that on average cachers enjoyed.

 

If the cache is really good I might drive out as far as 25 miles to get to it then work my way backwards towards the hotel. That's 5756 caches to read through. 192 hours of research at 2 hours per day = 96 days of research.

 

Or ....

 

You can contact local cachers and see what they recommend.

Link to comment
So if gc.com decided to no longer list micros or any caches with a D or T level less than 2, geocaching would be dead to you? You honestly can't do without those caches and still enjoy playing the game with the much higher ratio of caches that you'd like made available?

That's entirely possible. Filtering out all micros with a D or T less than two could very well result in a a reduction in the number of available caches to the point that the all of the remaining caches within a feasible driving distance would be found in a couple of weekends.

That sounds reasonable, so let’s suppose your estimate is accurate:

 

Presumably, then, a discerning cacher like Briansnat would be grateful for two full weekends of relatively disappointment-free caching. He could then begin his third caching weekend with Step Two of the suggested method, secure in the knowledge that he can still make sure he doesn’t miss out on any awesome caches.

 

Why wouldn't he want to enjoy those two awesome weekends? So much to gain. What would he lose?

Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.
I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.
Have you ever tried it?
Not interested because I thoroughly enjoy many micros and low terrain/difficulty caches. I include some among my all time favorites.

 

It's kind of like using a guillotine to give a haircut.

Really? So if gc.com decided to no longer list micros or any caches with a D or T level less than 2, geocaching would be dead to you? You honestly can't do without those caches and still enjoy playing the game with the much higher ratio of caches that you'd like made available?
That's entirely possible. Filtering out all micros with a D or T less than two could very well result in a a reduction in the number of available caches to the point that the all of the remaining caches within a feasible driving distance would be found in a couple of weekends. In a cache rich area, filtering out caches may only have a negligible effect on the number of available caches. However, in a cache sparse area, such a filter may reduce the number of available cache to the point that the distance one must travel to find a cache would take longer than the amount of time one has available.

 

The suggestion that there is one method (even if it is called easy peasy) for selecting caches to be found will work in all cache environments just doesn't make sense to me. When you look in some areas and find that there are 10,000 total caches available and contrast to areas with the same number of square miles and find that there are only 200 available or less it seems ludicrous to suggest that the same caching strategy will work in both locations.

It doesn't make sense to you because you think the entire easy peasy method is to filter out micros and caches with D or T less than two. There's more steps to the method. For instance, step 5 would take care of your problem.
Link to comment
Can you point to the posts? I don't recall anyone discussing an easy way to weed out stinkers or an easy way to find caches that the majority of cachers thought was a good find.
I think it goes like this. Since most stinkers are micros and have a low terrain and difficulty rating, run a PQ filtering out all micros with a terrain and difficulty level of 1.5 and lower.
Have you ever tried it?
Not interested because I thoroughly enjoy many micros and low terrain/difficulty caches. I include some among my all time favorites.

 

It's kind of like using a guillotine to give a haircut.

Really? So if gc.com decided to no longer list micros or any caches with a D or T level less than 2, geocaching would be dead to you? You honestly can't do without those caches and still enjoy playing the game with the much higher ratio of caches that you'd like made available?

 

When you say things like this, it shows me that after all these years you still don't understand the benefit of the easy-peasy method to you. You're ignoring the benefit just so you can complain about the small downside that you always bring up.

 

In my home area I have no need for any filtering because the cache quality here is generally high, and knowing the area and hiders well, I can mentally eliminate the few caches that I don't feel are worth the bother.

 

My complaint arises when I travel, because when I travel I usually don't have the time available to devote to higher terrain and difficulty caches. I may have 30 minutes here, or an hour there to spend caching, so I generally filter out the higher terrain/difficulty caches when I run my pre trip PQs. Now if I also filter out the lower terrain/difficulty caches that will leave - not much.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...