Jump to content

Micros Micros Micros


Batman1USA

Recommended Posts

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?
This use of hyperbole seems to make you look a bit desperate to prove your point.
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.

 

Contacting locals has its limitations and biases. I would probably get a couple of cachers who would recommend a few of what they enjoyed but it may not mesh with what I enjoy. Although currently, it is one of the better methods that is available. Better then reading through over 5000 cache descriptions and around 25,000 log entries.

Link to comment

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

 

Actually I did. I will be visiting my in-laws after Christmas. My standard practice when running a PQ along a route is to limit my PQ to .25 mile on either side, eliminate anything but traditionals and virtuals and any cache rated 2 stars or higher for terrain. This is because of my limited time for searching when I'm on the road.

 

Due to an apparent software glitch the PQ generator doesn't allow me to also eliminate caches with a T/D of less than or = to 1.5 stars in addition to 2 stars and higher. I'll have to report that to Groundspeak.

 

I'm seeing some flaws in the easy peasy method.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
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.

Did you not read all of the posts that discussed vacation caching?
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.

Contacting locals has its limitations and biases. I would probably get a couple of cachers who would recommend a few of what they enjoyed but it may not mesh with what I enjoy. Although currently, it is one of the better methods that is available. Better then reading through over 5000 cache descriptions and around 25,000 log entries.
Unfortunately, they don't appear to be in a hurry to add the "Lone R would like this cache" attribute for you to search on. Until then, you'll have to settle for these slightly less perfect methods.
I assume he's too busy taking me up on my suggestion.
Actually I did. I will be visiting my in-laws after Christmas. My standard practice when running a PQ along a route is to limit my PQ to .25 mile on either side, eliminate anything but traditionals and virtuals and any cache rated 2 stars or higher for terrain. This is because of my limited time for searching when I'm on the road.

 

Due to an apparent software glitch the PQ generator doesn't allow me to also eliminate caches with a T/D of less than or = to 1.5 stars in addition to 2 stars and higher. I'll have to report that to Groundspeak.

 

I'm seeing some flaws in the easy peasy method.

I see some flaws in your ability to run PQs.

 

Of course, the specifics of setting up the PQs for the easy peasy method have been discussed at length in previous similar threads in which you did participate.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Filter out all micros.

 

We've made a few trips to Ashland, Or. caching along the route.

We filter out all micros. Every time that we make the trip there are enough caches available within .5 mile of the route that we simply do not have enough time to look for them all.

 

Ditto to Arizona and So. Cal.

 

It must be a regional thing.

 

The day that there are only geocaches of the micro size that fit into our diff/terr preferences will be the day AFTER we have stopped geocaching forever.

 

We pray ever day that we live that long and that we continue to live and travel where there are lots of non-micro geocaches. :D:mad::mad:

 

Stuff happens, do not worry though, we'll struggle and survive the apocalypse.

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment
see some flaws in your ability to run PQs.

 

Of course, the specifics of setting up the PQs for the easy peasy method have been discussed at length in previous similar threads in which you did participate.

 

Could you detail them? I must be recalling them incorrectly. My recollection was that I needed to filter micros and low terrain/difficulty caches.

Link to comment
see some flaws in your ability to run PQs.

 

Of course, the specifics of setting up the PQs for the easy peasy method have been discussed at length in previous similar threads in which you did participate.

 

Could you detail them? I must be recalling them incorrectly. My recollection was that I needed to filter micros and low terrain/difficulty caches.

Here's two quick clues:

  1. You are allowed to run more than one PQ.
  2. GSAK merges pocket queries.

The answer to every question in these forums is 'pocket queries'.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I was just reading some old posts in related threads and I noticed that back in 2007, I suggested that by mapping the non-ignored, filtered caches, you may be able to easily identify areas that you don't wish to cache in and areas that you do. This seems good stuff to add to the method, so here it is:

 

The 'Easy Peasy' method of maximizing geocache satisfaction:

  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. Run a PQ on the non-ignored, filtered caches. If you dump these into a mapping program, you likely will be able to identify bunches of caches that are either in areas that you don't want to cache in, or areas that you do. Ignore those in bad areas, watch those that look like winners.
  6. 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.

NOTE: The only hardcore 'research' that my method entails is in the final step. 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?)

 

It should also be noted that this method works from step one. Additional steps add to the winners, they don't further remove losers. Of course, if you here of a loser that made it past step one, toss it on your ignore list. If you find that you are still finding a ton of losers, you may want to tweak your step one filter or join BS in taking up golf.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I think I can sum up the last 150+ posts:

 

There is no 100% perfect way to filter out all of the caches that you may not like.

 

There may be a way to eliminate a portion of the caches that you may not like.

 

You can either accept that no method is perfect and go with "better than nothing" or you can just leave the GPSr in the box and take it back to the store.

Link to comment
see some flaws in your ability to run PQs.

 

Of course, the specifics of setting up the PQs for the easy peasy method have been discussed at length in previous similar threads in which you did participate.

 

Could you detail them? I must be recalling them incorrectly. My recollection was that I needed to filter micros and low terrain/difficulty caches.

Here's two quick clues:

  1. You are allowed to run more than one PQ.
  2. GSAK merges pocket queries.

The answer to every question in these forums is 'pocket queries'.

 

OK, I get it. In PQ # 1 I fliter out all caches with a terrain and difficulty of 2 stars and higher as I usually do when traveling.

 

Then I run a 2nd PQ that filters out all micros and caches with a T/D of 1.5 and lower.

 

Then I use GSAK to merge the results. Sounds good, I'll give it a try.

Link to comment

I think I can sum up the last 150+ posts:

 

There is no 100% perfect way to filter out all of the caches that you may not like.

 

There may be a way to eliminate a portion of the caches that you may not like.

 

You can either accept that no method is perfect and go with "better than nothing" or you can just leave the GPSr in the box and take it back to the store.

 

You forgot the option to choose to lose your attitude of entitlement and expectation and be responsible for your own happiness in how you spend your free quality time.

Link to comment
I was just reading some old posts in related threads and I noticed that back in 2007, I suggested that by mapping the non-ignored, filtered caches, you may be able to easily identify areas that you don't wish to cache in and areas that you do. This seems good stuff to add to the method, so here it is:

 

The 'Easy Peasy' method of maximizing geocache satisfaction:

  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. Run a PQ on the non-ignored, filtered caches. If you dump these into a mapping program, you likely will be able to identify bunches of caches that are either in areas that you don't want to cache in, or areas that you do. Ignore those in bad areas, watch those that look like winners.
  6. 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.

NOTE: The only hardcore 'research' that my method entails is in the final step. 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?)

 

It should also be noted that this method works from step one. Additional steps add to the winners, they don't further remove losers. Of course, if you here of a loser that made it past step one, toss it on your ignore list. If you find that you are still finding a ton of losers, you may want to tweak your step one filter or join BS in taking up golf.

Briansnat;

 

We know that, because you want to give this method a fair chance during its upcoming trial when you visit your in-laws, you will follow it carefully and in good faith. My suggestion is that you print out Sbell's post above and keep it with you for easy reference.

 

Remember: If the method doesn’t work for you, your report will be more convincing the more detail you can provide.

 

And if it DOES work for you – we know you’ll give an accurate report about that too.

 

I'm impressed that you have finally decided to give this thing a chance. I always prefer to at least try to solve my problems instead of just griping about them, and I’m happy to see you have chosen that path here. :D

Link to comment

I think I can sum up the last 150+ posts:

 

There is no 100% perfect way to filter out all of the caches that you may not like.

 

There may be a way to eliminate a portion of the caches that you may not like.

 

You can either accept that no method is perfect and go with "better than nothing" or you can just leave the GPSr in the box and take it back to the store.

 

People who seek perfection are doomed to fail. That is probably the reason that most rational people don't do that.

 

I can tell you though that The Team's method is close enough, 98.5% by my best estimate.

 

Try it some time.

Link to comment

I think I can sum up the last 150+ posts:

 

There is no 100% perfect way to filter out all of the caches that you may not like.

 

There may be a way to eliminate a portion of the caches that you may not like.

 

You can either accept that no method is perfect and go with "better than nothing" or you can just leave the GPSr in the box and take it back to the store.

 

Or you can allow those who are so inclined to encourage the raising of the bar a few notches without belittling and attacking everybody who attempts to do so.

Link to comment

I think I can sum up the last 150+ posts:

 

There is no 100% perfect way to filter out all of the caches that you may not like.

 

There may be a way to eliminate a portion of the caches that you may not like.

 

You can either accept that no method is perfect and go with "better than nothing" or you can just leave the GPSr in the box and take it back to the store.

 

Or you can allow those who are so inclined to encourage the raising of the bar a few notches without belittling and attacking everybody who attempts to do so.

The problem with this is that quality is defined from briansnat's perspective. There is an assumption that everybody prefers the caches that briansnat likes to ones he doesn't like. From talking with people who hide 35mm film containers in parking lots I've seen that this is not absolutely true. These people enjoy finding caches hidden in lamppost or newsracks. To them a good cache is one hidden in a convenient location that they can find quickly. They often enjoy being able to go and find a lot of caches without having to drive miles and miles. To briansnat this may be an insufficient reason for hiding a cache and he would like to find caches that are hidden in places that meet his "wow" requirement. But all of his complaining is not going to raise the bar even just a notch because the people who are hiding these cache have perfectly good reasons for hiding them. Satisfying briansnat is not one of these reasons.

Link to comment

I think I can sum up the last 150+ posts:

 

There is no 100% perfect way to filter out all of the caches that you may not like.

 

There may be a way to eliminate a portion of the caches that you may not like.

 

You can either accept that no method is perfect and go with "better than nothing" or you can just leave the GPSr in the box and take it back to the store.

 

Or you can allow those who are so inclined to encourage the raising of the bar a few notches without belittling and attacking everybody who attempts to do so.

 

I've watched you and sbell111 do this little dance for the last two years and seen more than one thread die horrible deaths because neither of you would budge an inch. I'm not used to the two of you making some forward progress. Which you are*. That's encouraging.

 

I'll keep it to myself going forward.

 

 

*Festivus Miracle?

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

I think I can sum up the last 150+ posts:

 

There is no 100% perfect way to filter out all of the caches that you may not like.

 

There may be a way to eliminate a portion of the caches that you may not like.

 

You can either accept that no method is perfect and go with "better than nothing" or you can just leave the GPSr in the box and take it back to the store.

 

Or you can allow those who are so inclined to encourage the raising of the bar a few notches without belittling and attacking everybody who attempts to do so.

 

I've watched you and sbell111 do this little dance for the last two years and seen more than one thread die horrible deaths because neither of you would budge an inch. I'm not used to the two of you making some forward progress. Which you are*. That's encouraging.

 

I'll keep it to myself going forward.

 

 

*Festivus Miracle?

IMHO, the most pervasive form of encouragement given in Geocaching is numbers caching. It seems to me that every preference should be given an equal voice. So I join Brian and many others in simply using our voice in these threads to promote hiding caches in interesting locations and/or in interesting ways...
Link to comment
... It seems to me that every preference should be given an equal voice. So I join Brian and many others in simply using our voice in these threads to promote hiding caches in interesting locations and/or in interesting ways.
Has anyone actually come out against that?

 

I think that you should go find the thread that wants to ban the hiding of caches in interesting locations and/or in interesting ways and rail in there for a while. You should really give those people a piece of your mind.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...