Film containers are NOT small cache containers, they're micros!

[+briansnat]

So, let me get this straight.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

 

That's like asking a stranger to feed you then whining about the quality of food.

 

I think you missed the boat on this one. He's annoyed that people aren't doing it according to this site's guidelines.

 

It's more like going into a restaurant and ordering a hamburger and getting a hot dog.

[RedRazorNick]

 

So, let me get this straight.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

 

That's like asking a stranger to feed you then whining about the quality of food.

 

Preach it! In a similar vain, this past weekend a local cacher logged a multi in our area. This was a very well thought out multi that leads you to a lot of public art here. His comment (in part)?

"If I were a teacher grading this cache... I would give it a C."

 

The cache placer is very active in our community having placed nearly 150 caches in this area.

Guess how many US hides this cacher finder has placed... that's right, none.

[+DarkZen]

So, let me get this straight.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

 

That's like asking a stranger to feed you then whining about the quality of food.

 

I think you missed the boat on this one. He's annoyed that people aren't doing it according to this site's guidelines.

 

It's more like going into a restaurant and ordering a hamburger and getting a hot dog.

Not to over-stretch the analogy, but it's more like going into a restaurant and ordering a hamburger and finding out that another patron has switched your burger for a hot dog.

[+bittsen]

So, let me get this straight.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

 

That's like asking a stranger to feed you then whining about the quality of food.

 

I think you missed the boat on this one. He's annoyed that people aren't doing it according to this site's guidelines.

 

It's more like going into a restaurant and ordering a hamburger and getting a hot dog.

 

You PAY for a hamburger, you get a hamburger. If you go to the restaurant and they say "free food" and you are expecting a hamburger, but get a hot dog, deal with it.

 

I remember something my grandma said...

 

Beggers can't be choosers!

Edited February 8, 2010 by bittsen

[+briansnat]

So, let me get this straight.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

 

That's like asking a stranger to feed you then whining about the quality of food.

 

I think you missed the boat on this one. He's annoyed that people aren't doing it according to this site's guidelines.

 

It's more like going into a restaurant and ordering a hamburger and getting a hot dog.

 

You PAY for a hamburger, you get a hamburger. If you go to the restaurant and they say "free food" and you are expecting a hamburger, but get a hot dog, deal with it.

 

I remember something my grandma said...

 

Beggers can't be choosers!

 

OK so it's like going to a picnic that advertises free barbecue chicken when you ask for chicken they hand you a plate of haggis.

[+bittsen]

So, let me get this straight.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

 

That's like asking a stranger to feed you then whining about the quality of food.

 

I think you missed the boat on this one. He's annoyed that people aren't doing it according to this site's guidelines.

 

It's more like going into a restaurant and ordering a hamburger and getting a hot dog.

 

You PAY for a hamburger, you get a hamburger. If you go to the restaurant and they say "free food" and you are expecting a hamburger, but get a hot dog, deal with it.

 

I remember something my grandma said...

 

Beggers can't be choosers!

 

OK so it's like going to a picnic that advertises free barbecue chicken when you ask for chicken they hand you a plate of haggis.

 

Yup, next time they advertise a free BBQ chicken, what do you do? Ignore it.

 

See how easy that is?

 

[+NeecesandNephews]

 

Want to hear my theory??? I think they do it on purpose!!! There are so many posts on this forum about "micro/nano haters" ( a race I have no dog in) they probably want their micro to have a chance without going immediately on the ignore list of hundreds of people. I'm just sayin'

[+briansnat]

 

Want to hear my theory??? I think they do it on purpose!!! There are so many posts on this forum about "micro/nano haters" ( a race I have no dog in) they probably want their micro to have a chance without going immediately on the ignore list of hundreds of people. I'm just sayin'

 

Some of it is out of ignorance, but I don't doubt that is the reason for many of them. They are trying to foil the Easy Peasy Method.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

 

You're no longer a premium member because Groundspeak wouldn't be willing to do away with the kinds of caches that you don't like?

..

 

i am pretty sure i didn't say that. i just long for good ol' days, sorry.

Edited February 8, 2010 by RedShoesGirl

[GOF and Bacall]

 

Want to hear my theory??? I think they do it on purpose!!! There are so many posts on this forum about "micro/nano haters" ( a race I have no dog in) they probably want their micro to have a chance without going immediately on the ignore list of hundreds of people. I'm just sayin'

 

Some of it is out of ignorance, but I don't doubt that is the reason for many of them. They are trying to foil the Easy Peasy Method.

 

I don't know what the percentages are but I know for a fact that some people list their micro caches as smalls or don't specify the size just so they don't get filtered out of a PQ. I have had cachers admit as much to me at events. Now that kind of shenanigans get all their hides right onto the old ignore list.

[+catsnfish]

So, let me get this straight.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

 

That's like asking a stranger to feed you then whining about the quality of food.

 

I think you missed the boat on this one. He's annoyed that people aren't doing it according to this site's guidelines.

 

It's more like going into a restaurant and ordering a hamburger and getting a hot dog.

 

You PAY for a hamburger, you get a hamburger. If you go to the restaurant and they say "free food" and you are expecting a hamburger, but get a hot dog, deal with it.

 

I remember something my grandma said...

 

Beggers can't be choosers!

 

OK so it's like going to a picnic that advertises free barbecue chicken when you ask for chicken they hand you a plate of haggis.

I'm in line for the haggis!! now if they subbed chicken for that I'd be growling

[Clan Riffster]

I think they do it on purpose!

I know for a fact that many of them do just that.

Which is why I've added "Size not chosen" and "Other" to my auto-ignore feature.

When I come across a hider who selects "Small" for their micros, I just ignore everything they hide.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Clan Riffster

[+Highland Horde]

 

OK so it's like going to a picnic that advertises free barbecue chicken when you ask for chicken they hand you a plate of haggis.

 

now I want some Haggis!!!! its far better then boring old chicken

 

oops... off topic

[+power69]

the PB jar, a small, was classified as a regular!

You think thats funny? I found a 1 gallon ziplock freezer bag cache that was listed as a large.

no container, the bag *was* the cache!

[+WHO-DEY]

 

So, let me get this straight.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

 

That's like asking a stranger to feed you then whining about the quality of food.

 

Preach it! In a similar vain, this past weekend a local cacher logged a multi in our area. This was a very well thought out multi that leads you to a lot of public art here. His comment (in part)?

"If I were a teacher grading this cache... I would give it a C."

 

The cache placer is very active in our community having placed nearly 150 caches in this area.

Guess how many US hides this cacher finder has placed... that's right, none.

 

REQUEST: lets not turn CO's into saints here. I believe, if a CO really, 100% placed a cache for others, it would be more than a duct taped film container in a lamp post. It is as much for the owner as it may be for the finders. Micros are apropriate in some areas, like cities etc. But they are in parks, and fields etc. In our area, it is almost as if some owners want to claim territory or parks as their own, but will not invest in making it a worthwhile adventure for the people you claim they are doing it all for. So they do a bunch of micro's....r multi'micro's. So, please, lets be humble in our assumptions when we generalize the reasons people place caches.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Has anyone ever put together a presentation of the size categories, with pictures of containers that fit into each size category? It could be linked to from the Report a Cache page and/or the Listing Guidelines page.

 

You mean something like the Containers Article in the Knowledgebase?

Linking from the report form a nice idea! the article could use a bit of updating, I think.

I've love to see the magnetic nano cache there described as being a micro! (not "other" or "not listed")...

[knowschad]

Has anyone ever put together a presentation of the size categories, with pictures of containers that fit into each size category? It could be linked to from the Report a Cache page and/or the Listing Guidelines page.

 

You mean something like the Containers Article in the Knowledgebase?

Linking from the report form a nice idea! the article could use a bit of updating, I think.

I've love to see the magnetic nano cache there described as being a micro! (not "other" or "not listed")...

I need to look at the Knowledgebase more (especially since I have linked to it in my signature!). I'd love to see it updated with a few newer containers like preforms and cryo tubes, but nevertheless, that's awesome!

[+Border Caz]

I think some COs list a micro by the size of the thing it's hidden in, rather than the internal size of the container itself - hence film canisters hidden in small logs or in small stones are small rather than micro to the owner.

[Mushtang]

Has anyone ever put together a presentation of the size categories, with pictures of containers that fit into each size category? It could be linked to from the Report a Cache page and/or the Listing Guidelines page.

You mean something like the Containers Article in the Knowledgebase?

Linking from the report form a nice idea! the article could use a bit of updating, I think.

I've love to see the magnetic nano cache there described as being a micro! (not "other" or "not listed")...

It definitely needs updating!!! It would be good to list the good containers separate from the bad containers so it's crystal clear which category each container is in. When I first scanned the article and saw the picture of the Gladware container I was shocked that they'd be suggesting such a thing, but upon reading the article I see that they're giving it as an example of a bad container.

 

They also say that a pill bottle is a good container and that the lid "fits well". Most of us know better.

 

A plastic pill bottle has some good qualities for a micro cache (albeit a large one): the plastic tends to be very tough and the lid usually fits well.

[knowschad]

I think some COs list a micro by the size of the thing it's hidden in, rather than the internal size of the container itself - hence film canisters hidden in small logs or in small stones are small rather than micro to the owner.

This subject is always a tough one, and really deserves its own thread. It isn't as cut & dried as you make appear.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Has anyone ever put together a presentation of the size categories, with pictures of containers that fit into each size category? It could be linked to from the Report a Cache page and/or the Listing Guidelines page.

 

You mean something like the Containers Article in the Knowledgebase?

Linking from the report form a nice idea! the article could use a bit of updating, I think.

I've love to see the magnetic nano cache there described as being a micro! (not "other" or "not listed")...

 

While it shows various good and bad containers, it lacks a "sizing" section.

[+sbell111]

 

So, let me get this straight.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

 

That's like asking a stranger to feed you then whining about the quality of food.

 

Preach it! In a similar vain, this past weekend a local cacher logged a multi in our area. This was a very well thought out multi that leads you to a lot of public art here. His comment (in part)?

"If I were a teacher grading this cache... I would give it a C."

 

The cache placer is very active in our community having placed nearly 150 caches in this area.

Guess how many US hides this cacher finder has placed... that's right, none.

 

REQUEST: lets not turn CO's into saints here. I believe, if a CO really, 100% placed a cache for others, it would be more than a duct taped film container in a lamp post. It is as much for the owner as it may be for the finders. Micros are apropriate in some areas, like cities etc. But they are in parks, and fields etc. In our area, it is almost as if some owners want to claim territory or parks as their own, but will not invest in making it a worthwhile adventure for the people you claim they are doing it all for. So they do a bunch of micro's....r multi'micro's. So, please, lets be humble in our assumptions when we generalize the reasons people place caches.

Let's not turn COs into devils, either. Just because you do not like these hides does not mean that they aren't enjoyed by others. When you realize that you are not the arbiter of what a 'good' cache is, bittsen's post is right on.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

[+Renegade Knight]

... A lousey little film cannister is a micro and not a small cache...

 

True, True, True.

[+Renegade Knight]

....

You PAY for a hamburger, you get a hamburger. If you go to the restaurant and they say "free food" and you are expecting a hamburger, but get a hot dog, deal with it.

 

I remember something my grandma said...

 

Beggers can't be choosers!

 

So when your begging for finders, why not increase your odds of getting the logs you want (enjoyed your cache) by lising your cache size correctly?

[+DarkZen]

 

So, let me get this straight.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

 

That's like asking a stranger to feed you then whining about the quality of food.

 

Preach it! In a similar vain, this past weekend a local cacher logged a multi in our area. This was a very well thought out multi that leads you to a lot of public art here. His comment (in part)?

"If I were a teacher grading this cache... I would give it a C."

 

The cache placer is very active in our community having placed nearly 150 caches in this area.

Guess how many US hides this cacher finder has placed... that's right, none.

I happen to know this particular CO and they 100% hide for cachers. Not really sure of your intent, but with out COs there couldn't be any finders. Rating caches while not hiding any seem poor form at best... especially if it's not glowing and when it's not warranted

 

REQUEST: lets not turn CO's into saints here. I believe, if a CO really, 100% placed a cache for others, it would be more than a duct taped film container in a lamp post. It is as much for the owner as it may be for the finders. Micros are apropriate in some areas, like cities etc. But they are in parks, and fields etc. In our area, it is almost as if some owners want to claim territory or parks as their own, but will not invest in making it a worthwhile adventure for the people you claim they are doing it all for. So they do a bunch of micro's....r multi'micro's. So, please, lets be humble in our assumptions when we generalize the reasons people place caches.

I happen to know this particular CO and they 100% hide for cachers. Not really sure of your intent, but with out COs there couldn't be any finders. Rating caches while not hiding any seem poor form at best... especially a sub-parr rating when it's not warranted as in this case.

 

Just my $.02

[Skippermark]

Want to hear my theory??? I think they do it on purpose!!! There are so many posts on this forum about "micro/nano haters" ( a race I have no dog in) they probably want their micro to have a chance without going immediately on the ignore list of hundreds of people. I'm just sayin'

Yup. I agree. I know some cachers who do the same thing with their hard hides. They rate them a 1.5 knowing a lot of people ignore harder caches.

 

Those who are local know to expect a lot harder find than the rating shows, so we're prepared for it, but it's kind of stinky if someone visits from out of town expecting to get some quick finds.

[CoyoteRed]

Personaly I think micros/nanos play an important part in geocaching. There are a lot of places where you can only put micros, for example in towns. Without micros we would have a lot less caches to look for.

We have a few caches in towns. Not the first micro.

 

Urban settings are no excuse for a micro.

[+WHO-DEY]

Let's not turn COs into devils, either. Just because you do not like these hides does not mean that they aren't enjoyed by others. When you realize that you are not the arbiter of what a 'good' cache is, bittsen's post is right on.

 

 

OK, a couple things.

1. I agree with you. I hid 7 caches myself. One is a micro. And the micro is listed as a micro, and it is not put under the lamp post skirt in a store parking lot that 8/10 times should not be there if the store managers were asked permision.

 

2. Never say any of Bittsens posts are "right on". Even if you think that it may be close to being correct, never post anything like that on a public forum. It is like throwing a bucket of water on a puddle, it just makes the mess big enough that people can't simply step over it, they need to go around it.

[+bittsen]

Let's not turn COs into devils, either. Just because you do not like these hides does not mean that they aren't enjoyed by others. When you realize that you are not the arbiter of what a 'good' cache is, bittsen's post is right on.

 

 

OK, a couple things.

1. I agree with you. I hid 7 caches myself. One is a micro. And the micro is listed as a micro, and it is not put under the lamp post skirt in a store parking lot that 8/10 times should not be there if the store managers were asked permision.

 

2. Never say any of Bittsens posts are "right on". Even if you think that it may be close to being correct, never post anything like that on a public forum. It is like throwing a bucket of water on a puddle, it just makes the mess big enough that people can't simply step over it, they need to go around it.

 

[+WHO-DEY]

..I am glad you took that in the right light.

Edited February 9, 2010 by WHO-DEY

[+Castle Mischief]

Let's not turn COs into devils, either. Just because you do not like these hides does not mean that they aren't enjoyed by others. When you realize that you are not the arbiter of what a 'good' cache is, bittsen's post is right on.

 

I think there's a consensus, when two caches of differing types are put side-by-side, on which cache is probably the better cache.

 

I don't believe that all caches are equal or that anybody really believes that all caches are equal- regardless of claims to the contrary.

[+sbell111]

Let's not turn COs into devils, either. Just because you do not like these hides does not mean that they aren't enjoyed by others. When you realize that you are not the arbiter of what a 'good' cache is, bittsen's post is right on.

 

I think there's a consensus, when two caches of differing types are put side-by-side, on which cache is probably the better cache.

 

I don't believe that all caches are equal or that anybody really believes that all caches are equal- regardless of claims to the contrary.

1. The guidelines tend to ensure that two caches won't be placed right next to each other.
   
2. No where in any post that I've made (ever, I think) do I state that all caches are equal. That being said, whether any cache is better or worse than another is completely subjective. Since every cacher does not like the same things, each person's geocache hierarchy is going to be different.
   
3. By twisting my post to suggest that my position is something that it isn't, you give yourself an easy position to argue for/against, but you don't move the thread forward, at all.
   

Edited February 10, 2010 by sbell111

[+Castle Mischief]

The guidelines tend to ensure that two caches won't be placed right next to each other.

 

Good grief. Not physically next to each, side by side by means of comparison.

 

No where in any post that I've made (ever, I think) do I state that all caches are equal. That being said, whether any cache is better or worse than another is completely subjective. Since every cacher does not like the same things, each person's geocache hierarchy is going to be different.

 

I agree to a point. I think there's a greater likelihood that some caches would be considered "better" by most cachers. I also think, while I'm not a psychic, (uber)genius, or by any means declare myself to have a finger on the pulse of the caching community, that I can also place a cache on one side of the dividing line between "better" or "worse".

 

I don't think I'm the only person able to do this.

 

By twisting my post to suggest that my position is something that it isn't, you give yourself an easy position to argue for/against, but you don't move the thread forward, at all.

 

I never stated that was specifically your opinion- apologies for not making that distinction. Are you suggesting that you're the arbiter for thread advancement? And is further discussion of a topic not related to the original discussion moving the thread forward?

Edited February 10, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+Castle Mischief]

How did we migrate from improperly listed cache sizes to cache quality?

 

List your caches per the guidelines. Unless your cache is really creative, or that giving away the size would ruin an element of surprise- then it's either a micro, small, regular, or large. Just because your bison tube-sized container isn't a Bison tube doesn't make it suddenly a mysterious "other" or "not chosen". If it's a film canister, it's a micro.

 

Sometimes I hunt micros and sometimes I don't. I'd like to be able to make that choice. I'd prefer if I was given the tools to make that choice. If you insist in listing your micros as "small or "other" or "not chosen" it doesn't mean that I despise you, that I think you're evil, communist, fascist, or even an absurdist. I won't spit on you from a balcony/overpass. I won't hire a gypsy to put the thinner curse on you.

 

Worst case, I'll point and whisper about you at events. Promise.

[knowschad]

whether any cache is better or worse than another is completely subjective.

There is a subjective element to most likes/dislikes, but in general, taste is far from subjective. There is far more objectivity to taste than there is subjectivity. I would be willing to state, for example, without having met you, that you prefer the taste of strawberry ice cream to the taste of the dirt that strawberries grow in.

[Clan Riffster]

I think some COs list a micro by the size of the thing it's hidden in, rather than the internal size of the container itself - hence film canisters hidden in small logs or in small stones are small rather than micro to the owner.

With this thinking, would a blinkie stuck on a rail road engine qualify as a large?

I far prefer the logic of measuring the actual cache volume, as opposed to what it happens to be attached to.

[+tozainamboku]

Let's not turn COs into devils, either. Just because you do not like these hides does not mean that they aren't enjoyed by others. When you realize that you are not the arbiter of what a 'good' cache is, bittsen's post is right on.

 

I think there's a consensus, when two caches of differing types are put side-by-side, on which cache is probably the better cache.

 

I don't believe that all caches are equal or that anybody really believes that all caches are equal- regardless of claims to the contrary.

When two differing caches are placed side-by-side there is not lot a likely consensus over which is probably the better cache. Someone is going to prefer regular sized caches while someone else will prefer micros. Some is going to prefer and easy park and grab while someone else is going to prefer a challenging search for a well camouflaged caches or a long hike to get to ground zero. Someone is going to prefer a multi that emphasizes some public art while someone else could care less about public art and find such a cache as only about average.

 

Caches are not all equal. But similarly, cachers are not all equal as well. What one cacher prefers another may not care for.

 

Are there caches that are "consensus" favorites? Perhaps. Are there some that are so poorly thought out that most people would rate them low? Maybe. I would venture that most caches fall somewhere in the middle and will be rated differently by different people. Cache may even be rated differently by the same person, just depending on how one feels that day or what other cachers they have been finding. And I believe that even a consensus great cache will have its detractor and a consensus stinker may have someone who enjoyed it.

 

whether any cache is better or worse than another is completely subjective.

There is a subjective element to most likes/dislikes, but in general, taste is far from subjective. There is far more objectivity to taste than there is subjectivity. I would be willing to state, for example, without having met you, that you prefer the taste of strawberry ice cream to the taste of the dirt that strawberries grow in.

That's not a good analogy. Comparing strawberry ice cream to dirt migh work for comparing a geocache with a waymark . You might have said that that withoug meeting sbell you'r confident that he prefers strawberry ice cream to sauerkraut ice cream. But then you might be wrong. While the numbers may be small there are undoubtly some people who prefer sauerkraut to strawberry.

 

How did we migrate from improperly listed cache sizes to cache quality?

 

One issue with micros are the people who for some reason want to associate the size of a cache with quality. Any topic that talks about micros will inevitably turn to quality or at least to a discussion of cacher preferences.

 

If caches sizes are properly rated, then perhaps someone who is convinced they always prefer a larger cache to a micro will be able to avoid micros. Does that mean they will enjoy all the caches they find now? Not likely. They will find something else to complain about.

[+Castle Mischief]

When two differing caches are placed side-by-side there is not lot a likely consensus over which is probably the better cache.

 

Give me two GC numbers and let prognostication begin. But maybe in a different thread. We're getting too OT.

 

Oh and by "consensus" I meant "general agreement". There is still room for a high degree of individual thought and variation within the consensus.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+eyeinthesky]

Interesting topic with strong passions. I don't have even one hundred finds yet even though I have been Geocaching for several years so maybe I am not qualified to comment but here goes.

I enjoy all types of caches even the little no-see-ums but I much prefer the sizes with trading items inside. I have placed 4 caches in my area and all are kid (family) oriented. I put some thought into what location would be fun possibly educational and needs to walking to get to. Then I think about what type of container wold hide the best in that location. Once I have a plan I get and test the coordinates and then ask a Geocache friend to locate it for me. Maybe we as Geocachers should hold a Saturday Geocache workshop at a local park or something have examples on hand talk up our hobby and help others to learn the process including listing correct information. I didn't have this type of guidence being one of only a few but I have learn a lot from researching & reading what others have done including all posts on this topic.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts thanks for reading mine.

[+tozainamboku]

When two differing caches are placed side-by-side there is not lot a likely consensus over which is probably the better cache.

 

Give me two GC numbers and let prognostication begin. But maybe in a different thread. We're getting too OT.

 

Oh and by "consensus" I meant "general agreement". There is still room for a high degree of individual thought and variation within the consensus.

You might be right. But then I will point out that there is consensus that LPC hides are a lot of fun. Look at how many people hide them. Look at how many people log them. There seems to be a consensus that getting an quick and easy find is a good thing. Is that what you were talking about?

 

I am happy to accept that many of the caches I like are not enjoyed so much by the "general" community. Most of my hides don't get found too often. I find a lot of caches that may get found only once or twice a year. I enjoy working on difficult puzzles and hiking long distances. There is certainly must be a consensus that these caches aren't as much fun as going out an finding 20 or 30 urban micros.

[GOF and Bacall]

When two differing caches are placed side-by-side there is not lot a likely consensus over which is probably the better cache.

 

Give me two GC numbers and let prognostication begin. But maybe in a different thread. We're getting too OT.

 

Oh and by "consensus" I meant "general agreement". There is still room for a high degree of individual thought and variation within the consensus.

You might be right. But then I will point out that there is consensus that LPC hides are a lot of fun. Look at how many people hide them. Look at how many people log them. There seems to be a consensus that getting an quick and easy find is a good thing. Is that what you were talking about?

 

I am happy to accept that many of the caches I like are not enjoyed so much by the "general" community. Most of my hides don't get found too often. I find a lot of caches that may get found only once or twice a year. I enjoy working on difficult puzzles and hiking long distances. There is certainly must be a consensus that these caches aren't as much fun as going out an finding 20 or 30 urban micros.

 

And what does any of it have to do with film cans?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Personaly I think micros/nanos play an important part in geocaching. There are a lot of places where you can only put micros, for example in towns. Without micros we would have a lot less caches to look for.

We have a few caches in towns. Not the first micro.

 

Urban settings are no excuse for a micro.

 

I bring you there for a reason (usually the view). If a micro is all that can be hidden there, then a micro it is!

 

And, now I'm hungry for haggis! Wonder if the Argyle Fish and Chips is open in the snow???

[+Chi-Town Cacher]

Life's interferred with my lurking around the forums recently so I'm just getting back here and finishing reading everybody's responses. First off to all of you that responded I thank you since it gave me a pretty good idea whether I was just being a cranky old man or if maybe my gripe may have had a little merit. With that being said I'd like to clarify a couple things.

 

First of all as the OP I should not have put the desparaging remarks about micros in my original post, they were really OT from what I really wanted to hear responses about. I'm sure that the discussion would have gotten off topic eventually since micros are a hot topic, but my comments probably started the discussion off on the wrong setting. I'll try and do better in the future. Just for the record I am not a micro hater normally even though my original post would lead folks to believe otherwise. Yes, most days I do filter them out and ignore them since they are not the type of hides I normally prefer to seek. However, once in a while I do enjoy them and even specifically sought out a LPC as my milestone 500th find just to be different than what lots of other folks do for their milestones.

 

To Bittsen you said I'm an elitist because of my frustration with the incorrect classification of micros sizes. That seems a bit harsh, but I suspect that due to my bad wording in my original post I kind of opened the door for that kind of criticism. I can assure you I am not advocating the demise of micros I just want cache owners to correctly classify their caches sizes so cache seekers can make an informed decision on whether they want to search for them or not.

 

Thank you to all who've taken the time to share your opinions. Happy caching!!!!

[+sbell111]

I think that we can all agree that a film can is MUCH less likely to cause the bomb squad to appear on the scene than any other larger container. Still, the cache owners should always accurately choose the size.

[+briansnat]

While the numbers may be small there are undoubtly some people who prefer sauerkraut to strawberry.

 

I certainly prefer sauerkraut over strawberries on my kielbasa.

[+Castle Mischief]

I think that we can all agree that a film can is MUCH less likely to cause the bomb squad to appear on the scene than any other larger container. Still, the cache owners should always accurately choose the size.

 

I think more film cans under lamppost skirts have resulted in more bomb-squad calls than all the ammo cans under lamppost skirts.

 

 

But more seriously, I'd love to see the numbers of film can-sized caches vs. larger size caches and bomb-squad calls. Seems the ones in the news recently have been the smaller ones- under lamp skirts. It seems that the smaller caches might be catching up due to the places they are placed.

 

Edit: Important words highlighted.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+Castle Mischief]

While the numbers may be small there are undoubtly some people who prefer sauerkraut to strawberry.

 

I certainly prefer sauerkraut over strawberries on my kielbasa.

 

Dude, you're simply not living life to the fullest. Strawberries + kielbasa = win.

[+sbell111]

I think that we can all agree that a film can is MUCH less likely to cause the bomb squad to appear on the scene than any other larger container. Still, the cache owners should always accurately choose the size.

 

I think more film cans under lamppost skirts have resulted in more bomb-squad calls than all the ammo cans under lamppost skirts.

 

 

But more seriously, I'd love to see the numbers of film can-sized caches vs. larger size caches and bomb-squad calls. Seems the ones in the news recently have been the smaller ones- under lamp skirts. It seems that the smaller caches might be catching up due to the places they are placed.

I think that you are wrong about them 'catching up'. A few recent ones do not offset all the others.

[knowschad]

While the numbers may be small there are undoubtly some people who prefer sauerkraut to strawberry.

I certainly prefer sauerkraut over strawberries on my kielbasa.

Dude, you're simply not living life to the fullest. Strawberries + kielbasa = win.

Wow... I've never tried kielbasa ice cream, although I think they made it once on Iron Chef America.

 

 

 

 

 

(ps: consider yourself reminded)

Edited February 11, 2010 by knowschad

[+bittsen]

To Bittsen you said I'm an elitist because of my frustration with the incorrect classification of micros sizes. That seems a bit harsh, but I suspect that due to my bad wording in my original post I kind of opened the door for that kind of criticism. I can assure you I am not advocating the demise of micros I just want cache owners to correctly classify their caches sizes so cache seekers can make an informed decision on whether they want to search for them or not.

 

Let's clarify. I didn't say you were an elitist. I said your comment seemed a little elitist.