Micros the scurge of geocaching and maybe the end?

[+brslk]

If somebody dared to hide a micro right where you had been planning to hide an ammo can for the last two years, but just haven't gotten around to it yet, then they deserve to have it go missing. Several times. Keep it up till they archive it in frustration. Then start planning that ammo can again. OK, I am kidding. I also hate when I find a new micro hidden someplace where a lock & lock or ammo can would have been much better. But, I can only get mad at myself for not getting there first with a "real" cache. To all you micro hiders, go right ahead and put your caches out. We will still go out and look for them. We may curse them, and fill the forums with our opinions. But we will still look for them. Just don't try to mislead us by checking the "other" size. Be proud of your micro.

 

It really does frustrate me sometimes when someone sanitizes a nice wooded area by placing a boring micro in the middle of it.

I once did even consider muggling it but my conscience wouldn't let me do it.

However someone or more than one someone didn't have and issue with muggling it and it has been muggled three times.

The CO has decided to archive it.

For some strange reason I didn't place a cache there and within days after it being archived, someone placed another micro!

GRRRRR!

 

I have lots of bad thoughts but rarely act upon them...

[+proudcdn]

I personally like to find Geocoins, TBs, and other trackables. This rules out micros and nanos and so I generally do not look for them.

 

That being said, I am also looking to hit milestones (number of cahces found, difficulty levels, etc.) and this can be accomplished quicker by incorporating the micros and nanos.

 

Proudcdn

[+briansnat]

Actually I'd think it's just the reverse.

It's the larger sizes of geocaches that may end our sport.

 

The Law Enforcement Officers seem to call in the disposal teams when a larger sized cache is discovered.

It's probably quite rare for a hide a key to be blown up.

 

Actually it seems that micros under lamp posts have generated most of the recent bomb squad responses that I've seen.

[+brslk]

Actually I'd think it's just the reverse.

It's the larger sizes of geocaches that may end our sport.

 

The Law Enforcement Officers seem to call in the disposal teams when a larger sized cache is discovered.

It's probably quite rare for a hide a key to be blown up.

 

Actually it seems that micros under lamp posts have generated most of the recent bomb squad responses that I've seen.

 

I was going to mention that.

I can't recall many times in recent history that an ammo can has been blown up.

[+SwineFlew]

After reading this, I went out and planted a micro! You may hate me all you want.

[+GrateBear]

There is a definite need for a forum titled "What I Hate About Geocaching". Sorry, but i'm sick of these topics about hating micros, nanos, bushes, trees, etc. If you don't like them, ignore them. Look for what you like and let those who do like these continue on their way. There's a great line in The Big Lebowski that applies to those who say too much.....

[+brslk]

There is a definite need for a forum titled "What I Hate About Geocaching". Sorry, but i'm sick of these topics about hating micros, nanos, bushes, trees, etc. If you don't like them, ignore them. Look for what you like and let those who do like these continue on their way. There's a great line in The Big Lebowski that applies to those who say too much.....

 

Yes, but I think the majority of people who have replied to this thread have stated that they don't hate micros just because they are micros.

I personally like micros. I just dislike them being placed inappropriately.

[flapjack4]

i,d realy like to see a micro multi cache where theres 6 caches within 6 feet of each other..wouldn,t that realy bite if you couldnt find the 6,th one....

Edited June 15, 2010 by flapjack4

[Mr.Yuck]

There is a definite need for a forum titled "What I Hate About Geocaching". Sorry, but i'm sick of these topics about hating micros, nanos, bushes, trees, etc. If you don't like them, ignore them. Look for what you like and let those who do like these continue on their way. There's a great line in The Big Lebowski that applies to those who say too much.....

 

Yes, but I think the majority of people who have replied to this thread have stated that they don't hate micros just because they are micros.

I personally like micros. I just dislike them being placed inappropriately.

 

Correct. I usually say there are no micro haters. But the OP doesn't make a very convincing case for this, does he? I'm just going to guess there are so many "for the numbers" micros in every store parking lot in his area, that he has a hard time separating the wheat from the chaff. Me, I just found a nice micro in a very historic cemetery yesterday. But I'm able to study caches in my notification radii as they are published to see if I'm interested in them or not.

[+The Jester]

i,d realy like to see a micro multi cache where theres 6 caches within 6 feet of each other..wouldn,t that realy bite if you couldnt find the 6,th one....

I did one like that once. A couple of finders from earlier in the day sat back to watch (and laugh). They weren't laughing when we found the the "real" sixth cache - it turns out there were TWO caches at the first palcement, so they had counted them as two - the shocked look on their faces was priceless.

[4wheelin_fool]

Micros have already ended the earliest traditions in geocaching; such as writing a full log in the logbook, and trading usable items. The practice of not trading, and signing only a username has already taken place, and traditions have changed. It would have occurred anyway, but micros made it happen much faster.

 

This thread is only a flashback wannabe micro hating ghost topic from 2005.

[+thedeadpirate]

Ni!

[CoyoteRed]

Micros have already ended the earliest traditions in geocaching; such as writing a full log in the logbook, and trading usable items. The practice of not trading, and signing only a username has already taken place, and traditions have changed. It would have occurred anyway, but micros made it happen much faster.

 

This thread is only a flashback wannabe micro hating ghost topic from 2005.

Preach it, brother!

 

You touched on something that I noticed a while back. Upon doing maintenance on a beginners cache in a nice park it struck me kind of odd that the last few pages were of simply handles and dates--each to one line. We used to bitch about folks taking up a whole page with handle, date, "TFTC" and what they traded--all written real huge. Now, a fat log is nothing but handle and date, one to a line.

[+L0ne.R]

If people want more large caches they should hide more.

 

We have 13 active cache hides, we're at our comfort level wrt maintainence. What if I want to 'find' more larger caches, hiding them won't satisfy my desire to find swag size containers.

 

I wouldn't advocate hiding larger caches simply to keep out the micros, especially if they end up rotting due to lack of maintenance. Hide only as many as you can comfortably maintain. Hide to provide finders with a nice caching experience.

 

I think online constructive criticism is the way to go. Praise the good stuff, critique the bad stuff.

[+zoltig]

Micros have already ended the earliest traditions in geocaching; such as writing a full log in the logbook, and trading usable items. The practice of not trading, and signing only a username has already taken place, and traditions have changed. It would have occurred anyway, but micros made it happen much faster.

 

This thread is only a flashback wannabe micro hating ghost topic from 2005.

That is true.

Back in the days of geocaching yore, I would thumb through and read physical cache logs. People would typically write something of their experience finding the cache.

With the new mode of caching, there is no sharing of the fun in the logbook and few cachers will write anything of value on the cache page.

Geocaching has changed. Find a cache and hurry to the next one...rinse and repeat. More and more people use stamps or stickers to help hurry them along. I don't think that micros are the root cause of that necessarily, just the placement. No adventure=No creativity. Either for the hider or the cache seeker.

[+Team Cotati]

If somebody dared to hide a micro right where you had been planning to hide an ammo can for the last two years, but just haven't gotten around to it yet, then they deserve to have it go missing. Several times. Keep it up till they archive it in frustration. Then start planning that ammo can again. OK, I am kidding. I also hate when I find a new micro hidden someplace where a lock & lock or ammo can would have been much better. But, I can only get mad at myself for not getting there first with a "real" cache. To all you micro hiders, go right ahead and put your caches out. We will still go out and look for them. We may curse them, and fill the forums with our opinions. But we will still look for them. Just don't try to mislead us by checking the "other" size. Be proud of your micro.

 

"don't try to mislead us by checking the "other" size. Be proud of your micro."

 

Regardless of the stench of rancid urine.

[knowschad]

Micros have already ended the earliest traditions in geocaching; such as writing a full log in the logbook, and trading usable items. The practice of not trading, and signing only a username has already taken place, and traditions have changed. It would have occurred anyway, but micros made it happen much faster.

 

This thread is only a flashback wannabe micro hating ghost topic from 2005.

 

Mammals have already ended the earliest traditions of the dinosaur; such as long spikey tails and scaley skin. The practice of laying eggs will soon be left to only a few species, and cold blood is already a thing of the past. It would have occurred anyway, but mammals made it happen much faster.

 

This thread is only a flashback wannabe mammal hating ghost topic from 2005 BC.

[+Semper Questio]

<soapbox>

 

I like a well-placed micro as much as any other well-placed cache. The problem is that far too many of them are put in pace just because there's an open spot. No need to have a reason to drop a film can. Why care about history, aesthetics, showcasing a spot, or any other purpose for a placement?

 

I've spoken to more than 1 local cacher who plunks down micro after micro just because they see an area that has room for a hide so they feel compelled to put something - ANYTHING - there any way they can. And since these are easy to make, easy to carry, easy to plant, and easy to replace, that's what goes EVERYWHERE. I've recently walked away from several that were in wooded areas that could have EASILY handled larger caches with just a little effort of forethought. But, no. Instead this person decided we didn't have enough camo'd pill bottles out there.

 

Have I placed micros? Sure. Have I placed "lame" ones? In some cachers' eyes, probably. But they were placed for a reason. I wanted to bring people to new trails or places with historical significance or with great views. I have 10-15 caches of various size and types (including several micros) sitting in my truck right now just waiting for inspiration to hit. But I refuse to just stick them somewhere because there is an empty space.

 

Unfortunately, since my injury I have been restricted to doing almost nothing but the kind of micros that bore me to tears. I'm about ready to give up the game because of it. But I keep going and looking for the occasional jewel, trying to convince folks that quality IS more important than quantity, and trying to make hides that have a purpose.

 

</soapbox>

[+zoltig]

<snip>

I've spoken to more than 1 local cacher who plunks down micro after micro just because they see an area that has room for a hide so they feel compelled to put something - ANYTHING - there any way they can. And since these are easy to make, easy to carry, easy to plant, and easy to replace or archive, that's what goes EVERYWHERE.

<snip>

 

The bolded is my addition to your well written post. No pride in the location or the cache so no sense of properly maintaining the cache. Why do anymore work on the cache when a simple click of the "Archive" button will take care of it.

 

A local cacher here will go to a cache, find it and plunk down 2 or three caches in the area around it just so the draw of the that cache will entice others to find theirs. Cache parasites.

Their goal is, and they admit it, to place as many caches as possible. Creativity is lost on them.

[+Semper Questio]

<snip>

I've spoken to more than 1 local cacher who plunks down micro after micro just because they see an area that has room for a hide so they feel compelled to put something - ANYTHING - there any way they can. And since these are easy to make, easy to carry, easy to plant, and easy to replace or archive, that's what goes EVERYWHERE.

<snip>

 

The bolded is my addition to your well written post. No pride in the location or the cache so no sense of properly maintaining the cache. Why do anymore work on the cache when a simple click of the "Archive" button will take care of it.

 

A local cacher here will go to a cache, find it and plunk down 2 or three caches in the area around it just so the draw of the that cache will entice others to find theirs. Cache parasites.

Their goal is, and they admit it, to place as many caches as possible. Creativity is lost on them.

 

Thanks for the edit. You are absolutely correct - on all counts.

[+geodarts]

I've spoken to more than 1 local cacher who plunks down micro after micro just because they see an area that has room for a hide so they feel compelled to put something - ANYTHING - there any way they can.

 

Well, this cache description did make me pause: " Camouflaged film canister. While picking up some bark for spring planting, I realized this place didn't currently have a cache, and that just was not right."

[+Semper Questio]

<snip>

I've spoken to more than 1 local cacher who plunks down micro after micro just because they see an area that has room for a hide so they feel compelled to put something - ANYTHING - there any way they can. And since these are easy to make, easy to carry, easy to plant, and easy to replace or archive, that's what goes EVERYWHERE.

<snip>

 

The bolded is my addition to your well written post. No pride in the location or the cache so no sense of properly maintaining the cache. Why do anymore work on the cache when a simple click of the "Archive" button will take care of it.

 

A local cacher here will go to a cache, find it and plunk down 2 or three caches in the area around it just so the draw of the that cache will entice others to find theirs. Cache parasites.

Their goal is, and they admit it, to place as many caches as possible. Creativity is lost on them.

 

Thanks for the edit. You are absolutely correct - on all counts.

[+Semper Questio]

I've spoken to more than 1 local cacher who plunks down micro after micro just because they see an area that has room for a hide so they feel compelled to put something - ANYTHING - there any way they can.

 

Well, this cache description did make me pause: " Camouflaged film canister. While picking up some bark for spring planting, I realized this place didn't currently have a cache, and that just was not right."

 

If they had added....

 

"...and I found this place so serene and beautiful I just HAD to share it with others.""

 

Then we may have something.

 

Edit to add....Of course, a large tupperware or ammo can would be better.

Edited June 15, 2010 by Semper Questio

[+tozainamboku]

If people want more large caches they should hide more.

 

We have 13 active cache hides, we're at our comfort level wrt maintainence. What if I want to 'find' more larger caches, hiding them won't satisfy my desire to find swag size containers.

 

I wouldn't advocate hiding larger caches simply to keep out the micros, especially if they end up rotting due to lack of maintenance. Hide only as many as you can comfortably maintain. Hide to provide finders with a nice caching experience.

 

I think online constructive criticism is the way to go. Praise the good stuff, critique the bad stuff.

 

<soapbox>

 

I like a well-placed micro as much as any other well-placed cache. The problem is that far too many of them are put in pace just because there's an open spot. No need to have a reason to drop a film can. Why care about history, aesthetics, showcasing a spot, or any other purpose for a placement?

 

I've spoken to more than 1 local cacher who plunks down micro after micro just because they see an area that has room for a hide so they feel compelled to put something - ANYTHING - there any way they can. And since these are easy to make, easy to carry, easy to plant, and easy to replace, that's what goes EVERYWHERE. I've recently walked away from several that were in wooded areas that could have EASILY handled larger caches with just a little effort of forethought. But, no. Instead this person decided we didn't have enough camo'd pill bottles out there.

 

Have I placed micros? Sure. Have I placed "lame" ones? In some cachers' eyes, probably. But they were placed for a reason. I wanted to bring people to new trails or places with historical significance or with great views. I have 10-15 caches of various size and types (including several micros) sitting in my truck right now just waiting for inspiration to hit. But I refuse to just stick them somewhere because there is an empty space.

 

Unfortunately, since my injury I have been restricted to doing almost nothing but the kind of micros that bore me to tears. I'm about ready to give up the game because of it. But I keep going and looking for the occasional jewel, trying to convince folks that quality IS more important than quantity, and trying to make hides that have a purpose.

 

</soapbox>

 

While I may have an issue with these two posters using terms like "good stuff" and "quality" to describe the kinds of caches they like, I do have to agree that there is nothing wrong with doing what they can in cache logs, forum posts, and face to face meetings with other cachers to encourage others to hide caches that they think are "better". If you don't like caches that are hidden "just for the numbers" or "to increase the cache density in an area", there is nothing wrong with asking people to be more selective in the locations they choose to hide caches in. If you like trading items there is nothing wrong with suggesting that people hide "the largest container that could be supported in an area".

 

I think that people generally hide the caches they like to find. The fact that there as so many micros particularly in urban areas is an indication that lots of people prefer an opportunity to find caches covenient and close to where they live, work, or shop. Micros and smalls are hidden along trails perhaps because they are easier for the hider to carry than a bunch of ammo cans on a hike, but also because they can be hidden close to the trail and avoid bushwhacking which some people may not enjoy. Certainly some hide lots of caches because they enjoy getting lots of logs from finders even if they are cut and paste TFTCs. Others may prefer getting fewer logs but have them be long stories of the cache seekers adventure in getting to the cache. The game appeals to a broad range of people and while it may seem to posters like the two I quoted that it is being taken over by people who have a different perception of quality than they do, in reality there are still many caches out there for them to enjoy.

 

The problem may be how to filter caches to increase the chance of finding the ones you like and decrease the chance that you'll be looking for ones you don't like. Most of the standard suggestion for cache ratings are not likely to help people because caches will be rated by people who have a different view than you of what makes a quality caches. (A few exceptional caches may stand out, and ratings may be useful to find highly recommended caches, but they won't tell you if an average cache is one that you would enjoy finding or not). Other ideas for filtering may be useful however. Perhaps being able to filter based on the average or median log length could be used to find caches the have mostly TFTC logs and distiguish these from caches that have long logs that are sharing stories. Perhaps filtering for caches that have a high ratio of photos in the gallery to the number of logs would distinguish quick park and grabs from caches in area with nice scenery, public art, or historic buildings where cachers are likely to take some pictures.

[+Semper Questio]

The problem may be how to filter caches...

 

You are probably correct on all points, Toz, and the filtering may be a good solution. However, in own case (I refuse to speak for others here) is that I work on mainframes, servers, and PC's all day. I often work on my wife's, kids', family's, and friends' PCs, websites, and so on beyond that. When it's time to go caching, the LAST thing I wanna do is have to spend even more time than I absolutely have to on these machines creating filters, macros, scripts, and so on. Heck, I even refuse to wear a digital watch! If this kind of filtering was an incorporated function that could be part of the PQs or something so I could just load my caches for the week and go out and play, that'd be great. But if it ultimately becomes a choice between doing all that to be able to go outside and have a little fun or finding something else to do, I'm finding something else to do. I do this for fun. When it becomes more like work, it's time to go.

[+L0ne.R]

The problem may be how to filter caches to increase the chance of finding the ones you like and decrease the chance that you'll be looking for ones you don't like. Most of the standard suggestion for cache ratings are not likely to help people because caches will be rated by people who have a different view than you of what makes a quality caches.

 

I'm using GCVote. There are only 3 of us in my area that are using it but so far I'm agreeing with the general consensus, give or take a 1/2 star. Just wish more people were using it and I wish it were in-house and filterable via PQs.

 

The last couple of years, once I drive out of my city and go over to the next city, I'm feeling overwhelmed with all the caches. I look at my Mapsource file and think "where am I going to start today's hunt?". All I want is to pick a really good cache - one that gets a 4-star or 5-star rating and start there. Then I'll try some of the other caches around it. Or maybe I can get a couple of 4/5 star caches and find the 3 star caches on the route between the two. I'm good with the general consensus. I'll be reading the 4/5-star logs too to be sure it's something I might like.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

Micro caches are like micro brews. Some are good, some are bad. You figure out who made the ones you like, and you can't go wrong trying another that they make.

[+fizzymagic]

The problem may be is how to filter caches to increase the chance of finding the ones you like and decrease the chance that you'll be looking for ones you don't like.

There. Fixed it for you. The lack of tools provided by the site to perform this task should be embarrassing to Groundspeak.

 

Most of the standard suggestion for cache ratings are not likely to help people because caches will be rated by people who have a different view than you of what makes a quality caches.

Offered, as usual, without a shred of evidence.

 

Some information is better than no information.

[+tozainamboku]

The problem may be is how to filter caches to increase the chance of finding the ones you like and decrease the chance that you'll be looking for ones you don't like.

There. Fixed it for you. The lack of tools provided by the site to perform this task should be embarrassing to Groundspeak.

I will agree with you that Groundspeak could do a lot more to help people filter caches. I can only speculate as to whether it is the cause for so many "I hate micros" threads.

Most of the standard suggestion for cache ratings are not likely to help people because caches will be rated by people who have a different view than you of what makes a quality caches.

Offered, as usual, without a shred of evidence.

 

Some information is better than no information.

True. However the variance (or error) of an unbiased estimator can be no better than the inverse of its information (Cramér–Rao Lower Bound). I contend (certainly without much evidence) that the likelihood of a particular cacher giving a particular rating to cache that fizzymagic likes is highly variable. This means that a rating by a particular cacher does not carry much information about fizzymagic quality (or tozainamboku quality). Certainly one can average the ratings of many cachers and get better estimates for the quality of a hypothetical average cacher. However many caches would not be rated enough to really increase the information and it isn't clear to me that the hypotheitical aveverage cacher's notion of quality would be anything thing like mine or any other cacher's. I think that for a few exceptional caches, the ratings would not be as variable, so I don't object to the idea of a highly recommended cache filter. However, I think the vast majority of the caches are either targeted to small numbers of cacher who like a particular style (like fizzymagic puzzles) or are intended to appeal to great numbers of cacher by being conveniently located and easy to find. These may be enjoyed more by cachers interested in finding more caches and not so much by people who prefer caches have some Wow factor. Again without much evidence, it would seem that the ratings of these caches could be exactly the opposite of what people proposing a rating system would expect.

 

A system based on something that has more information than a 1 to 5 star rating given by a few individuals who may or may not like the same thing I like would provide a better estimate of some parameter that could be used for filtering caches. I gave a couple of examples of things that could be use to estimate if the cache provided more of an experience you could share or it was located in a place that was interesting enough for you to take lots of pictures.

[geogemma]

as someone who is relatively new to geocaching, it is SOOO frustrating to try to find geocaches to look for when most of them are micros!!!!!! they are soooo hard!!!! i've given up on finding several micros. i know they're there, I just don't know where to look yet. with so many micros, it's really hard for noobs like myself to stay motivated. we just have to go farther looking for any small-large caches...

[+atmospherium]

The only caches (micro or otherwise) I don't like are the ones I can't find. I don't think Groundspeak can come up with any filtering software to help me with that.

[+dfx]

The only caches (micro or otherwise) I don't like are the ones I can't find. I don't think Groundspeak can come up with any filtering software to help me with that.

they did. it's called ignore list.

[+NicHK]

i personally have no problem with micros. i prefer ammo boxes, usually because the locations are better (wooded areas), but that's the game, to go to new locations. micros are more for the city and more populated areas, and ammo boxes are more for "outdoors".

[+brslk]

i personally have no problem with micros. i prefer ammo boxes, usually because the locations are better (wooded areas), but that's the game, to go to new locations. micros are more for the city and more populated areas, and ammo boxes are more for "outdoors".

 

Well put.

[+fizzymagic]

I contend (certainly without much evidence) that the likelihood of a particular cacher giving a particular rating to cache that fizzymagic likes is highly variable. This means that a rating by a particular cacher does not carry much information about fizzymagic quality (or tozainamboku quality).

I disagree. People here keep claiming that there are cachers who enjoy finding caches in piles of garbage, but I've never actually met one. I would contend that what makes a great cache is a lot less variable than you are claiming. The same goes for hotel rooms and restaurants, which is why user ratings for both tend to be quite useful.

 

I think the vast majority of the caches are either targeted to small numbers of cacher who like a particular style (like fizzymagic puzzles) or are intended to appeal to great numbers of cacher by being conveniently located and easy to find.

Right. So locally, I would look for caches with few finds where all the ratings are great; since those caches tend to be visited with people whose opinions are close to mine, it's quite valuable. Likewise for puzzles; not that many people do them, and those that do have opinions close to mine. So for either case, a simple rating system works for me.

 

When I travel and don't have time for the difficult hides or the long hikes, I would then like to find caches that most people who found liked. Because, really, most people like nice caches in nice places. In that case, the simple rating system works again.

 

IMO, the way that a simple rating system fails is if somebody intentionally messes with the system. But there are well-known ways to deal with that.

 

The problem is that we were proposing a rating system with meta-moderation in 2003. Nothing has happened on Groundspeak's side in 7 years. Do you really think it is likely that they will ever implement anything more than a simple rating system? I don't.

[knowschad]

i personally have no problem with micros. i prefer ammo boxes, usually because the locations are better (wooded areas), but that's the game, to go to new locations. micros are more for the city and more populated areas, and ammo boxes are more for "outdoors".

Ni!! (Check)

[Clan Riffster]

There's a great line in The Big Lebowski that applies to those who say too much.....

This dude abides...

[+coralteach]

Mahself-I thin pur spelink iz da ent of geeahcachink az wee now id.

 

That and the crappy coords from smartphone users.

 

Those are actually crappy coords from car GPS's plucked off the windshield. The smartphone GPS's are fine. From what I've been told, at least.

 

I have both a GPS, and a smart phone, the phone for when I'm traveling and want to spontaneously cache. The GPS is better though, and it's my preferred device. Still, if you're somewhere and you want to take a break and you didn't manage to do a route query or pocket query, the phone is good.

 

I will say bad coords are definitely irritating. I looked for a FTF yesterday, logged a DNF, they corrected the coords, and then others found but didn't log in. When I went back in the afternoon, 4 people had found it but hadn't logged in. Dang it! Still a fun walk in the woods.

[+MR57]

How about we do away with the lampskirt hides also. If I suspect thats where its hidden I don't waste my time going there. I'm not into numbers. I like the qaulity of the cache

[+Jhutch Evilkitty]

Actually because so many people mark nano's a other you have to block that too. Only there are a few that are very large or just an interesting container that are marked other that you will miss if you do that. It sucks to have to week thru 100's of mismarked nano's to find the few gems. I actually wish they would get rid of other, because in our area it's been abused so much by the nano placers. Some because they just can't get it thru their heads that a nano is a micro and others because they don't want to give people the power to weed them out. Even putting that they are a nano in the description doesn't keep us from wasting time. Even more than a new nano size to select I'd like to see reviewers given the power to the change size (or ask the CO to do so) when it's clearly mismarked. Of course the CO should have the right to appeal to the reviewer and if the reason is good enough they could let it stand. Actually if they just did it on other (they would need guidelines for other) it might help. I'm fine with other for nano's that listed as other when they are included as part of a multi or to a degree when there someone is rating it a higher difficulty and doesn't want to disclose the actual size. But the vast majority that I’ve seen said nano in the description. Shouldn’t someone at least gently suggest that they should change the size to micro and give those of us who prefer not to search for them back the power to leave them out of our PQ’s? Maybe even changing the micro size to nano/micro would help. Since so many people just don’t seem to get that nano isn’t other.

 

And yes I do think that if so many people just keep putting out log only containers in easy places it will harm the sport. Sure there is a small set of players who go for numbers and love p&g’s but I think most people prefer to get a reward at the end of their journey. Rather it’s a cache with swag or a great view. I prefer the ones that give me both. If I do ever put out a nano it’s going to be as part of a multi. Too many of the ones today are for nothing but numbers runs. If I'd happened to run across a couple of dozen of these in my first weeks out I would have thought "what a silly game" and I'd have moved on. I'm sure there are a lot of people who have done just that and as the micros continue to take over areas I'm sure it's happening quite often.

To some degree I agree and to some not. I think that micros can be a really neat part of geocaching if they're not abused. They're great for cool places in urban environments. If I have to hike 5 miles to a cache I would prefer it be a regular since I worked so hard to get to it. But if the terrains not hard I don't want a cache thats just gonna sit out in the open and be so obvious. I don't need little toys and usually garbage swag to make me happy. It's the hunt for it that is important and as long as cachers and cache owners realize that, there will NEVER be an end to our sport

[+sbell111]

If somebody dared to hide a micro right where you had been planning to hide an ammo can for the last two years, but just haven't gotten around to it yet, then they deserve to have it go missing. ...

So basically, everyone should check with you to make sure that their caches are worthy prior to having them listed? If their caches are not up to your standards, then they shouldn't be submitted and the location should go cacheless until such time as you bless us with a cache submittal.

 

Micros have already ended the earliest traditions in geocaching; such as writing a full log in the logbook, and trading usable items. The practice of not trading, and signing only a username has already taken place, and traditions have changed. It would have occurred anyway, but micros made it happen much faster.

I guess that they ended these traditions eight or nine years ago when they became popular. Too bad, so sad.

 

How about we do away with the lampskirt hides also. If I suspect thats where its hidden I don't waste my time going there. I'm not into numbers. I like the qaulity of the cache

How about you just stick to your method and allow those players who enjoy these caches to continue to do so.

[knowschad]

How about we do away with the lampskirt hides also. If I suspect thats where its hidden I don't waste my time going there. I'm not into numbers. I like the qaulity of the cache

NO!! I'm just starting to get good at the lampskirt hides! Its taken me a long time to get this good at them... you can't just get rid of them now!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

From the geocaching.com home page:

 

Geocaching Statistics

 

There are 1,128,947 active caches and an estimated 4-5 million geocachers worldwide. In the last 30 days, there have been 3,855,765 new logs submitted.

 

I just love these 'this (insert favorite pet peeve) is the end of geocaching!' threads!

[+Castle Mischief]

If somebody dared to hide a micro right where you had been planning to hide an ammo can for the last two years, but just haven't gotten around to it yet, then they deserve to have it go missing. ...

So basically, everyone should check with you to make sure that their caches are worthy prior to having them listed? If their caches are not up to your standards, then they shouldn't be submitted and the location should go cacheless until such time as you bless us with a cache submittal.

 

Down, Rover.

 

Hey, you know that thing that drives you nuts when somebody quotes you and leaves out important parts of your post? Yeah, you're doing it. Here's the rest of "Eagle and the nuts" post with a few important items. Bolding is mine.

 

OK, I am kidding. I also hate when I find a new micro hidden someplace where a lock & lock or ammo can would have been much better. But, I can only get mad at myself for not getting there first with a "real" cache. To all you micro hiders, go right ahead and put your caches out. We will still go out and look for them. We may curse them, and fill the forums with our opinions. But we will still look for them. Just don't try to mislead us by checking the "other" size. Be proud of your micro.

[+sbell111]

If somebody dared to hide a micro right where you had been planning to hide an ammo can for the last two years, but just haven't gotten around to it yet, then they deserve to have it go missing. ...

So basically, everyone should check with you to make sure that their caches are worthy prior to having them listed? If their caches are not up to your standards, then they shouldn't be submitted and the location should go cacheless until such time as you bless us with a cache submittal.

 

Down, Rover.

 

Hey, you know that thing that drives you nuts when somebody quotes you and leaves out important parts of your post? Yeah, you're doing it. Here's the rest of "Eagle and the nuts" post with a few important items. Bolding is mine.

 

OK, I am kidding. I also hate when I find a new micro hidden someplace where a lock & lock or ammo can would have been much better. But, I can only get mad at myself for not getting there first with a "real" cache. To all you micro hiders, go right ahead and put your caches out. We will still go out and look for them. We may curse them, and fill the forums with our opinions. But we will still look for them. Just don't try to mislead us by checking the "other" size. Be proud of your micro.

None of the rest of his post changes my response, at all.

[+queezy]

I agree with those who feel micros are a scourge to our hobby. I realize some micros are necessary in limited spots. IE; historical spots, etc. But, my experience yesterday finished it for me. We are visiting a portion of New York State through which the Finger Lakes Trail runs for over 500 mi. In planning a small trip of 20 caches around the area, we discovered most of them were micros!! One CO has 109 "traditional" caches within 25 mi. of our location. 6 of those are something other than micros. We went on the first two on our list and found them to be in the woods under a log! Needless to say, I have weeded out those from our future lists. Its a shame because, we found so many places that could have used "real traditional" caches but, we couldn't place any, even if we wanted to, because of a micro within the 528 ft radius. There's my soapbox entry for the day. Hope everyone who reads this is having a better geocaching day than I have.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Hope everyone who reads this is having a better geocaching day than I have.

Darn shame you chose to have a bad day by hunting things that you don't enjoy. I don't believe I would have done that myself. Next time look at the listings and choose to hunt those you might enjoy.

 

Or, perhaps, look at the places the game takes you as the reward, not the container. You say you found many great spots where you thought there should have been a container more to your liking... wouldn't you have a better day just enjoying the spot and not fretting over the container?

 

Man, the things folks choose to allow to spoil their day are amazing!

Edited July 17, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Coldgears]

I love micros : (

[+DStar22]

Man, we could put an end to this topic once and for all, if only more people would hide ammo cans full of bison tubes.

 

Actually I've been thinking lately I want to hide an "other" cache somewhere, and use a micro in an obvious spot as a decoy. Open up the log only to find a piece of paper that says "this is not the geocache"... hehe, and have a small or regular nearby but really well hidden.

 

I like caches that meet any of the following conditions:

-sneaky hide

-good location

-cool cache containers

 

They don't have to meet all of the requirements, just one. Size doesn't matter at all to me.

[+Team Cotati]

Man, we could put an end to this topic once and for all, if only more people would hide ammo cans full of bison tubes.

 

Actually I've been thinking lately I want to hide an "other" cache somewhere, and use a micro in an obvious spot as a decoy. Open up the log only to find a piece of paper that says "this is not the geocache"... hehe, and have a small or regular nearby but really well hidden.

 

I like caches that meet any of the following conditions:

-sneaky hide

-good location

-cool cache containers

 

They don't have to meet all of the requirements, just one. Size doesn't matter at all to me.

 

Bison tubes...................................cool.