Micros the scurge of geocaching and maybe the end?

[+Castle Mischief]

So you're saying filter out about 90 percent of all caches and you're good to go. That works.

 

What's the zip code for this wasteland of micro infestation?

[Mushtang]

**** Obvious disclaimer: I'm fully aware that Briansnats point of complaining in this thread is just to complain. My continued replies to him are for the benefit of others reading this thread that might read his posts and believe him. I'm honestly trying to help those folks that don't like micros to avoid them, and understand that other people actually do enjoy micros and that's why we have so many.

So you're saying filter out about 90 percent of all caches and you're good to go. That works.

I'm calling a BS on BS.

 

Brian, I went to your list of owned caches, went to the one on the top of the list, searched for all nearby caches, and looked at the first 10 pages. Each page lists 20 caches, and I counted all the Regular and Large sized caches on each page. Out of 200 caches there are 92 that would be left over if the sizes were filtered as suggested by me.

 

This leaves 46% of the caches in your area you can still look for and not worry about micro caches. If this number is even close to an accurate representation of the sizes hidden around you, I find it hard to believe that you'd refuse to do this in order to increase the ratio of caches you enjoy finding.

 

Oh wait... I keep forgetting that you're here to complain, not to actually better understand ways to enjoy the game more. My bad.

 

[edit to fix broken quote]

Edited July 22, 2010 by Mushtang

[+briansnat]

**** Obvious disclaimer: I'm fully aware that Briansnats point of complaining in this thread is just to complain. My continued replies to him are for the benefit of others reading this thread that might read his posts and believe him. I'm honestly trying to help those folks that don't like micros to avoid them, and understand that other people actually do enjoy micros and that's why we have so many.

So you're saying filter out about 90 percent of all caches and you're good to go. That works.

I'm calling a BS on BS.

 

Brian, I went to your list of owned caches, went to the one on the top of the list, searched for all nearby caches, and looked at the first 10 pages. Each page lists 20 caches, and I counted all the Regular and Large sized caches on each page. Out of 200 caches there are 92 that would be left over if the sizes were filtered as suggested by me.

 

This leaves 46% of the caches in your area you can still look for and not worry about micro caches. If this number is even close to an accurate representation of the sizes hidden around you, I find it hard to believe that you'd refuse to do this in order to increase the ratio of caches you enjoy finding.

 

Oh wait... I keep forgetting that you're here to complain, not to actually better understand ways to enjoy the game more. My bad.

 

[edit to fix broken quote]

 

 

First, you're talking about northern NJ. We've yet to experience micro spew in this area so it is far from representative of many areas of the US. Try running your little experiment with a zip like 16530.

 

Second, you are assuming I want to filter micros. I personally have no problem with well thought out caches of any size.

Edited July 22, 2010 by briansnat

[+DragonsWest]

Darn.

 

I was in such a hurry getting out the door this morning I forgot my 144 blinkies.

 

Well, there's still Friday.

[Mushtang]

First, you're talking about northern NJ. We've yet to experience micro spew in this area so it is far from representative of many areas of the US. Try running your little experiment with a zip like 16530.

So you don't actually have a problem with too many micros around you, but you're in an anti micro thread complaining about there being too many micros and that they're labeled wrong, therefore removing the ability to filter them out. I guess there must be a reason for this other than you just enjoy complaining, but I really can't think of one.

 

Second, you are assuming I want to filter micros.

I made a point that for those that don't want to find micros they're easy to avoid. I mentioned that if someone filtered out Micros, Small, and Other, then the remaining caches in the PQ would be Micro free. Your clever reply was to state that there are also Micros labeled as Small and Other, and therefore this wouldn't work. I've just been replying to your posts since then, assuming nothing.

 

I personally have no problem with well thought out caches of any size.

Are you at all familiar with the topic of this thread?

[+briansnat]

First, you're talking about northern NJ. We've yet to experience micro spew in this area so it is far from representative of many areas of the US. Try running your little experiment with a zip like 16530.

So you don't actually have a problem with too many micros around you, but you're in an anti micro thread complaining about there being too many micros and that they're labeled wrong, therefore removing the ability to filter them out. I guess there must be a reason for this other than you just enjoy complaining, but I really can't think of one.

 

Second, you are assuming I want to filter micros.

I made a point that for those that don't want to find micros they're easy to avoid. I mentioned that if someone filtered out Micros, Small, and Other, then the remaining caches in the PQ would be Micro free. Your clever reply was to state that there are also Micros labeled as Small and Other, and therefore this wouldn't work. I've just been replying to your posts since then, assuming nothing.

 

I personally have no problem with well thought out caches of any size.

Are you at all familiar with the topic of this thread?

 

Some reading for ya

Edited July 22, 2010 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

First, you're talking about northern NJ. We've yet to experience micro spew in this area so it is far from representative of many areas of the US. Try running your little experiment with a zip like 16530.

So you don't actually have a problem with too many micros around you, but you're in an anti micro thread complaining about there being too many micros and that they're labeled wrong, therefore removing the ability to filter them out. I guess there must be a reason for this other than you just enjoy complaining, but I really can't think of one.

 

Second, you are assuming I want to filter micros.

I made a point that for those that don't want to find micros they're easy to avoid. I mentioned that if someone filtered out Micros, Small, and Other, then the remaining caches in the PQ would be Micro free. Your clever reply was to state that there are also Micros labeled as Small and Other, and therefore this wouldn't work. I've just been replying to your posts since then, assuming nothing.

 

I personally have no problem with well thought out caches of any size.

Are you at all familiar with the topic of this thread?

 

Some reading for ya

A devil's advocat would be engaging in an honest argument about the issue with hopes to come to a reasoned solution. This isn't what you are doing. Instead, you are twisting reality to make your argument and then twisting the entire argument (and topic of the thread) when you are backed into a corner.

[+GeoGeeBee]

First, you're talking about northern NJ. We've yet to experience micro spew in this area so it is far from representative of many areas of the US. Try running your little experiment with a zip like 16530.

So you don't actually have a problem with too many micros around you, but you're in an anti micro thread complaining about there being too many micros and that they're labeled wrong, therefore removing the ability to filter them out. I guess there must be a reason for this other than you just enjoy complaining, but I really can't think of one.

 

Second, you are assuming I want to filter micros.

I made a point that for those that don't want to find micros they're easy to avoid. I mentioned that if someone filtered out Micros, Small, and Other, then the remaining caches in the PQ would be Micro free. Your clever reply was to state that there are also Micros labeled as Small and Other, and therefore this wouldn't work. I've just been replying to your posts since then, assuming nothing.

 

I personally have no problem with well thought out caches of any size.

Are you at all familiar with the topic of this thread?

 

Some reading for ya

 

Given the thread topic, wouldn't a Devil's Advocate be arguing in favor of micros?

[Mushtang]

First, you're talking about northern NJ. We've yet to experience micro spew in this area so it is far from representative of many areas of the US. Try running your little experiment with a zip like 16530.

So you don't actually have a problem with too many micros around you, but you're in an anti micro thread complaining about there being too many micros and that they're labeled wrong, therefore removing the ability to filter them out. I guess there must be a reason for this other than you just enjoy complaining, but I really can't think of one.

 

Second, you are assuming I want to filter micros.

I made a point that for those that don't want to find micros they're easy to avoid. I mentioned that if someone filtered out Micros, Small, and Other, then the remaining caches in the PQ would be Micro free. Your clever reply was to state that there are also Micros labeled as Small and Other, and therefore this wouldn't work. I've just been replying to your posts since then, assuming nothing.

I personally have no problem with well thought out caches of any size.

Are you at all familiar with the topic of this thread?

Some reading for ya

Oh, it wasn't YOU that was arguing that the filter method wouldn't work, you were mearly pointing out that some other people might think so. You were arguing for them since they can't be here. You don't really dislike micros, you were just trying to make a point about filters, or lameness in caches, or something like that.

 

Gotcha.

 

Some reading for ya

 

[+briansnat]

First, you're talking about northern NJ. We've yet to experience micro spew in this area so it is far from representative of many areas of the US. Try running your little experiment with a zip like 16530.

So you don't actually have a problem with too many micros around you, but you're in an anti micro thread complaining about there being too many micros and that they're labeled wrong, therefore removing the ability to filter them out. I guess there must be a reason for this other than you just enjoy complaining, but I really can't think of one.

 

Second, you are assuming I want to filter micros.

I made a point that for those that don't want to find micros they're easy to avoid. I mentioned that if someone filtered out Micros, Small, and Other, then the remaining caches in the PQ would be Micro free. Your clever reply was to state that there are also Micros labeled as Small and Other, and therefore this wouldn't work. I've just been replying to your posts since then, assuming nothing.

I personally have no problem with well thought out caches of any size.

Are you at all familiar with the topic of this thread?

Some reading for ya

Oh, it wasn't YOU that was arguing that the filter method wouldn't work, you were mearly pointing out that some other people might think so. You were arguing for them since they can't be here. You don't really dislike micros, you were just trying to make a point about filters, or lameness in caches, or something like that.

 

Gotcha.

 

Some reading for ya

 

 

I was arguing that for the 9 people in the world who dislike all micros, the filtering micros wont work and technique you suggest is like using a shotgun to kill a mosquito. It is even less effective for those of use who enjoy well thought out micros.

Edited July 22, 2010 by briansnat

[Andronicus]

First, you're talking about northern NJ. We've yet to experience micro spew in this area so it is far from representative of many areas of the US. Try running your little experiment with a zip like 16530.

So you don't actually have a problem with too many micros around you, but you're in an anti micro thread complaining about there being too many micros and that they're labeled wrong, therefore removing the ability to filter them out. I guess there must be a reason for this other than you just enjoy complaining, but I really can't think of one.

 

Second, you are assuming I want to filter micros.

I made a point that for those that don't want to find micros they're easy to avoid. I mentioned that if someone filtered out Micros, Small, and Other, then the remaining caches in the PQ would be Micro free. Your clever reply was to state that there are also Micros labeled as Small and Other, and therefore this wouldn't work. I've just been replying to your posts since then, assuming nothing.

I personally have no problem with well thought out caches of any size.

Are you at all familiar with the topic of this thread?

Some reading for ya

Oh, it wasn't YOU that was arguing that the filter method wouldn't work, you were mearly pointing out that some other people might think so. You were arguing for them since they can't be here. You don't really dislike micros, you were just trying to make a point about filters, or lameness in caches, or something like that.

 

Gotcha.

 

Some reading for ya

 

 

I was arguing that for the 9 people in the world who dislike all micros, the filtering micros wont work and technique you suggest is like using a shotgun to kill a mosquito. It is even less effective for those of use who enjoy well thought out micros.

I thihnk GS needs to create a filter to remove "Lame Caches" from your PQ. That won't result in people getting mad that their cache was labled Lame. No chance of that.

[Mushtang]

I was arguing that for the 9 people in the world who dislike all micros

Only 9? It was already obvious that you haven't been paying much attention to this thread, but now I'm not sure how much you pay to the rest of the threads either.

 

, the filtering micros wont work

No, and for the 3rd or 10th time, you also have to add the other sizes to make sure you're rid of the micros (if that's what you want).

 

and technique you suggest is like using a shotgun to kill a mosquito.

So what's wrong with that? The mosquito is dead right? The shotgun didn't cost you anything since it's one of the tools available to you as a premium member. And when you're done you'll still have more well thought out caches to do than you can ever find.

 

You're not doing a good job - at all - playing Devil's Advocate here.

 

It is even less effective for those of use who enjoy well thought out micros.

It's not intended to help those that enjoy micros, so that's not one bit surprising.

[+briansnat]

So what's wrong with that? The mosquito is dead right? The shotgun didn't cost you anything since it's one of the tools available to you as a premium member. And when you're done you'll still have more well thought out caches to do than you can ever find.

 

Many of the best caches that I've found happen to be small caches, or listed as other due to their unique nature. If one were to filter those out then he'd be missing out on many of the best caches in an area.

 

The old argument was that if you're not into strip malls, dumpsters and big box store parking lots, filter out all micros. An imperfect system because you might miss a lot of gems, but at least you'd be largely left with the kinds of caches you like.

 

With the current trend of mislabeled micros that is no longer effective. So you propose that people who don't like "lame" caches or micros filter out all types except regular and large, which essentially filters out many of the best caches. In some areas doing so will filter out close to 80 percent of all caches.

 

Sure, using a shotgun to kill a mosquito might work, but there will be a lot of unwanted collateral damage.

Edited July 23, 2010 by briansnat

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Using a shotgun the right way might solve a lot of the angst in here.

 

 

Just sayin'

[+sbell111]

So what's wrong with that? The mosquito is dead right? The shotgun didn't cost you anything since it's one of the tools available to you as a premium member. And when you're done you'll still have more well thought out caches to do than you can ever find.

 

Many of the best caches that I've found happen to be small caches, or listed as other due to their unique nature. If one were to filter those out then he'd be missing out on many of the best caches in an area.

 

The old argument was that if you're not into strip malls, dumpsters and big box store parking lots, filter out all micros. An imperfect system because you might miss a lot of gems, but at least you'd be largely left with the kinds of caches you like.

 

With the current trend of mislabeled micros that is no longer effective. So you propose that people who don't like "lame" caches or micros filter out all types except regular and large, which essentially filters out many of the best caches. In some areas doing so will filter out close to 80 percent of all caches.

 

Sure, using a shotgun to kill a mosquito might work, but there will be a lot of unwanted collateral damage.

You make the same lame arguments in every one of these threads even though your concerns have been addressed in the previous threads.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

 

What about the people who label micros as small, other or unknown, which seems to be a significant trend.

 

I was just looking at the cache listing for "The Spot" (GC39) last night. It's the oldest active cache east of the Mississippi and the 5th oldest active cache in the world. It's labeled as "not chosen". It's actually a 50cal ammo can.

[+briansnat]

 

 

What about the people who label micros as small, other or unknown, which seems to be a significant trend.

 

I was just looking at the cache listing for "The Spot" (GC39) last night. It's the oldest active cache east of the Mississippi and the 5th oldest active cache in the world. It's labeled as "not chosen". It's actually a 50cal ammo can.

 

A good example of the kinds of outstanding caches that would be missed using Mushtang's shotgun approach. Every person I know who found The Spot counts it among their all time favorites.

Edited July 23, 2010 by briansnat

[Mushtang]

So what's wrong with that? The mosquito is dead right? The shotgun didn't cost you anything since it's one of the tools available to you as a premium member. And when you're done you'll still have more well thought out caches to do than you can ever find.

Many of the best caches that I've found happen to be small caches, or listed as other due to their unique nature. If one were to filter those out then he'd be missing out on many of the best caches in an area.

 

The old argument was that if you're not into strip malls, dumpsters and big box store parking lots, filter out all micros. An imperfect system because you might miss a lot of gems, but at least you'd be largely left with the kinds of caches you like.

 

With the current trend of mislabeled micros that is no longer effective. So you propose that people who don't like "lame" caches or micros filter out all types except regular and large, which essentially filters out many of the best caches. In some areas doing so will filter out close to 80 percent of all caches.

 

Sure, using a shotgun to kill a mosquito might work, but there will be a lot of unwanted collateral damage.

 

If only I'd thought of that already.

 

Oh wait... I did.

 

And for those that want to reply with the lame argument about missing out on the clever micros, the same applies to you. Filter them out anyway, and you'll still have more "clever" caches to find then you'll ever have time to get to, and you won't be bothered by ANY micros. What does it matter if you filter out a micro that you would have enjoyed, if you replace it in your PQ with an ammo can that you'll enjoy. Chances are you'll have a MUCH higher ratio of "clever" caches in your PQ without the occasional clever micro, right? And you'll still never be able to find all the ones that you have left over.

 

And as I was looking this over prior to adding this reply, I noticed something in your recent statement that is totally wrong. You said...

So you propose that people who don't like "lame" caches or micros...

... which is not true at all. I was quite clear that this ONLY removes micros, and will do nothing to help filter caches that you, or anyone else, considers "lame" for any reason other than size.

 

This thread is about MICRO CACHES. It's about how Micro caches are so horrible that they might end the game. So I'm offering free advice on how to completely avoid micros, while still leaving more caches than anyone can ever find. How can you still not understand this?

 

Oh yeah, I don't know why I keep forgetting... you DO understand. You have no interest what-so-ever in having an honest discussion, you only wish to complain and are trolling in this thread. Well, I keep replying so I guess I'm feeding the troll.

[Mushtang]

What about the people who label micros as small, other or unknown, which seems to be a significant trend.

I was just looking at the cache listing for "The Spot" (GC39) last night. It's the oldest active cache east of the Mississippi and the 5th oldest active cache in the world. It's labeled as "not chosen". It's actually a 50cal ammo can.

A good example of the kinds of outstanding caches that would be missed using Mushtang's shotgun approach. Every person I know who found The Spot counts it among their all time favorites.

Exactly!!! And there would be one more place in the PQ for a cache that was labeled as Regular or Large.

 

You take out one Regular that you don't know what it is, and you put in a Regular that you know to be a Regular. If your goal is to rid yourself of Micro caches then you're golden, and haven't missed anything.

[+briansnat]

This thread is about MICRO CACHES. It's about how Micro caches are so horrible that they might end the game. So I'm offering free advice on how to completely avoid micros, while still leaving more caches than anyone can ever find. How can you still not understand this?

 

With all the mislabeled caches these days filtering micros is not an effective way to eliminate micros. So you proposed basically filtering all but regular and large caches as a way to avoid them.

 

A great method, except that it also eliminates most of the best caches while you're trying to eliminate micros. And is some areas it can eliminate a significant portion of all caches, meaning that your statement is wrong. You are not left with more caches than anyone can ever find.

 

I grabbed a zipcode at random from the Erie PA area in an earlier post. I took a look at the first 100 caches on the list and your method would leave exactly 11 to find. So 79 percent of caches are eliminated with your method. That's not exactly "more caches that anyone can ever find". In fact it's just a quick morning of caching for most people.

[+briansnat]

What about the people who label micros as small, other or unknown, which seems to be a significant trend.

I was just looking at the cache listing for "The Spot" (GC39) last night. It's the oldest active cache east of the Mississippi and the 5th oldest active cache in the world. It's labeled as "not chosen". It's actually a 50cal ammo can.

A good example of the kinds of outstanding caches that would be missed using Mushtang's shotgun approach. Every person I know who found The Spot counts it among their all time favorites.

Exactly!!! And there would be one more place in the PQ for a cache that was labeled as Regular or Large.

 

You take out one Regular that you don't know what it is, and you put in a Regular that you know to be a Regular. If your goal is to rid yourself of Micro caches then you're golden, and haven't missed anything.

 

Other than an historic cache that is considered by many to be one of the best in the state.

[+Castle Mischief]

I grabbed a zipcode at random from the Erie PA area in an earlier post. I took a look at the first 100 caches on the list and your method would leave exactly 11 to find. So 79 percent of caches are eliminated with your method. That's not exactly "more caches that anyone can ever find". In fact it's just a quick morning of caching for most people.

 

How many of the 79 that were eliminated were labeled as micro and how many were labeled as other and not chosen?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

We give! Micros were indeed the scourge and end of geocaching. The game is now dead. Kaput. Over. Nobody enjoyed it with all those micros sucking the fun out of the game.

 

There, does that solve this endless argument?

[+briansnat]

I grabbed a zipcode at random from the Erie PA area in an earlier post. I took a look at the first 100 caches on the list and your method would leave exactly 11 to find. So 79 percent of caches are eliminated with your method. That's not exactly "more caches that anyone can ever find". In fact it's just a quick morning of caching for most people.

 

How many of the 79 that were eliminated were labeled as micro and how many were labeled as other and not chosen?

 

Didn't count, but I'm not sure what the relevance is. Mushtang proposed eliminating everything but regular and large caches from PQs in order to avoid all the mislabeled micros.

[+sbell111]

I grabbed a zipcode at random from the Erie PA area in an earlier post. I took a look at the first 100 caches on the list and your method would leave exactly 11 to find. So 79 percent of caches are eliminated with your method. That's not exactly "more caches that anyone can ever find". In fact it's just a quick morning of caching for most people.

 

How many of the 79 that were eliminated were labeled as micro and how many were labeled as other and not chosen?

 

Didn't count, but I'm not sure what the relevance is. Mushtang proposed eliminating everything but regular and large caches from PQs in order to avoid all the mislabeled micros.

Here's the problem:

 

You dropped into a thread about micros. You are taking one posters plan to guarantee that you won't hunt a micro and trying to ensure that you will only find 'good' caches with the concession that your definition of 'good' is not 'anything but a micro'.

 

Had you attempted to use one of the plans to avoid 'bad' caches that have been given to you in any number of past threads, you would be happily finding mostly 'good' caches.

 

Of course, for this positive outcome to occur, you would have to 1) actually try to solve your problem and 2) not merely trying to be a troll.

[+nekom]

I know this is a pretty tired debate, and I've said this before but here's my stance: I have found micros at some GREAT locations, such as a small church in Georgia which bills itself as the smallest church in the world (though others boast the same claim.) I would never filter out micros.

 

I would rather find a micro in a fascinating location than even the biggest of ammo cans in a roadside trash dump. And while I'm not a big fan of parking lot micros, there's nothing like a quick rest area grab and go to break up the monotony of a long interstate road trip.

 

They have their place.

[Mushtang]

This thread is about MICRO CACHES. It's about how Micro caches are so horrible that they might end the game. So I'm offering free advice on how to completely avoid micros, while still leaving more caches than anyone can ever find. How can you still not understand this?

With all the mislabeled caches these days filtering micros is not an effective way to eliminate micros. So you proposed basically filtering all but regular and large caches as a way to avoid them.

 

A great method, except that it also eliminates most of the best caches while you're trying to eliminate micros.

Once again, the communication process has broken down. The only point was to eliminate micros, which if that's what you're after then that's the way to do it.

 

IF, you want to keep caches that you'd like, while eliminating caches that you don't like, there are other ways to help do that, but there's not a way to be 100% for you or anyone else. But since this thread is about Micro caches and how they are horrible, then I stand by my advice on how to avoid them. Your continuing to insist and it removes micros that you'd like is completely irrelevant and off topic.

 

And is some areas it can eliminate a significant portion of all caches, meaning that your statement is wrong. You are not left with more caches than anyone can ever find.

Yes, you are.

 

I grabbed a zipcode at random from the Erie PA area in an earlier post. I took a look at the first 100 caches on the list and your method would leave exactly 11 to find. So 79 percent of caches are eliminated with your method. That's not exactly "more caches that anyone can ever find". In fact it's just a quick morning of caching for most people.

Your "random" zip code was in an area you knew to be abnormally high in micro caches. However, if you eliminate 79 caches from the PQ, you'll get another 79 that will take their place. Unless you're also limiting yourself in other ways with closest number of caches, distance, or something else, you'll always have other Regular sized caches given to you in your PQ, and you'll never be able to find them all.

[Mushtang]

What about the people who label micros as small, other or unknown, which seems to be a significant trend.

I was just looking at the cache listing for "The Spot" (GC39) last night. It's the oldest active cache east of the Mississippi and the 5th oldest active cache in the world. It's labeled as "not chosen". It's actually a 50cal ammo can.

A good example of the kinds of outstanding caches that would be missed using Mushtang's shotgun approach. Every person I know who found The Spot counts it among their all time favorites.

Exactly!!! And there would be one more place in the PQ for a cache that was labeled as Regular or Large.

 

You take out one Regular that you don't know what it is, and you put in a Regular that you know to be a Regular. If your goal is to rid yourself of Micro caches then you're golden, and haven't missed anything.

Other than an historic cache that is considered by many to be one of the best in the state.

If your goal is to get a PQ that you know contains no micro caches, then mission accomplished.

 

If your goal is to get to historic caches that are consicered by many to be one of the best in the state, then I agree that filtering in the method I suggested is not the answer.

 

But since I'm not suggesting that method for anything other than avoiding micro caches, then I'm still right, and you haven't missed anything.

[Mushtang]

I grabbed a zipcode at random from the Erie PA area in an earlier post. I took a look at the first 100 caches on the list and your method would leave exactly 11 to find. So 79 percent of caches are eliminated with your method. That's not exactly "more caches that anyone can ever find". In fact it's just a quick morning of caching for most people.

How many of the 79 that were eliminated were labeled as micro and how many were labeled as other and not chosen?

Didn't count, but I'm not sure what the relevance is. Mushtang proposed eliminating everything but regular and large caches from PQs in order to avoid all the mislabeled micros.

Then let me ask a question that IS relevant (as opposed to your replies about quality caches missed).

 

How many of the 79 eliminated would be replaced by non-Micro caches? The answer is, all of them. If you're trying to avoid Micro caches, even in Micro infested areas you can do it. It IS possible.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

So when will Groundspeak's Cache Rating System be online, because that's really what this discussion is about... the perception of lameness rather than size.

[+briansnat]

Your "random" zip code was in an area you knew to be abnormally high in micro caches. However, if you eliminate 79 caches from the PQ, you'll get another 79 that will take their place. Unless you're also limiting yourself in other ways with closest number of caches, distance, or something else, you'll always have other Regular sized caches given to you in your PQ, and you'll never be able to find them all.

 

In an area like Erie you probably could hit all the regular sized caches in a good month of caching. Sure there are more regular caches out there than one could ever find, but the fact that there are plenty of regular caches in NJ, or Germany or Colorado, is of little relevance to someone who lives in Erie.

[Mushtang]

So when will Groundspeak's Cache Rating System be online, because that's really what this discussion is about... the perception of lameness rather than size.

Nope, that's what BS is trying to make it about, but the discussion is clearly about Micro caches, and not about "good" caches.

 

The title of this thread isn't "Lame caches, the scurge of geocaching and maybe the end?"

[+Castle Mischief]

I grabbed a zipcode at random from the Erie PA area in an earlier post. I took a look at the first 100 caches on the list and your method would leave exactly 11 to find. So 79 percent of caches are eliminated with your method. That's not exactly "more caches that anyone can ever find". In fact it's just a quick morning of caching for most people.

 

How many of the 79 that were eliminated were labeled as micro and how many were labeled as other and not chosen?

 

Didn't count, but I'm not sure what the relevance is. Mushtang proposed eliminating everything but regular and large caches from PQs in order to avoid all the mislabeled micros.

 

It's extremely relevant if you're trying to avoid micros (the topic of the thread, after all). If a significant percentage of the 79 that you've ruled out are labeled as other or not chosen then you have a leg to stand on. If there's only a few then it's working fairly well- for the purpose of excluding micros.

 

You're saying there's a significant number of mislabeled micros. Show me the data.

[+L0ne.R]

So when will Groundspeak's Cache Rating System be online, because that's really what this discussion is about... the perception of lameness rather than size.

Nope, that's what BS is trying to make it about, but the discussion is clearly about Micro caches, and not about "good" caches.

 

The title of this thread isn't "Lame caches, the scurge of geocaching and maybe the end?"

 

A rating system is the best solution to the micro scurge problem. The vast majority of cachers want to find good micros -- we don't want to miss out on the creative/clever/funny/awe-inspiring micros by using the Mushtang's 'shotgun to kill a mosquito' method.

[Mushtang]

So when will Groundspeak's Cache Rating System be online, because that's really what this discussion is about... the perception of lameness rather than size.

Nope, that's what BS is trying to make it about, but the discussion is clearly about Micro caches, and not about "good" caches.

 

The title of this thread isn't "Lame caches, the scurge of geocaching and maybe the end?"

A rating system is the best solution to the micro scurge problem. The vast majority of cachers want to find good micros -- we don't want to miss out on the creative/clever/funny/awe-inspiring micros by using the Mushtang's 'shotgun to kill a mosquito' method.

How would a rating system ensure that you avoid micros?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

So when will Groundspeak's Cache Rating System be online, because that's really what this discussion is about... the perception of lameness rather than size.

Nope, that's what BS is trying to make it about, but the discussion is clearly about Micro caches, and not about "good" caches.

 

The title of this thread isn't "Lame caches, the scurge of geocaching and maybe the end?"

 

A rating system is the best solution to the micro scurge problem. The vast majority of cachers want to find good micros -- we don't want to miss out on the creative/clever/funny/awe-inspiring micros by using the Mushtang's 'shotgun to kill a mosquito' method.

Yep. I have argued against a rating system every time it has been suggested since 2003 because I don't see a way to make it accurate.

 

I have changed my mind on this if for no other reason than to give cachers a way to get a clue as to the lameness quotient of a cache. If it were an attribute where cacher's could ignore low-scoring caches I think it would go a long way to quell the resentment of micros.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I know this is a pretty tired debate, and I've said this before but here's my stance: I have found micros at some GREAT locations, such as a small church in Georgia which bills itself as the smallest church in the world (though others boast the same claim.) I would never filter out micros.

 

I would rather find a micro in a fascinating location than even the biggest of ammo cans in a roadside trash dump. And while I'm not a big fan of parking lot micros, there's nothing like a quick rest area grab and go to break up the monotony of a long interstate road trip.

 

They have their place.

 

This is all that needs saying.

As far as " over saturation" , I've rarely seen it in criss-crossing the country. I eliminate only multi's when traveling and have had nice caching experiences. I would rather have " saturated " areas of micros than no caches at all ( which would be the case as 90%+ of the time full size caches could not be placed there)....they are great for the elderly and handicaped as well as for those that hate the woods.

I agree you can filter out those you don't want. Locally, you always " know " about the good ones out there. When traveling I email cachers in areas I'm going to re " don't miss " caches.

 

I think things are FINE !

[+tozainamboku]

What about the people who label micros as small, other or unknown, which seems to be a significant trend.

I was just looking at the cache listing for "The Spot" (GC39) last night. It's the oldest active cache east of the Mississippi and the 5th oldest active cache in the world. It's labeled as "not chosen". It's actually a 50cal ammo can.

A good example of the kinds of outstanding caches that would be missed using Mushtang's shotgun approach. Every person I know who found The Spot counts it among their all time favorites.

Exactly!!! And there would be one more place in the PQ for a cache that was labeled as Regular or Large.

 

You take out one Regular that you don't know what it is, and you put in a Regular that you know to be a Regular. If your goal is to rid yourself of Micro caches then you're golden, and haven't missed anything.

 

Other than an historic cache that is considered by many to be one of the best in the state.

It sounds like you want a briansnat filter that automatically filter out just the caches briansnat doesn't wan to search for while leaving in all the rest, regardless of size or whether someone mislabeled it. Good luck, because even a cache rating system isn't going to work perfectly.

 

The thread begins that micros are the scourge of geocaching and is looking for eliminating micros. A method was presented. Because some cache are mislabeled that method is not perfect as well, but can be adjusted to eliminate even more micros and still leave you with plenty of caches to find.

 

Most people are able to enjoy geocaching because they have learned method to select the caches they will look for. They can avoid most of what the find lame. And they have learned to accept that they don't cache in Lake Wobegon where every cache is above average. They don't get disappointed when they find a few caches they were trying to avoid. They just move on to the next cache and hope it is more enjoyable. As far as not missing out exceptional caches - especially when traveling - they can look for recommendations from local cachers. While I don't think one could use any rating system as a filter, I can see using one - like the one Markwell has proposed long ago - to find highly recommended caches.

[+briansnat]

So when will Groundspeak's Cache Rating System be online, because that's really what this discussion is about... the perception of lameness rather than size.

Nope, that's what BS is trying to make it about, but the discussion is clearly about Micro caches, and not about "good" caches.

 

The title of this thread isn't "Lame caches, the scurge of geocaching and maybe the end?"

 

You've been around long enough to know that complaints about micros are usually complaints caches placed with little thought or in unappealing areas. It so happens that they tend to be micros which is why they are the whipping boy.

 

If you read between the lines, it is caches placed with "little or no thought" (to quote the OP) that OP is complaining about. It seems that his experience mirrors many in that those caches are usually micros.

 

It sounds like you want a briansnat filter that automatically filter out just the caches briansnat doesn't wan to search for while leaving in all the rest, regardless of size or whether someone mislabeled it. Good luck, because even a cache rating system isn't going to work perfectly.

 

Now THAT would be awesome. What I'd really like is for people to raise the bar a bit with their hides, but with the morphing of this sport into a numbers competition, fat chance. Failing that, a "there is no reason for this cache other than to give people a quick smiley" attribute would be nice.

[Mushtang]

If you read between the lines, it is caches placed with "little or no thought" (to quote the OP) that OP is complaining about. It seems that his experience mirrors many in that those caches are usually micros.

Ahh, so you're arguing against something that you're pretty sure the OP meant, instead of what he said.

 

In that case I'll read between the lines of your post, instead of what you actually wrote, and imagine that you're now demanding that all micros be banned from the site. I mean, obviously that's what you're saying, right?

 

You've been around long enough to know that attempts to ban a specific size cache, just because you don't like it, are useless.

 

**** disclaimer: I don't really think that this is what BS is saying, I'm just trying to make a point, which I have no doubt will be completely lost on him and several others.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Double Post.

Edited July 23, 2010 by GeoGeeBee

[+GeoGeeBee]

So when will Groundspeak's Cache Rating System be online, because that's really what this discussion is about... the perception of lameness rather than size.

Nope, that's what BS is trying to make it about, but the discussion is clearly about Micro caches, and not about "good" caches.

 

The title of this thread isn't "Lame caches, the scurge of geocaching and maybe the end?"

 

A rating system is the best solution to the micro scurge problem. The vast majority of cachers want to find good micros -- we don't want to miss out on the creative/clever/funny/awe-inspiring micros by using the Mushtang's 'shotgun to kill a mosquito' method.

 

Why do you need any kind of system to avoid finding "micro scourge" (spelling corrected) caches? How about looking at the map on your GPSr? If it's about to take you to the parking lot of a big-box store, or to a guardrail, just look for something else. Problem solved.

 

It's often said in the forums that "not all cachers have to find all caches." You don't even have to find all the caches returned in your Pocket Query.

[+briansnat]

If you read between the lines, it is caches placed with "little or no thought" (to quote the OP) that OP is complaining about. It seems that his experience mirrors many in that those caches are usually micros.

Ahh, so you're arguing against something that you're pretty sure the OP meant, instead of what he said.

 

In that case I'll read between the lines of your post, instead of what you actually wrote, and imagine that you're now demanding that all micros be banned from the site. I mean, obviously that's what you're saying, right?

 

You've been around long enough to know that attempts to ban a specific size cache, just because you don't like it, are useless.

 

**** disclaimer: I don't really think that this is what BS is saying, I'm just trying to make a point, which I have no doubt will be completely lost on him and several others.

 

Indeed your towering intellect makes your points too esoteric for us dolts to comprehend.

[Mushtang]

If you read between the lines, it is caches placed with "little or no thought" (to quote the OP) that OP is complaining about. It seems that his experience mirrors many in that those caches are usually micros.

Ahh, so you're arguing against something that you're pretty sure the OP meant, instead of what he said.

 

In that case I'll read between the lines of your post, instead of what you actually wrote, and imagine that you're now demanding that all micros be banned from the site. I mean, obviously that's what you're saying, right?

 

You've been around long enough to know that attempts to ban a specific size cache, just because you don't like it, are useless.

 

**** disclaimer: I don't really think that this is what BS is saying, I'm just trying to make a point, which I have no doubt will be completely lost on him and several others.

 

Indeed your towering intellect makes your points too esoteric for us dolts to comprehend.

You've clearly missed the point of every other post I've made in this thread, what would make me think you'd pick up on that one too?

[+Castle Mischief]

Why do you need any kind of system to avoid finding "micro scourge" (spelling corrected) caches? How about looking at the map on your GPSr? If it's about to take you to the parking lot of a big-box store, or to a guardrail, just look for something else. Problem solved.

 

As I like to put it, "don't cache with asphalt under your feet."

Edited July 23, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[+briansnat]

If you read between the lines, it is caches placed with "little or no thought" (to quote the OP) that OP is complaining about. It seems that his experience mirrors many in that those caches are usually micros.

Ahh, so you're arguing against something that you're pretty sure the OP meant, instead of what he said.

 

In that case I'll read between the lines of y our post, instead of what you actually wrote, and imagine that you're now demanding that all micros be banned from the site. I mean, obviously that's what you're saying, right?

 

You've been around long enough to know that attempts to ban a specific size cache, just because you don't like it, are useless.

 

**** disclaimer: I don't really think that this is what BS is saying, I'm just trying to make a point, which I have no doubt will be completely lost on him and several others.

 

Indeed your towering intellect makes your points too esoteric for us dolts to comprehend.

You've clearly missed the point of every other post I've made in this thread, what would make me think you'd pick up on that one too?

 

Actually I understand your posts completely. You seem to assume that your posts are so pithy and compelling that anybody who disagrees simply doesn't understand.

[+L0ne.R]

Why do you need any kind of system to avoid finding "micro scourge" (spelling corrected) caches? How about looking at the map on your GPSr? If it's about to take you to the parking lot of a big-box store, or to a guardrail, just look for something else. Problem solved.

 

I don't have a GPS units with a street view map, or even a satellite view map. I have a Garmin 60Cx. It'll tell me where the roads are and where the water bodies are, but not parking lots and guardrails.

 

Anyway...there are a few micro parking lot and guardrail caches out there that are actually creative caches or take someone to an interesting location. Wouldn't want to miss out on those.

[Mushtang]

Actually I understand your posts completely. You seem to assume that your posts are so pithy and compelling that anybody who disagrees simply doesn't understand.

No, I assume that anybody that doesn't respond to what I said, and instead responds to something else, doesn't understand.

 

For instance, when I said to filter out micros, small, and other, you responded with: What about the people who label micros as small, other or unknown, which seems to be a significant trend. This told me that you did not understand what I was saying, because your point was already covered in my post.

 

After I tried to make it even more clear a couple of times, in post 143 you're still insisting that mislabled caches keeps people from solving the problem. This told me that you still did not understand.

 

Then you tried to backpedal like crazy and claim that you were only playing the Devil's Advocate and that you weren't trying to avoid micros, even though you were in an Anti micro thread. This also told me that you did not understand the thread.

 

Finally, you changed your tune again to try and say that it wasn't micros you were against, you only wanted to avoid lame caches, which my method didn't work if that's what you wanted to avoid. In post 109 you clearly suggested that you were arguing for filtering out micros, and only changed to the lame "lame" argument when you couldn't backpedal away from the Micro claim fast enough. And that too was discussed the first time I explained how to avoid micros. I said that it will not avoid good caches, only those that are in micro containers. In this I'm starting to see that you may be finally understanding the thread, but are trying to save face.

 

So it's not the pithy and compelling quality of my posts that makes me think you don't understand, it's the fact that your replies are completely off base, or off topic, or both.

[+Team_Searchgeo]

Who cares?

Edited July 23, 2010 by Team_Searchgeo

[I!]

I assess Mushtang's post #199 as having an angst score of 17.

from sys import stdin
from re import split

u,score = 1,0
for line in stdin:
for word in split('[^A-Za-z]+',line.lower()):
	v = 0
	if word in set(['i','me','my']) : v = 1
	if word in set(['you','your'])  : v = -1
	if v*u == -1: score,u = score+1,v

print 'Angst score =',score

Must resist the urge to auto-score everyone's posts for the past 24h and plot high scores ...

Edited July 23, 2010 by I!