Jump to content

Micro Caches


mad007

Recommended Posts

(Edited for brevity.)
Actually, I think that the 'easy peasy' method would handle this problem easily and peasily.
To be clear, you aren't suggesting that "easy peasy" eliminates micros listed as small are you? You're just saying that it probably gets rid of most of them, right? You're just agreeing with Toz, right?
I'm saying that a person could use the easy peasy method to get rid of all micros, whether they are listed as micro, small, or other.
Would that be by filtering out all the size small and size other?
If you think that the easy peasy method begins and ends with adjusting your PQs to cleave out all the caches that you don't like as well as some that you do like, you haven't been paying attention.
I'm saying that a person could use the easy peasy method to get rid of all micros, whether they are listed as micro, small, or other.
That penalizes the COs that plant nice smalls and correctly list them.
How does the easy peasy method penalize ANY cache owner?
Link to comment
... Now you're at the point where in order to weed out the lame micros, you are not only filtering out all micros, you need to filter out other and small caches too, and with them a significant portion of the kinds of caches you enjoy the most. And in many areas around 80 percent of all caches.

 

Using the scattergun approach indeed works - to a point. When you use a shotgun to kill the fly in your kitchen the fly is dead, but the collateral damage becomes unacceptable.

Even though we've been around and around this block for years, you continue to ignore the actual process being suggested.
Link to comment
Would that be by filtering out all the size small and size other?
If you think that the easy peasy method begins and ends with adjusting your PQs to cleave out all the caches that you don't like as well as some that you do like, you haven't been paying attention.

 

So does it or not?

The easy peasy method does include using PQ filters, but describing it as merely filtering out (in this case) all small and other sized caches would be a mistatement of BSian proportions.

Link to comment
Would that be by filtering out all the size small and size other?
If you think that the easy peasy method begins and ends with adjusting your PQs to cleave out all the caches that you don't like as well as some that you do like, you haven't been paying attention.

 

So does it or not?

The easy peasy method does include using PQ filters, but describing it as merely filtering out (in this case) all small and other sized caches would be a mistatement of BSian proportions.

 

It uses PQ filters, but isn't merely filtering. This is sounding less easy. Next you're going to tell me there are no actual peas (or lugumes) involved.

Link to comment
Would that be by filtering out all the size small and size other?
If you think that the easy peasy method begins and ends with adjusting your PQs to cleave out all the caches that you don't like as well as some that you do like, you haven't been paying attention.
So does it or not?
The easy peasy method does include using PQ filters, but describing it as merely filtering out (in this case) all small and other sized caches would be a mistatement of BSian proportions.
It uses PQ filters, but isn't merely filtering. This is sounding less easy. Next you're going to tell me there are no actual peas (or lugumes) involved.
Until TPTB run with your idea that there should be a 'Castle Mischief would like this cache' attribute, the process will never be as simple as running a single PQ. Happily, the easy peasy method allows you to happily start caching at step one. The additional steps merely give you larger set of caches that you will enjoy. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Would that be by filtering out all the size small and size other?
If you think that the easy peasy method begins and ends with adjusting your PQs to cleave out all the caches that you don't like as well as some that you do like, you haven't been paying attention.
So does it or not?
The easy peasy method does include using PQ filters, but describing it as merely filtering out (in this case) all small and other sized caches would be a mistatement of BSian proportions.
It uses PQ filters, but isn't merely filtering. This is sounding less easy. Next you're going to tell me there are no actual peas (or lugumes) involved.
Until TPTB run with your idea that there should be a 'Castle Mischief would like this cache' attribute, the process will never be as simple as running a single PQ. Happily, the easy peasy method allows you to happily start caching at step one. The additional steps merely give you larger set of caches that you will enjoy.

 

Woah there, Sparky. I'm not having trouble finding caches that I enjoy, that's your brother Brian that can't figure out how to avoid parking lots. I'm just trying to make the point that the "easy peasy" blankie you keep bringing to the discussion is transparently neither "easy" nor "peasy".

Link to comment
Would that be by filtering out all the size small and size other?
If you think that the easy peasy method begins and ends with adjusting your PQs to cleave out all the caches that you don't like as well as some that you do like, you haven't been paying attention.
So does it or not?
The easy peasy method does include using PQ filters, but describing it as merely filtering out (in this case) all small and other sized caches would be a mistatement of BSian proportions.
It uses PQ filters, but isn't merely filtering. This is sounding less easy. Next you're going to tell me there are no actual peas (or lugumes) involved.
Until TPTB run with your idea that there should be a 'Castle Mischief would like this cache' attribute, the process will never be as simple as running a single PQ. Happily, the easy peasy method allows you to happily start caching at step one. The additional steps merely give you larger set of caches that you will enjoy.
Woah there, Sparky. I'm not having trouble finding caches that I enjoy, that's your brother Brian that can't figure out how to avoid parking lots. I'm just trying to make the point that the "easy peasy" blankie you keep bringing to the discussion is transparently neither "easy" nor "peasy".
If you and BS believe that the referenced method is too difficult to implement, you are welcome to explain why it's too hard, rather than to continue to drop juvenile comments in this and the other thread.

 

In my opinion, the beauty of the method is that it works from the super simple step one. Additional easy steps merely give you more and more favored caches to look for, but aren't absolutely necessary to obtain good caches to hunt.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Would that be by filtering out all the size small and size other?
If you think that the easy peasy method begins and ends with adjusting your PQs to cleave out all the caches that you don't like as well as some that you do like, you haven't been paying attention.
So does it or not?
The easy peasy method does include using PQ filters, but describing it as merely filtering out (in this case) all small and other sized caches would be a mistatement of BSian proportions.
It uses PQ filters, but isn't merely filtering. This is sounding less easy. Next you're going to tell me there are no actual peas (or lugumes) involved.
Until TPTB run with your idea that there should be a 'Castle Mischief would like this cache' attribute, the process will never be as simple as running a single PQ. Happily, the easy peasy method allows you to happily start caching at step one. The additional steps merely give you larger set of caches that you will enjoy.

 

Woah there, Sparky. I'm not having trouble finding caches that I enjoy, that's your brother Brian that can't figure out how to avoid parking lots. I'm just trying to make the point that the "easy peasy" blankie you keep bringing to the discussion is transparently neither "easy" nor "peasy".

 

I have no interest in avoiding parking lots that have decent caches. One of my favorite finds was in a McDonald's parking lot, another was in the parking lot of a motel and a cache that has been on my to do list for several years is in a shopping center's parking lot. Two of them are micros and I would have missed out on them using any of the filtering methods mentioned.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Would that be by filtering out all the size small and size other?
If you think that the easy peasy method begins and ends with adjusting your PQs to cleave out all the caches that you don't like as well as some that you do like, you haven't been paying attention.
So does it or not?
The easy peasy method does include using PQ filters, but describing it as merely filtering out (in this case) all small and other sized caches would be a mistatement of BSian proportions.
It uses PQ filters, but isn't merely filtering. This is sounding less easy. Next you're going to tell me there are no actual peas (or lugumes) involved.
Until TPTB run with your idea that there should be a 'Castle Mischief would like this cache' attribute, the process will never be as simple as running a single PQ. Happily, the easy peasy method allows you to happily start caching at step one. The additional steps merely give you larger set of caches that you will enjoy.

 

Woah there, Sparky. I'm not having trouble finding caches that I enjoy, that's your brother Brian that can't figure out how to avoid parking lots. I'm just trying to make the point that the "easy peasy" blankie you keep bringing to the discussion is transparently neither "easy" nor "peasy".

 

I have no interest in avoiding parking lots that have decent caches. One of my favorite finds was in a McDonald's parking lot, another was in the parking lot of a motel and a cache that has been on my to do list for several years is in a shopping center's parking lot. Two of them are micros and I would have missed out on them using any of the filtering methods mentioned.

Yet they would have both been available had you employed the easy peasy method.
Link to comment

If you and BS believe that the referenced method is too difficult to implement, you are welcome to explain why it's too hard, rather than to continue to drop juvenile comments in this and the other thread.

 

In my opinion, the beauty of the method is that it works from the super simple step one. Additional easy steps merely give you more and more favored caches to look for, but aren't absolutely necessary to obtain good caches to hunt.

 

I'll have to get back to you. I've seen you talk up "easy peasy" in thread after thread, but I only recall one where you tried to map out the process. I recall it not working to the (admittedly unrealistic) expectations of your target audience.

Link to comment

Woah there, Sparky. I'm not having trouble finding caches that I enjoy, that's your brother Brian that can't figure out how to avoid parking lots. I'm just trying to make the point that the "easy peasy" blankie you keep bringing to the discussion is transparently neither "easy" nor "peasy".

 

I have no interest in avoiding parking lots that have decent caches. One of my favorite finds was in a McDonald's parking lot, another was in the parking lot of a motel and a cache that has been on my to do list for several years is in a shopping center's parking lot. Two of them are micros and I would have missed out on them using any of the filtering methods mentioned.

 

Okay you got me there. "Denny's dumpster caches" would have been a better choice of words. I'm not sold on "easy peasy", but I'm also not convinced that finding enjoyable caches is all that hard either. Here's my "Easily Cheesily™"* method:

 

 

1) Filter out micros and "other/unknown".

2) Go caching.

3) Occasionally ignore step 1.

 

 

 

 

*The makers of Easily Cheesily are no way affiliated with the makers of "easy peasy", sbell111, or flask's neighbor's cat in any way shape or form.

Link to comment

If you and BS believe that the referenced method is too difficult to implement, you are welcome to explain why it's too hard, rather than to continue to drop juvenile comments in this and the other thread.

 

In my opinion, the beauty of the method is that it works from the super simple step one. Additional easy steps merely give you more and more favored caches to look for, but aren't absolutely necessary to obtain good caches to hunt.

 

I'll have to get back to you. I've seen you talk up "easy peasy" in thread after thread, but I only recall one where you tried to map out the process. I recall it not working to the (admittedly unrealistic) expectations of your target audience.

Actually, that method has been discussed at length in tons of threads. (If you don't want to bother with the search function, just give a read of page one of that thread that you teased me about accidently bumping.)
Link to comment

I'll have to get back to you. I've seen you talk up "easy peasy" in thread after thread, but I only recall one where you tried to map out the process. I recall it not working to the (admittedly unrealistic) expectations of your target audience.

Actually, that method has been discussed at length in tons of threads. (If you don't want to bother with the search function, just give a read of page one of that thread that you teased me about accidently bumping.)

 

You mean the thread from May that you pulled from the dark side of page 10? The one that you would have had to gone looking for in the first place with a search before posting to? Is that the one you're talking about?

 

Thanks for the heads up, I'll start reading that one now.

Link to comment

Whooo settle down people! It's getting a bit hairy in here :)

 

People are different, different people like different things. It's a fact of life. If you don't like what the guys next to you likes that doesn't matter because it doesn't mean you have to. In geocaching there are lots of different types of caches in every possible location you can imagine.

 

So if you don't like micros.... erm don't do them :wub:

 

Ok move along people there's nothing to see here :wub:

Link to comment

I'll have to get back to you. I've seen you talk up "easy peasy" in thread after thread, but I only recall one where you tried to map out the process. I recall it not working to the (admittedly unrealistic) expectations of your target audience.

Actually, that method has been discussed at length in tons of threads. (If you don't want to bother with the search function, just give a read of page one of that thread that you teased me about accidently bumping.)

 

You mean the thread from May that you pulled from the dark side of page 10? The one that you would have had to gone looking for in the first place with a search before posting to? Is that the one you're talking about?

 

Thanks for the heads up, I'll start reading that one now.

Settle down. The method was discussed in a number of threads. One of which was the thread that I accidently bumped this morning. To save yourself a search, you can simply find the method in that thread. Alternatively, you can do a search and pull up some other thread OR not bother to look at it at all. I am in no way vested in anything that you do.

 

(Are you actually attempting to belittle me because I used the search function to pull up a specific thread?)

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I'll have to get back to you. I've seen you talk up "easy peasy" in thread after thread, but I only recall one where you tried to map out the process. I recall it not working to the (admittedly unrealistic) expectations of your target audience.

Actually, that method has been discussed at length in tons of threads. (If you don't want to bother with the search function, just give a read of page one of that thread that you teased me about accidentally bumping.)

 

You mean the thread from May that you pulled from the dark side of page 10? The one that you would have had to gone looking for in the first place with a search before posting to? Is that the one you're talking about?

 

Thanks for the heads up, I'll start reading that one now.

Settle down. The method was discussed in a number of threads. One of which was the thread that I accidentally bumped this morning. To save yourself a search, you can simply find the method in that thread. Alternatively, you can do a search and pull up some other thread OR not bother to look at it at all. I am in no way vested in anything that you do.

 

(Are you actually attempting to belittle me because I used the search function to pull up a specific thread?)

 

I am not trying to belittle you at all. Mock you? Probably.

 

I did go and pull up the first page of that thread and I've looked over the 6-step "EP" method that you quoted in 2009 from a thread back in 2007.

 

I've gained an understanding as to why you and Brian have never agreed on the effectiveness of "EP" or its methodology.

 

I think for a limited sub-set of caching scenarios it would work perfectly. I think for a specific set of scenarios it would for Brian- but I think that because of critical disconnect in philosophy between the two of you, Brain will never ever use the "EP" for most if any of his caching scenarios.

 

Regardless of this critical disconnect I suspect that you will continue to suggest either directly or indirectly to Brian that "EP" would work for a much larger set of scenarios than it actually would and that Brian will continue to insist that "EP" functions at a lower than actual rate of success than could actually be achieved.

 

I also think that there is a point in your process that the overall 6-step process stops being "easy" and gravitates towards much longer and ethereally subjective process and that perhaps this balance point is perceived by Brian at a premature juncture and by you much later (based on your own comments, the final step.) I suspect that the actual pivotal moment in the process is somewhere in the middle...

 

Lastly, I find no evidence, not one single shred that there is any volume or quantity of nuts, peas, legumes, or other seed products inherent to this process.

Link to comment
Regardless of this critical disconnect I suspect that you will continue to suggest either directly or indirectly to Brian that "EP" would work for a much larger set of scenarios than it actually would and that Brian will continue to insist that "EP" functions at a lower than actual rate of success than could actually be achieved.

 

From what I recall of the EP method it involved mass filtering of certain cache sizes, then adding in ones that have a good reputation.

 

I don't need it for caching in my own area. I know who the good hiders are and whose caches to ignore, and I get frequent word of mouth regarding the must do caches in my area.

 

It is insufficient for when I travel, because I don't get that word of mouth. I know I can post in the regional forums and ask, but the responses to those requests aren't usually that great. At best you'll get half a dozen or so recommendations and most of them are of the size that I haven't filtered out.

Link to comment
Regardless of this critical disconnect I suspect that you will continue to suggest either directly or indirectly to Brian that "EP" would work for a much larger set of scenarios than it actually would and that Brian will continue to insist that "EP" functions at a lower than actual rate of success than could actually be achieved.

 

From what I recall of the EP method it involved mass filtering of certain cache sizes, then adding in ones that have a good reputation.

 

I don't need it for caching in my own area. I know who the good hiders are and whose caches to ignore, and I get frequent word of mouth regarding the must do caches in my area.

 

It is insufficient for when I travel, because I don't get that word of mouth. I know I can post in the regional forums and ask, but the responses to those requests aren't usually that great. At best you'll get half a dozen or so recommendations and most of them are of the size that I haven't filtered out.

 

Exactly! How do you find creative/impressive/fun/funny/surprising/well-done caches of any size when you are outside of your normal area of caching and faced with thousands of caches to choose from? Filtering out by size is not the answer. Asking one person's opinion i.e. bookmarks is OK but unsatisfactory.

Link to comment
Regardless of this critical disconnect I suspect that you will continue to suggest either directly or indirectly to Brian that "EP" would work for a much larger set of scenarios than it actually would and that Brian will continue to insist that "EP" functions at a lower than actual rate of success than could actually be achieved.

 

From what I recall of the EP method it involved mass filtering of certain cache sizes, then adding in ones that have a good reputation.

 

I don't need it for caching in my own area. I know who the good hiders are and whose caches to ignore, and I get frequent word of mouth regarding the must do caches in my area.

 

It is insufficient for when I travel, because I don't get that word of mouth. I know I can post in the regional forums and ask, but the responses to those requests aren't usually that great. At best you'll get half a dozen or so recommendations and most of them are of the size that I haven't filtered out.

 

Exactly! How do you find creative/impressive/fun/funny/surprising/well-done caches of any size when you are outside of your normal area of caching and faced with thousands of caches to choose from? Filtering out by size is not the answer. Asking one person's opinion i.e. bookmarks is OK but unsatisfactory.

 

Exactly!

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Regardless of this critical disconnect I suspect that you will continue to suggest either directly or indirectly to Brian that "EP" would work for a much larger set of scenarios than it actually would and that Brian will continue to insist that "EP" functions at a lower than actual rate of success than could actually be achieved.

 

From what I recall of the EP method it involved mass filtering of certain cache sizes, then adding in ones that have a good reputation.

 

I don't need it for caching in my own area. I know who the good hiders are and whose caches to ignore, and I get frequent word of mouth regarding the must do caches in my area.

 

It is insufficient for when I travel, because I don't get that word of mouth. I know I can post in the regional forums and ask, but the responses to those requests aren't usually that great. At best you'll get half a dozen or so recommendations and most of them are of the size that I haven't filtered out.

 

I agree. For local caches it would work great. For caches in a previously unvisited area it only works well with time and research.

 

In those cases it's better just to ignore the last five steps and simply filter out those "most likely to offend". From what I've read, you aren't willing to apply step #1 because it may filter out a "winner".

 

...and that's the disconnect.

Link to comment

I keep the swag for the odd Travel Bug that grabs my interest. That is worth swapping for.

 

A couple of things... you don't have to leave anything in trade for TBs, and there is no nano classification as of yet, which is probably why those teeny caches were classified as micro.

 

Just FYI

 

Maybe I don't HAVE to trade for Travel Bugs, but I guess that's my way of fostering positive reinforcement :D

 

You're quite right about no official nano status, but many state that in the longer verbal description. Like I said, I enjoyed the Hunt and Find, so I'm happy with the one's I've found. Yeah, some micro's are just plain boring (tree knotholes) but I've also seen some boring ammo can hides (under a Pile O' Sticks / Rocks).

 

As others have pointed out, there is a description of the expected cache type, right at the top of the page, in the open. I read them. Puzzle caches are not my thing, so I don't do them. That's a whole lot better than complaining about them :laughing: Even filtering those out, there's a lot of caches out there waiting to be found!

Link to comment
I also think that there is a point in your process that the overall 6-step process stops being "easy" and gravitates towards much longer and ethereally subjective process and that perhaps this balance point is perceived by Brian at a premature juncture and by you much later (based on your own comments, the final step.) I suspect that the actual pivotal moment in the process is somewhere in the middle...
One of the best things about the easy peasy method is that it allows good caching from step one. At this first step, an incredibly high percentage of 'bad' caches are sorted out. This leaves the cacher with a large number of 'good' caches that he can look for without doing any other steps. Later steps only serve to bring back in the caches that were sorted out, but are 'good'.
I agree. For local caches it would work great. For caches in a previously unvisited area it only works well with time and research.

 

In those cases it's better just to ignore the last five steps and simply filter out those "most likely to offend". From what I've read, you aren't willing to apply step #1 because it may filter out a "winner".

 

...and that's the disconnect.

Actually, the easy peasy method works really well in previously unvisited areas simply because there will be a higher number of caches that were not sorted out. When vacation-caching, there's really no need to go beyond step one. Well, step two, actually. I always perform step 2. Since it only takes a moment to take a peek at the next cache's page, it makes no sense not to look it over prior to hitting <goto>.

 

(That being said, anyone who wants to find the super good caches while vacationing should check in with the caching group in that area. Many groups have lists of super good caches on the club website.)

 

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

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

 

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

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Regardless of this critical disconnect I suspect that you will continue to suggest either directly or indirectly to Brian that "EP" would work for a much larger set of scenarios than it actually would and that Brian will continue to insist that "EP" functions at a lower than actual rate of success than could actually be achieved.

 

From what I recall of the EP method it involved mass filtering of certain cache sizes, then adding in ones that have a good reputation.

 

I don't need it for caching in my own area. I know who the good hiders are and whose caches to ignore, and I get frequent word of mouth regarding the must do caches in my area.

 

It is insufficient for when I travel, because I don't get that word of mouth. I know I can post in the regional forums and ask, but the responses to those requests aren't usually that great. At best you'll get half a dozen or so recommendations and most of them are of the size that I haven't filtered out.

 

I agree. For local caches it would work great. For caches in a previously unvisited area it only works well with time and research.

 

In those cases it's better just to ignore the last five steps and simply filter out those "most likely to offend". From what I've read, you aren't willing to apply step #1 because it may filter out a "winner".

 

...and that's the disconnect.

 

I may filter out many of my favorite kinds of caches with step 1.

Link to comment
One of the best things about the easy peasy method is that it allows good caching from step one.

That's true. And in my opinion THE best thing about the EP method is that it exists. Briansnat and others can complain about it all they want, they can talk about how it's not perfect for them and therefore it has no merit, but it does exist and it works well if given a chance.

 

The solution that DOESN'T exist, and never will exist, is the one that Briansnat and others would like. It's one that will remove caches that they don't want to find while leaving the caches that they do want to find.

 

Until they can come up with an alternative method to filter out "bad" caches, all their complaining about the EP method is just hot air.

 

And in this thread their complaints are most definitely off topic. This thread is clearly an anti-Micro thread, it's not an anti lame cache thread.

Link to comment

Exactly! How do you find creative/impressive/fun/funny/surprising/well-done caches of any size when you are outside of your normal area of caching and faced with thousands of caches to choose from? Filtering out by size is not the answer. Asking one person's opinion i.e. bookmarks is OK but unsatisfactory.

 

I travel a lot for work, and have taken several caching road trips, and I use a couple of different methods.

 

1) Post in the region forum appropriate for the trip looking for suggestions. I did just that for three multi-state cache runs, and have never been disappointed with recommendations. based on a suggestion from a local we added a couple of hours of driving to our upcoming trip to the Mmidwest to visit Winterset, IA, to see some of the remaining Bridges of Madison County. And grab what appear to be some cool caches nearby (one in a hedge maze, and a virtual at a stone tower with great views).

2) Cherry Pick. I pull up the Geocahcing Google Maps, ands start zooming and panning. Look for a green area (representing a park or conservation area) and I click on caches. I bookmark the ones I like.

3) Contact a local cacher who seems to have some hides that consistently get good "reviews" in the logs (this is a fall out of #2 above). I've actually met some great people this way!

 

Sure, this is a lot of up front work, but I will only be going going after caches that I (hopefully) will find interesting. I figure I've spent well over 15 hours looking for caches for our trip, but Iknow the work will pay off as we visit cool locations.

Link to comment

You all have valid comments that suit YOUR way to play the game. But this constant talk of hating and not hating micros is tiring. I am going to head over to the popup camper forums for a few hours. There's no angst over there (yet). :laughing:

 

I just signed up. My user name is "VikingLuver456887".

 

Though I believe your post to be in jest, I'll ask anyway. Which popup camper forum did you join? I'm rather fond of popupportal.com

Link to comment
Regardless of this critical disconnect I suspect that you will continue to suggest either directly or indirectly to Brian that "EP" would work for a much larger set of scenarios than it actually would and that Brian will continue to insist that "EP" functions at a lower than actual rate of success than could actually be achieved.
From what I recall of the EP method it involved mass filtering of certain cache sizes, then adding in ones that have a good reputation.

 

I don't need it for caching in my own area. I know who the good hiders are and whose caches to ignore, and I get frequent word of mouth regarding the must do caches in my area.

 

It is insufficient for when I travel, because I don't get that word of mouth. I know I can post in the regional forums and ask, but the responses to those requests aren't usually that great. At best you'll get half a dozen or so recommendations and most of them are of the size that I haven't filtered out.

I agree. For local caches it would work great. For caches in a previously unvisited area it only works well with time and research.

 

In those cases it's better just to ignore the last five steps and simply filter out those "most likely to offend". From what I've read, you aren't willing to apply step #1 because it may filter out a "winner".

 

...and that's the disconnect.

I may filter out many of my favorite kinds of caches with step 1.
So what? As long as you still have loads of awesomeness to look for, you're jake.
Link to comment

Though I believe your post to be in jest, I'll ask anyway. Which popup camper forum did you join? I'm rather fond of popupportal.com

 

Yeah, I was jesting. Actually I'm pretty sure that the wife does belong to at least one forum, but honestly I don't know which one. I thank you for the recommendation and I'll be sure and pass it on to her. (Truthfully, I am rather fond of our Viking.)

Link to comment

sbell111, it boils down to this... For me, personally, the "easy" starts to quickly fade right after step #1. Just step #1 all by itself is enough for me- specifically filtering out micros/other. I just don't attempt massive number runs and I cache as such a casual rate and mellow pace that I don't need to have "UBER FANTASTIC" caches at every point in my PQ. Even if I had a 200 count PQ and all 200 where SUPERCOOLAWESOME and even if they were all .1 miles apart, I'd still never find them all in one day or in one week.

 

So for me, that first step is enough that it gets the majority of hide-a-keys under lampskirts and bison tubes stuck to high voltage equipment. And that's skippy for me.

Link to comment

I may filter out many of my favorite kinds of caches with step 1.

 

Them's the breaks. Accept there is no perfect solution. Clearly you've already done that or you'd be sitting at home unable to attempt any finds at all. Good grief man.

 

Hopefully a rating system (something in-house and filterable - so please don't say use GCVote (which is a great system but not in-house and filterable)) will get us closer to an easy peasy method of filtering the wheat from the chaff - whatever size they may be... but sticking to topic, micros tend to be far more chaff then wheat. I'm glad to see GS acknowledging that it's an idea they're considering. I hope it happens soon.

Link to comment

I may filter out many of my favorite kinds of caches with step 1.

 

Them's the breaks. Accept there is no perfect solution. Clearly you've already done that or you'd be sitting at home unable to attempt any finds at all. Good grief man.

 

Hopefully a rating system (something in-house and filterable - so please don't say use GCVote (which is a great system but not in-house and filterable)) will get us closer to an easy peasy method of filtering the wheat from the chaff - whatever size they may be... but sticking to topic, micros tend to be far more chaff then wheat. I'm glad to see GS acknowledging that it's an idea they're considering. I hope it happens soon.

 

I'd love additional attributes. An historic site attribute so I can select those regardless of size and a "for numbers hounds" attribute for caches placed only for a quick smiley without regard to the aesthetics of the area.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I may filter out many of my favorite kinds of caches with step 1.

 

Them's the breaks. Accept there is no perfect solution. Clearly you've already done that or you'd be sitting at home unable to attempt any finds at all. Good grief man.

 

Hopefully a rating system (something in-house and filterable - so please don't say use GCVote (which is a great system but not in-house and filterable)) will get us closer to an easy peasy method of filtering the wheat from the chaff - whatever size they may be... but sticking to topic, micros tend to be far more chaff then wheat. I'm glad to see GS acknowledging that it's an idea they're considering. I hope it happens soon.

 

...... and a "for numbers hounds" attribute for caches placed only for a quick smiley without regard to the aesthetics of the area.

 

Ooooo, that would be nice.

Link to comment

...and a "for numbers hounds" attribute for caches placed only for a quick smiley without regard to the aesthetics of the area.

 

Something like this? parkngrab-yes.gif

 

I've found some very nice/clever/funny/interesting park n grabs at nice locations. Maybe the word 'quick' is not quite right, perhaps...an attribute for caches placed only for a smiley, as the sole purpose of the hide.

Edited by Lone R
Link to comment

sbell111, it boils down to this... For me, personally, the "easy" starts to quickly fade right after step #1.

You have to admit that step 2 is super easy. After all, the only thing you do in step 2 is take a look at the info for one cache right before you follow the arrow to look for it.

 

Step 3 is pretty simple, also. In step three, all you do is stick a cache on a watch list, if someone tells you that it's a good one. The next time you do step one, you pull a PQ of these watched caches.

 

Step 4 is also super simple. In this step, all you do is take a look at new caches in your area as you receive the 'new listing' emails. Obvious stinkers get quickly ignored while tasty ones get watched.

 

In step 5, all you do is quickly map the non-ignored, filtered caches (the inverse of your original step 1 PQs). Any caches that are in areas that you aren't interested in hunting get quickly ignored, while caches that are in tasty areas get watched. (Largely, the 'watched' advise here is for those people who feel that 'lame' cache in 'good' area is worth looking for. Pickier people could either leave these 'good area' caches unsorted or meld this step with step 6 and review the cache pages to judge the caches' worth.

 

As you can see, while the easy peasy plan does entail several steps, each step is super simple and, as you've found, all steps are not necessary to attain a happy caching experience because the beauty of the plan is that step one removes the bulk of the 'stinkers' leaving loads of goodness to choose from. The later steps merely add back in super good caches to aid mega cachers that may eventually run out of step one caches and people like BS who cannot bear the idea of losing out on a 'good' cache even if it means that he never has to experience a 'bad' one.

Link to comment
I may filter out many of my favorite kinds of caches with step 1.
Them's the breaks. Accept there is no perfect solution. Clearly you've already done that or you'd be sitting at home unable to attempt any finds at all. Good grief man.
Hopefully a rating system (something in-house and filterable - so please don't say use GCVote (which is a great system but not in-house and filterable)) will get us closer to an easy peasy method of filtering the wheat from the chaff - whatever size they may be... but sticking to topic, micros tend to be far more chaff then wheat. I'm glad to see GS acknowledging that it's an idea they're considering. I hope it happens soon.
...... and a "for numbers hounds" attribute for caches placed only for a quick smiley without regard to the aesthetics of the area.
Ooooo, that would be nice.
The problem is, BS is once again attempting has mind reading trick where he presumes to know all other cachers' motivations. In real life, few people would likely use the proposed attribute.
Link to comment

sbell111, it boils down to this... For me, personally, the "easy" starts to quickly fade right after step #1.

You have to admit that step 2 is super easy. After all, the only thing you do in step 2 is take a look at the info for one cache right before you follow the arrow to look for it.

 

*snip*

 

Then consider my method of stopping at step #1 to be even easier*. I've just spent less time in front of a monitor and more time doing anything else. Any loss of resolution or ganularity I'm willing to accept. I completely understand that I could approach Nirvana if I did these steps, but for me two blocks over is just fine. Brian is looking for Nirvana with a window seat and in-flight meals and your method will never appeal to him because from his point of view the first step is a loss and any further steps to regain those losses is too time consuming.

 

Inconclusion, the two of you are never going to agree on this issue. Everybody else has accepted this.

 

*If I can ever find a word that rhymes with "legume" I think I'll even have a snappy name for it.

Link to comment
Brian is looking for Nirvana with a window seat and in-flight meals and your method will never appeal to him because from his point of view the first step is a loss and any further steps to regain those losses is too time consuming.

 

Nah, I'm just looking for a way to eliminate those caches placed just for the sake of numbers and without regard to aesthetics, without eliminating hundreds, or thousands of fine caches in the process.

Link to comment
Brian is looking for Nirvana with a window seat and in-flight meals and your method will never appeal to him because from his point of view the first step is a loss and any further steps to regain those losses is too time consuming.

 

Nah, I'm just looking for a way to eliminate those caches placed just for the sake of numbers and without regard to aesthetics, without eliminating hundreds, or thousands of fine caches in the process.

But since it is only your opinion that this is the reason for placing those caches, you are still heading at the problem from the wrong direction. Once you come to grips with the fact that you aren't a mind reader, perhaps you will come to the realization that the 'problem' lies within you, not other cachers and then embrace a system that is based on your preferences, not your guesses at the motivations of all other cachers. Until then, too bad so sad that you won't have fun finding those caches that you could have easily and peasily sorted out.

 

(That and the fact that you continue to argue against the easy peasy method as if it started and ended at the first step. Of course, you don't actually believe this because the method has been explained directly to you so many times, but it sure does make it easier to argue against that way, doesn't it?)

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...