Jump to content

Micro Caches


mad007

Recommended Posts

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?)

 

But give him this- he's asking for a descriptive icon that would give the hiders an opportunity to broadcast the intentions of their cache. If the CO is saying "just for the numbers, yo" then there's no mind reading required.

 

The fact that you try to argue for the easy peasy with somebody that has such an ideological disconnect with your logic is... illogical.

Link to comment
But give him this- he's asking for a descriptive icon that would give the hiders an opportunity to broadcast the intentions of their cache. If the CO is saying "just for the numbers, yo" then there's no mind reading required.

 

The fact that you try to argue for the easy peasy with somebody that has such an ideological disconnect with your logic is... illogical.

The problem is, what he's asking for won't work for the simple reason that people hide caches for all kinds of reasons that are perfectly valid for them. Most of these reasons are not 'just for the numbers, yo', even if that is the smear that BS prefers to paint these caches with.

 

Further, many (most?) people don't bother with attributes, anyway so even those that were placed 'for the numbers, yo' won't be identified as such.

 

Finally, if this were put into place, BS would complain that people were using the 'for the numbers, yo' attribute on caches that he likes, thereby misrepresenting the cache and creating confusion in the community as a way of trying to cheat BS from looking for a good cache.

Link to comment
But give him this- he's asking for a descriptive icon that would give the hiders an opportunity to broadcast the intentions of their cache. If the CO is saying "just for the numbers, yo" then there's no mind reading required.

 

The fact that you try to argue for the easy peasy with somebody that has such an ideological disconnect with your logic is... illogical.

The problem is, what he's asking for won't work for the simple reason that people hide caches for all kinds of reasons that are perfectly valid for them. Most of these reasons are not 'just for the numbers, yo', even if that is the smear that BS prefers to paint these caches with.

 

Further, many (most?) people don't bother with attributes, anyway so even those that were placed 'for the numbers, yo' won't be identified as such.

 

Finally, if this were put into place, BS would complain that people were using the 'for the numbers, yo' attribute on caches that he likes, thereby misrepresenting the cache and creating confusion in the community as a way of trying to cheat BS from looking for a good cache.

 

Yeah sure, but enough people use attributes that you're using attributes in your easy peasy, right? Step #1- eliminate the largest group of caches that you're most likely to not like. If that happens to be caches that require scuba gear then I'm going to filter those out in the first step.

 

You're accusing Brian of playing mind-reader but you're playing at telling the future. There is no way to predict that just because some cachers are not using some attributes today that at a point in the future other cachers would or would not use them tomorrow.

 

Most importantly, unless you want to review each cache listing one at a time, the information that the hiders provide is all we have.

Link to comment
But give him this- he's asking for a descriptive icon that would give the hiders an opportunity to broadcast the intentions of their cache. If the CO is saying "just for the numbers, yo" then there's no mind reading required.

 

The fact that you try to argue for the easy peasy with somebody that has such an ideological disconnect with your logic is... illogical.

The problem is, what he's asking for won't work for the simple reason that people hide caches for all kinds of reasons that are perfectly valid for them. Most of these reasons are not 'just for the numbers, yo', even if that is the smear that BS prefers to paint these caches with.

 

Further, many (most?) people don't bother with attributes, anyway so even those that were placed 'for the numbers, yo' won't be identified as such.

 

Finally, if this were put into place, BS would complain that people were using the 'for the numbers, yo' attribute on caches that he likes, thereby misrepresenting the cache and creating confusion in the community as a way of trying to cheat BS from looking for a good cache.

 

Yeah sure, but enough people use attributes that you're using attributes in your easy peasy, right? Step #1- eliminate the largest group of caches that you're most likely to not like. If that happens to be caches that require scuba gear then I'm going to filter those out in the first step.

 

You're accusing Brian of playing mind-reader but you're playing at telling the future. There is no way to predict that just because some cachers are not using some attributes today that at a point in the future other cachers would or would not use them tomorrow.

 

Most importantly, unless you want to review each cache listing one at a time, the information that the hiders provide is all we have.

Nice job of trying to twist my position, but we aren't talking about some fuzzy point in the future. We are talking about how to maximize fun right now. BS suggested a change that he thought would work. I merely explained why it would fail. No soothsaying or mindreading was involved in my post or in the easy peasy method. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
But give him this- he's asking for a descriptive icon that would give the hiders an opportunity to broadcast the intentions of their cache. If the CO is saying "just for the numbers, yo" then there's no mind reading required.

 

The fact that you try to argue for the easy peasy with somebody that has such an ideological disconnect with your logic is... illogical.

The problem is, what he's asking for won't work for the simple reason that people hide caches for all kinds of reasons that are perfectly valid for them. Most of these reasons are not 'just for the numbers, yo', even if that is the smear that BS prefers to paint these caches with.

 

Further, many (most?) people don't bother with attributes, anyway so even those that were placed 'for the numbers, yo' won't be identified as such.

 

Finally, if this were put into place, BS would complain that people were using the 'for the numbers, yo' attribute on caches that he likes, thereby misrepresenting the cache and creating confusion in the community as a way of trying to cheat BS from looking for a good cache.

 

Yeah sure, but enough people use attributes that you're using attributes in your easy peasy, right? Step #1- eliminate the largest group of caches that you're most likely to not like. If that happens to be caches that require scuba gear then I'm going to filter those out in the first step.

 

You're accusing Brian of playing mind-reader but you're playing at telling the future. There is no way to predict that just because some cachers are not using some attributes today that at a point in the future other cachers would or would not use them tomorrow.

 

Most importantly, unless you want to review each cache listing one at a time, the information that the hiders provide is all we have.

Nice job of trying to twist my position, but we aren't talking about some fuzzy point in the future. We are talking about how to maximize fun right now. BS suggested a change that he thought would work. I merely explained why it would fail. No soothsaying or mindreading was involved in my post or in the easy peasy method.

 

I'm not twisting anything, I'm taking my understanding of one point you made and applying it to my understanding of another point you made.

 

You said:

Further, many (most?) people don't bother with attributes, anyway so even those that were placed 'for the numbers, yo' won't be identified as such.

 

In reference to a hypothetical "for the numbers" attribute that does not exist currently. Any discussion of an currently non-existent attribute would be a discussion about how that attribute would be used in the future- because it doesn't exist in the present.

 

Further, many (most?) people don't bother with attributes, anyway so even those that were placed 'for the numbers, yo' won't be identified as such.

 

Future tense. You are making a prediction about how something would occur in the future- how people will act after a point of change.

 

You are predicting that an attribute will fail- because COs don't always provide accurate data. Yet the methodology that you are using in the present makes use of the same data the COs provide. Any new attribute will be just as useful to your methodology as the current ones. No one single attribute would cause your method to fail.

 

You are also predicting how Brian will react:

Finally, if this were put into place, BS would complain that people were using the 'for the numbers, yo' attribute on caches that he likes, thereby misrepresenting the cache and creating confusion in the community as a way of trying to cheat BS from looking for a good cache.

 

You're probably right about that one.

 

You both have to accept that all methods work some off the time and that no methods work all of the time.

 

I'm done with this. We're both just retreading the same ground, some of it has footprints three years old.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

Wow..what a very enlightening discussion. lol. I haven't posted in a while, but found some extra time and decided to browse the forums again. While micros are not my favorite, I'll still go for them just to mark them off of my list if they're in my hometown. It's just a thing of mine. I don't like caches near my house to go "unfound" regardless. If they are in other towns, I pay close attention to where they are located and can easily figure out if they're worth my trouble.

 

There are some notable micros that tickled my fancy because they were cleverly hidden (and by that..I do NOT mean in a guardrail) or because they DID lead me to someplace interesting, such as a restaurant I've never been to or if they were cleverly crafted...not a pill bottle, cigar tube, or match container. If it makes me *think* for more than 5 minutes...it's probably a good one.

 

Now, a micro that is a mile trek into the woods finishing off with a 4 star climb...that makes my blood boil. I just finished one today and my muscles are screaming along with me. The description said "small". I'll go along with that if there is at least something the size of a peanut butter jar...but a match container? I wanted my PRIZE!...even if it was McCrap..I wanted something. Sheesh. lol.

 

The other micros I hate are the ones hidden anywhere near garbage containers or so close to a business that you are seriously in danger of being questioned by security or appear to be a drug dealer by holding a pill bottle and a baggie while looking around suspiciously or worse... some kind of terrorist planting a new type of bomb.

 

Sometimes I do wish that there was a way of a proposed micro getting pre-approved before placement at wally-world. If it's a magnetic key holder destined for a guardrail, send it to the reject pile. If it's a micro disguised as a bolt for a fence...cool. It would just be nice to require that people put some thought into their hides rather than claiming territory that someone COULD put a better cache on...but can't because of the .10 rule.

 

Ok..back into hiding...lol. Carry on.

Link to comment

I like about 90% of the micros I have found.

About 99% of the ones I have found were listed as micros.

If you do not like micros, do not look for them.

 

Pretty simple really.

 

I dislike multis because it seems unless they are pretty recently placed they mostly have a missing piece.

 

Therefore I do not look for them. Problem solved and I never complain about them. :unsure:

Link to comment

Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.

 

Great attitude! If more people did that then Geocaching would remain the awesome sport it once was. "The language of location" and "All you need is a GPS and a sense of adventure". I don't that think by "location" and "adventure" they meant dumpsters behind the local 7-Eleven.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.
Great attitude! If more people did that then Geocaching would remain the awesome sport it once was. "The language of location" and "All you need is a GPS and a sense of adventure". I don't that think by "location" and "adventure" they meant dumpsters behind the local 7-Eleven.

You're right, they didn't. By "language of location" they meant the coordinate system. It's a language that we all use to describe a specific location of a cache to each other. Why do people insist that by using the word "location" Jeremy was somehow secretly trying to convey that caches should be placed in a location that meets certain criteria?

 

I've got to give you props though. You have a sense of "adventure" by remaining in an anti-micro thread and arguing that the game isn't as awesome as it once was. If the problem is that there are too many micros, then that is EASY to fix and you can cache without ever finding another one. If the problem is that there are too many lame caches, then your posts are off topic. But then again, a moderator should know that, shouldn't he?

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment

Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.

 

I smiled just reading your post. You are a good example of a CO who cares about the experience of finders. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.
Great attitude! If more people did that then Geocaching would remain the awesome sport it once was. "The language of location" and "All you need is a GPS and a sense of adventure". I don't that think by "location" and "adventure" they meant dumpsters behind the local 7-Eleven.

You're right, they didn't. By "language of location" they meant the coordinate system. It's a language that we all use to describe a specific location of a cache to each other. Why do people insist that by using the word "location" Jeremy was somehow secretly trying to convey that caches should be placed in a location that meets certain criteria?

 

 

From an early (2000) version of this website:

"Geocaching is just like real estate - location, location, location! ... Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way. The big reward for geocachers, other than finding the cache itself, is the location. A prime camping spot, great viewpoint, unusual location, etc. are all good places to hide a cache. Some examples - Any historical location, old war bunkers, ghost towns, near old train tracks, islands, scenic park trails, etc. "

 

He wasn't trying to secretly convey it, he was outright stating it.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.
Great attitude! If more people did that then Geocaching would remain the awesome sport it once was. "The language of location" and "All you need is a GPS and a sense of adventure". I don't that think by "location" and "adventure" they meant dumpsters behind the local 7-Eleven.
You're right, they didn't. By "language of location" they meant the coordinate system. It's a language that we all use to describe a specific location of a cache to each other. Why do people insist that by using the word "location" Jeremy was somehow secretly trying to convey that caches should be placed in a location that meets certain criteria?
From an early (2000) version of this website:

"Geocaching is just like real estate - location, location, location! ... Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way. The big reward for geocachers, other than finding the cache itself, is the location. A prime camping spot, great viewpoint, unusual location, etc. are all good places to hide a cache. Some examples - Any historical location, old war bunkers, ghost towns, near old train tracks, islands, scenic park trails, etc. "[/i']e

 

He wasn't trying to secretly convey it, he was outright stating it.

Once again you missed the point of a post and went off on a tangent, arguing against something that was never claimed.

 

You inferred that the phrase "Language of location" was somehow a mandate to avoid dumpsters. THAT is the phrase that I said didn't contain a secret meaning.

 

I never said that Jeremy didn't prefer awesome locations. I never said that I didn't either. I only said that "The language of location" referred to the coordinate system and is often pointed to, incorrectly, as a reason not to hide a cache that someone doesn't like.

Link to comment
Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.
Great attitude! If more people did that then Geocaching would remain the awesome sport it once was. "The language of location" and "All you need is a GPS and a sense of adventure". I don't that think by "location" and "adventure" they meant dumpsters behind the local 7-Eleven.

You're right, they didn't. By "language of location" they meant the coordinate system. It's a language that we all use to describe a specific location of a cache to each other. Why do people insist that by using the word "location" Jeremy was somehow secretly trying to convey that caches should be placed in a location that meets certain criteria?

 

 

From an early (2000) version of this website:

"Geocaching is just like real estate - location, location, location! ... Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way. The big reward for geocachers, other than finding the cache itself, is the location. A prime camping spot, great viewpoint, unusual location, etc. are all good places to hide a cache. Some examples - Any historical location, old war bunkers, ghost towns, near old train tracks, islands, scenic park trails, etc. "

 

He wasn't trying to secretly convey it, he was outright stating it.

 

'zactly!!!

Link to comment

 

You're right, they didn't. By "language of location" they meant the coordinate system.

 

Can you give us a quote from Groundspeak/Jeremy that indicates that "language of location" simply means coordinate system and not what Briansnat quoted, "....Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way."

Link to comment
You're right, they didn't. By "language of location" they meant the coordinate system.
Can you give us a quote from Groundspeak/Jeremy that indicates that "language of location" simply means coordinate system and not what Briansnat quoted, "....Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way."

No, and neither can you quote him saying that "The language of location" means you should place the cache in a garden spot. It just makes sense because it's the Groundspeak motto and not the geocaching motto. Groundspeak does a lot of stuff with GPS usage that is non-geocaching. Maybe we can ask him to tell us what the motto means?

 

Again, I'm not saying that caches that are in great locations aren't better. I'm not saying that Jeremy doesn't prefer them. I'm not saying that I don't prefer them. And I'm not saying that anyone else shouldn't prefer them.

 

However, arguing against a location when the topic is container size is off topic.

Link to comment

 

You're right, they didn't. By "language of location" they meant the coordinate system.

 

Can you give us a quote from Groundspeak/Jeremy that indicates that "language of location" simply means coordinate system and not what Briansnat quoted, "....Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way."

 

The real estate term "location, location, location" means that an appealing location increases the value of the real estate. When Jeremy said "Geocaching is just like real estate - location, location, location!" he certainly seemed to be suggesting that an appealing location for a cache was important.

Link to comment
You're right, they didn't. By "language of location" they meant the coordinate system.
Can you give us a quote from Groundspeak/Jeremy that indicates that "language of location" simply means coordinate system and not what Briansnat quoted, "....Ultimately you'll want to place a cache in a place that is unique in some way."
The real estate term "location, location, location" means that an appealing location increases the value of the real estate. When Jeremy said "Geocaching is just like real estate - location, location, location!" he certainly seemed to be suggesting that an appealing location for a cache was important.

Your point would be valid IF we were talking about the motto "Language of location, location, location".

 

Or it would be valid IF I'd made the claim that Jeremy never said location was important.

 

However, since I was talking about "The Language of Location", and since I never claimed Jeremy never said location was important, your post is completely irrelevant.

 

Again, if he was trying to use the motto to suggest that the location of the cache should be scenic, why wouldn't the motto be "Groundspeak: Hide Your Cache in a Picturesque Location"?

 

Also, are you ever going to post on topic and discuss micro caches, or will you continue to derail this one? Be careful, Moderators don't like when someon.... oh, nevermind. I guess you probably heard that during Moderator training.

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment

Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.

 

I smiled just reading your post. You are a good example of a CO who cares about the experience of finders. :ph34r:

Interesting take. Another person might read that post and be taken aback by the number of 'I's.

Link to comment

Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.

 

I smiled just reading your post. You are a good example of a CO who cares about the experience of finders. :ph34r:

Interesting take. Another person might read that post and be taken aback by the number of 'I's.

Mcro's are dsappontng. lke the reward of a pod, and thnk t s mportant to feel found a treasure. also lke creatvty n the placement of the cache. always place a pod where want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, want to know they smled.

 

Sorry. It just doesn't work without the "I"s. And besides, it was the posters opinion. I thought that was obvious and it may not have been without the "I"s.

Link to comment

Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.

 

I smiled just reading your post. You are a good example of a CO who cares about the experience of finders. :D

Interesting take. Another person might read that post and be taken aback by the number of 'I's.

Mcro's are dsappontng. lke the reward of a pod, and thnk t s mportant to feel found a treasure. also lke creatvty n the placement of the cache. always place a pod where want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, want to know they smled.

 

Sorry. It just doesn't work without the "I"s. And besides, it was the posters opinion. I thought that was obvious and it may not have been without the "I"s.

Funny way to ignore my point. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.

 

I smiled just reading your post. You are a good example of a CO who cares about the experience of finders. :D

Interesting take. Another person might read that post and be taken aback by the number of 'I's.

Mcro's are dsappontng. lke the reward of a pod, and thnk t s mportant to feel found a treasure. also lke creatvty n the placement of the cache. always place a pod where want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, want to know they smled.

 

Sorry. It just doesn't work without the "I"s. And besides, it was the posters opinion. I thought that was obvious and it may not have been without the "I"s.

Funny way to ignore my point. :ph34r:

 

Was your point to distract from the positive example of a CO that ArcticWonder is trying to be. That you consider AW to be a narcissist because he refers to himself as "I" more times then you feel is necessary and thus this proves that AW really doesn't care about anyone but himself, even if he says "When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled". That's OK with me, as long as when I find one of his caches I open the box and smile.....hmmm, there I go using too many "I"s.

Link to comment

Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.

 

I smiled just reading your post. You are a good example of a CO who cares about the experience of finders. :D

Interesting take. Another person might read that post and be taken aback by the number of 'I's.

Mcro's are dsappontng. lke the reward of a pod, and thnk t s mportant to feel found a treasure. also lke creatvty n the placement of the cache. always place a pod where want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, want to know they smled.

 

Sorry. It just doesn't work without the "I"s. And besides, it was the posters opinion. I thought that was obvious and it may not have been without the "I"s.

Funny way to ignore my point. :ph34r:

 

Was your point to distract from the positive example of a CO that ArcticWonder is trying to be. That you consider AW to be a narcissist because he refers to himself as "I" more times then you feel is necessary and thus this proves that AW really doesn't care about anyone but himself, even if he says "When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled". That's OK with me, as long as when I find one of his caches I open the box and smile.....hmmm, there I go using too many "I"s.

I merely noted that the post was completely about AW's feelings. This is fine, but shouldn't be held up as a shining example of someone who is spending much time caring about the experience of others. Others who think the absolute same as he does perhaps, but not all other cachers, certainly.
Link to comment

Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.

 

I smiled just reading your post. You are a good example of a CO who cares about the experience of finders. :D

Interesting take. Another person might read that post and be taken aback by the number of 'I's.

Mcro's are dsappontng. lke the reward of a pod, and thnk t s mportant to feel found a treasure. also lke creatvty n the placement of the cache. always place a pod where want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, want to know they smled.

 

Sorry. It just doesn't work without the "I"s. And besides, it was the posters opinion. I thought that was obvious and it may not have been without the "I"s.

Funny way to ignore my point. :ph34r:

 

Was your point to distract from the positive example of a CO that ArcticWonder is trying to be. That you consider AW to be a narcissist because he refers to himself as "I" more times then you feel is necessary and thus this proves that AW really doesn't care about anyone but himself, even if he says "When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled". That's OK with me, as long as when I find one of his caches I open the box and smile.....hmmm, there I go using too many "I"s.

I merely noted that the post was completely about AW's feelings. This is fine, but shouldn't be held up as a shining example of someone who is spending much time caring about the experience of others. Others who think the absolute same as he does perhaps, but not all other cachers, certainly.

 

I didn't miss or ignore your point. You seem to have missed that Arctic Wonder did not say 'This is the way others should play.' They only stated that 'This is how I play.'

Link to comment
Micro's are disappointing. I like the reward of a pod, and think it is important to feel I found a treasure. I also like creativity in the placement of the cache. I always place a pod where I want someone to stop and look. When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled.
I smiled just reading your post. You are a good example of a CO who cares about the experience of finders. :D
Interesting take. Another person might read that post and be taken aback by the number of 'I's.
Sorry. It just doesn't work without the "I"s. And besides, it was the posters opinion. I thought that was obvious and it may not have been without the "I"s.
Funny way to ignore my point. :ph34r:
Was your point to distract from the positive example of a CO that ArcticWonder is trying to be. That you consider AW to be a narcissist because he refers to himself as "I" more times then you feel is necessary and thus this proves that AW really doesn't care about anyone but himself, even if he says "When they open the pod, I want to know they smiled". That's OK with me, as long as when I find one of his caches I open the box and smile.....hmmm, there I go using too many "I"s.
I merely noted that the post was completely about AW's feelings. This is fine, but shouldn't be held up as a shining example of someone who is spending much time caring about the experience of others. Others who think the absolute same as he does perhaps, but not all other cachers, certainly.
I didn't miss or ignore your point. You seem to have missed that Arctic Wonder did not say 'This is the way others should play.' They only stated that 'This is how I play.'
Take another look at my last post. I recognized that his post was completely about his feelings and that is totally fine. What I am not prepared to do is hold that post up as a glowing example of caring about the experience of others, which is what Lone R was doing and what my original comment was referring to.
Link to comment

I tend to look at the location before hand... if it is a micro/nano in the middle of woods, then I may look for it if previous entries say it was easy... otherwise I just ignore them and move on... or may spend 10 minutes looking if others are nearby...

 

I definitely spend less time looking than I used to. I remember when I first started caching I would look for over 45 minutes for a cache, now I give it 10 or so minutes, unless it's a high difficulty one that I REALLY want to find... I expect that one to take a little longer.

Link to comment

I dislike multis because it seems unless they are pretty recently placed they mostly have a missing piece.

 

Therefore I do not look for them. Problem solved and I never complain about them. :D

 

You just did. You complained about them because they mostly have a missing piece. :blink:

 

That was not a complaint. It was a comment and personal opinion. ;)

Link to comment

I'm going to throw my two pennies worth into this debate.

 

I really haven't enjoyed most of the micros that I have found, but there are exceptions and ones that I really have enjoyed finding. For this reason I don't want to filter out all micros from my search as I know that some of them are actually very good. I propose that a system is introduced to the site where users, whilst logging a cache, can rate out of five stars the overall quality/enjoyment of the find. This would then be an additional pocket querey search variable and allow a user to filter out the poor caches ,of whatever size, from the search results.

Link to comment
I propose a system where users can rate out of five stars the overall quality/enjoyment of the find.

Personally, I would love to see such a feature. In the long run, for most caches, I think it would help me separate the wheat from the chaff. However, the detractors will argue that someone who goes ga-ga over 1/1 P&Gs will rate them as 5 stars, thereby skewing the results. If there are enough people who prefer crappy containers, in uninspired locations, with poor write ups, then those will end up being the upper echelon. I don't think there really are that many people who fit that category, but we won't really know until your proposed system is in place.

Link to comment

I hunt geocaches because I enjoy the hunt. I was going to say I also enjoy that hunting some of them takes me to cool places. But, the reality is that if I wanted to go to cool places, I could go there with or without there being a geocache there. I don't generally go in for trading stuff. As such, I don't need for a cache to be large. Large may be easier to find than a micro, so I prefer larger caches than smaller ones.

 

Now my grievance, which I make without diminishing anything I said above:

 

I recently came back from a trip to Texas. I found a huge number of micros. A lot of them were in ares where one could just about have put a brown and green shed without it being noticed.

 

(BTW: Terrain 1 means wheelchair accessible ... and where I come from, an ATV is not a wheelchair.)

Link to comment

I would think even if someone goes ga ga over 1/1 it could still work. I like the ratings on websites where you see an average and then individual results or individual results and a break down of how many people rated it at whatever level.

I see three problems with such a system:

  • Not everyone has the same preferences, so knowing that some people previously liked a cache isn't really an indicator as to whether the next one will.
  • I don't enjoy the very same things every time that I go caching, so knowing that a cache is generally liked by others doesn't mean that I will like it today.
  • Caches are perishable. A cache that was awesome when it was first placed, may be horrible today. Just because a cache previously received a number of attaboys doesn't mean that it will make the next finder happy.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I propose a system where users can rate out of five stars the overall quality/enjoyment of the find.

Personally, I would love to see such a feature. In the long run, for most caches, I think it would help me separate the wheat from the chaff. However, the detractors will argue that someone who goes ga-ga over 1/1 P&Gs will rate them as 5 stars, thereby skewing the results. If there are enough people who prefer crappy containers, in uninspired locations, with poor write ups, then those will end up being the upper echelon. I don't think there really are that many people who fit that category, but we won't really know until your proposed system is in place.

 

I think it would be of limited usefulness. Consider a similarly subjective category, music. Go to Amazon.com and try to find an album rated less than say 3.5 stars out of 5 (most are at least 4 stars). That's generally because the albums are rated by fans of those artists. Sure there will be critical ratings, but they are the exception.

 

Fans of caches that involve long hikes will largely be the ones rating those caches and will likely give them high ratings simply because those are the sort of caches they enjoy. Fans of parking lot caches will of course rate those highly and people like me who don't care for them or bother with them won't be rating them.

 

So what you are likely to wind up with is nearly every cache having a high rating.

Link to comment
So what you are likely to wind up with is nearly every cache having a high rating.

You may be right. The only way to be sure would be to try it. I know I've had great success at the "other" caching site, using their rating system to find caches which appeal to my highly biased caching aesthetic. A high rated cache over there, (at least locally), means a cache which will give me an amazing adventure. A low rated cache eventually dies a painful death. This could be because the dynamics of the folks over there are vastly different than the dynamics of the folks over here. You really don't see many P&Gs and/or number hunters over there. With the huge volume of P&G cachers on this site, the end result might be exactly what you predict.

Link to comment
So what you are likely to wind up with is nearly every cache having a high rating.

You may be right. The only way to be sure would be to try it. I know I've had great success at the "other" caching site, using their rating system to find caches which appeal to my highly biased caching aesthetic. A high rated cache over there, (at least locally), means a cache which will give me an amazing adventure. A low rated cache eventually dies a painful death. This could be because the dynamics of the folks over there are vastly different than the dynamics of the folks over here. You really don't see many P&Gs and/or number hunters over there. With the huge volume of P&G cachers on this site, the end result might be exactly what you predict.

 

I'm having very good results with GCVote even though there are only a handful of people in my area using it but I agree with those people most of the time, give or take a half star. What I mostly want to know is, which caches rate at least a 3 star (average decent cache experience). I will "filter out" anything below 3 stars. GCVote lacks in one area - I can't create a PQ for caches rated 3 or higher. I'd also like to see more people use GCVote so that more caches get rated and become statistically more significant.

 

Like CR said, the only way to know if it will work is to try it. So far I like GCVote and agree with the general consensus. But please give us an in-house PQ filterable system.

Link to comment
So what you are likely to wind up with is nearly every cache having a high rating.

I know I've had great success at the "other" caching site, using their rating system to find caches which appeal to my highly biased caching aesthetic. A high rated cache over there, (at least locally), means a cache which will give me an amazing adventure. A low rated cache eventually dies a painful death. This could be because the dynamics of the folks over there are vastly different than the dynamics of the folks over here. You really don't see many P&Gs and/or number hunters over there. With the huge volume of P&G cachers on this site, the end result might be exactly what you predict.

 

GCVote seems to be a big hit in some European countries. Maybe it's the same thing....works in Europe, may not work with the North American culture. We can only know by implementing it here.

Link to comment

I hunt geocaches because I enjoy the hunt. I was going to say I also enjoy that hunting some of them takes me to cool places. But, the reality is that if I wanted to go to cool places, I could go there with or without there being a geocache there. I don't generally go in for trading stuff. As such, I don't need for a cache to be large. Large may be easier to find than a micro, so I prefer larger caches than smaller ones.

 

Now my grievance, which I make without diminishing anything I said above:

 

I recently came back from a trip to Texas. I found a huge number of micros. A lot of them were in ares where one could just about have put a brown and green shed without it being noticed.

 

(BTW: Terrain 1 means wheelchair accessible ... and where I come from, an ATV is not a wheelchair.)

 

Well, I haven't been to the Lone Star State since before Geocaching existed. But I've looked at the listings many times, and there sure are a lot of micros there. Tens of thousands of them. Kind of makes you wonder about the whole "Everything is bigger in Texas" thing. :anitongue:

Link to comment
So what you are likely to wind up with is nearly every cache having a high rating.

You may be right. The only way to be sure would be to try it. I know I've had great success at the "other" caching site, using their rating system to find caches which appeal to my highly biased caching aesthetic. A high rated cache over there, (at least locally), means a cache which will give me an amazing adventure. A low rated cache eventually dies a painful death. This could be because the dynamics of the folks over there are vastly different than the dynamics of the folks over here. You really don't see many P&Gs and/or number hunters over there. With the huge volume of P&G cachers on this site, the end result might be exactly what you predict.

 

I'm having very good results with GCVote even though there are only a handful of people in my area using it but I agree with those people most of the time, give or take a half star. What I mostly want to know is, which caches rate at least a 3 star (average decent cache experience). I will "filter out" anything below 3 stars. GCVote lacks in one area - I can't create a PQ for caches rated 3 or higher. I'd also like to see more people use GCVote so that more caches get rated and become statistically more significant.

 

Like CR said, the only way to know if it will work is to try it. So far I like GCVote and agree with the general consensus. But please give us an in-house PQ filterable system.

Implementing a flawed system to 'try it' is a very bad idea. It is too difficult to remove a feature, even if it doesn't properly do it's job.
Link to comment

I still think a voting system would work. I really can't imagine that the majority of people enjoy boring poorly thought out cache's. Judging by the amount of people who have responded to this thread with a similar dislike of grab and dash micro's then I feel even more confident that a system like this would work.

Link to comment

I still think a voting system would work. I really can't imagine that the majority of people enjoy boring poorly thought out cache's. Judging by the amount of people who have responded to this thread with a similar dislike of grab and dash micro's then I feel even more confident that a system like this would work.

You are ignoring two factors:

1) People in internet forums gravitate toward angst.

2) Complainers in internet forums are not generally representative of the public at large.

Link to comment
So what you are likely to wind up with is nearly every cache having a high rating.

You may be right. The only way to be sure would be to try it. I know I've had great success at the "other" caching site, using their rating system to find caches which appeal to my highly biased caching aesthetic. A high rated cache over there, (at least locally), means a cache which will give me an amazing adventure. A low rated cache eventually dies a painful death. This could be because the dynamics of the folks over there are vastly different than the dynamics of the folks over here. You really don't see many P&Gs and/or number hunters over there. With the huge volume of P&G cachers on this site, the end result might be exactly what you predict.

 

I'm having very good results with GCVote even though there are only a handful of people in my area using it but I agree with those people most of the time, give or take a half star. What I mostly want to know is, which caches rate at least a 3 star (average decent cache experience). I will "filter out" anything below 3 stars. GCVote lacks in one area - I can't create a PQ for caches rated 3 or higher. I'd also like to see more people use GCVote so that more caches get rated and become statistically more significant.

 

Like CR said, the only way to know if it will work is to try it. So far I like GCVote and agree with the general consensus. But please give us an in-house PQ filterable system.

Implementing a flawed system to 'try it' is a very bad idea. It is too difficult to remove a feature, even if it doesn't properly do it's job.

So far GCVote has not proven to be significantly flawed*. It has met with great success by those who use it, especially in Europe. It's already been tested and works well. I don't know why it wouldn't be a popular feature in North America.

 

Are you saying unless one can predict the future of a new feature no new features should be implemented? We wouldn't have Earth Caches, or PQs or attributes. GS has also removed features, it happens. Yes, sometimes it's difficult (virtuals>>>waymarks for instance). Sometimes there's more joy then grumbling (removing ALRs for instance).

*it's a greasemonkey script, not in-house filterable, and has to be downloaded to any computer that you want to access GC.com on

*I'd like it to work with my Cacheberry software

Link to comment
So what you are likely to wind up with is nearly every cache having a high rating.

You may be right. The only way to be sure would be to try it. I know I've had great success at the "other" caching site, using their rating system to find caches which appeal to my highly biased caching aesthetic. A high rated cache over there, (at least locally), means a cache which will give me an amazing adventure. A low rated cache eventually dies a painful death. This could be because the dynamics of the folks over there are vastly different than the dynamics of the folks over here. You really don't see many P&Gs and/or number hunters over there. With the huge volume of P&G cachers on this site, the end result might be exactly what you predict.

 

I'm having very good results with GCVote even though there are only a handful of people in my area using it but I agree with those people most of the time, give or take a half star. What I mostly want to know is, which caches rate at least a 3 star (average decent cache experience). I will "filter out" anything below 3 stars. GCVote lacks in one area - I can't create a PQ for caches rated 3 or higher. I'd also like to see more people use GCVote so that more caches get rated and become statistically more significant.

 

Like CR said, the only way to know if it will work is to try it. So far I like GCVote and agree with the general consensus. But please give us an in-house PQ filterable system.

Implementing a flawed system to 'try it' is a very bad idea. It is too difficult to remove a feature, even if it doesn't properly do it's job.

So far GCVote has not proven to be significantly flawed*. It has met with great success by those who use it, especially in Europe. It's already been tested and works well. I don't know why it wouldn't be a popular feature in North America.

 

Are you saying unless one can predict the future of a new feature no new features should be implemented? We wouldn't have Earth Caches, or PQs or attributes. GS has also removed features, it happens. Yes, sometimes it's difficult (virtuals>>>waymarks for instance). Sometimes there's more joy then grumbling (removing ALRs for instance).

*it's a greasemonkey script, not in-house filterable, and has to be downloaded to any computer that you want to access GC.com on

*I'd like it to work with my Cacheberry software

I believe that it would be significantly flawed for the reasons that I've already given. The fact that similar schemes tend to work for some other cachers on a limited basis does not mean that these flaws are not significant.

 

Similarly, the fact that features have been removed in the past does not mean that it is a simple or painless process to remove same. In fact, one could easily use the examples of virts, LCs, ALRs, and "temporary" tax cuts to support this simple fact.

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...