Jump to content

Micro Caches


mad007

Recommended Posts

And all are easily avoided, leaving more Regular sized caches than you'll ever be able to find. Hooray!!

I've recently found a film canister that was listed as a regular. How am I supposed to easily avoid that?

 

And what's so special about Regular sized caches? A lot of people in here seem to have some kind of weird fetish regarding Regular sized caches. :lol:

 

I actually like finding a variety of caches sizes. Makes things interesting. I just hate it when the listed size is incorrect. If it's a micro I want to know it's a micro as it completely changes my search strategy.

Link to comment

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.

So you want them to add one of these. 5f4588e2-df63-409d-8174-e04076b8d8f1.jpg

Link to comment

And all are easily avoided, leaving more Regular sized caches than you'll ever be able to find. Hooray!!

I've recently found a film canister that was listed as a regular. How am I supposed to easily avoid that?

 

And what's so special about Regular sized caches? A lot of people in here seem to have some kind of weird fetish regarding Regular sized caches. :lol:

 

I actually like finding a variety of caches sizes. Makes things interesting. I just hate it when the listed size is incorrect. If it's a micro I want to know it's a micro as it completely changes my search strategy.

 

You may or may not be able to easily avoid that one in a thousand micro listed as a large, but so what if you don't? Even if you hated micros, it wouldn't be the end of the world if you still stumbled upon one every couple of thousand caches that you found.

 

(Of course, the point is moot since Mushtang was clearly referring to micros listed as small, other, or 'not listed'.) Interestingly (or not), if you absolutely, positively had to avoid this rare 'large' micro, the easy peasy method would still work, but it would take a bit more effort to kick off as you basically wouldn't be utilizing step one. If I were to be in this situation, I would start out by checking the local club to see if they had a list of faves by size. That would give me some caches to start off with until the method provided me with a larger pool.

Link to comment

If I were to be in this situation, I would start out by checking the local club to see if they had a list of faves by size. That would give me some caches to start off with until the method provided me with a larger pool.

 

I thought the concept of taking into account someone elses recommendation was a flawed one sbell111?

Edited by Method81
Link to comment

You may or may not be able to easily avoid that one in a thousand micro listed as a large, but so what if you don't? Even if you hated micros, it wouldn't be the end of the world if you still stumbled upon one every couple of thousand caches that you found.

Because it wouldn't just be me. Other cachers would be affected too. Not only does it waste time but the area would get trampled more as people expanded their search area looking for something bigger than they expected. If they don't get lucky and spot it that would be a DNF which would be a waste of more time and/or gas especially if they come back to try again.

 

(Of course, the point is moot since Mushtang was clearly referring to micros listed as small, other, or 'not listed'.)

Huh? Don't see why it would be moot. Looking for a micro while thinking it's a small would be the same thing except you have a slightly better chance of stumbling onto it. Same thing with "other" as now you're focusing on trying to find something out of the ordinary and will probably miss the run of the mill micro.

 

As for "not listed", that shouldn't be an option for physical caches and I wish it was removed for those.

 

Interestingly (or not), if you absolutely, positively had to avoid this rare 'large' micro, the easy peasy method would still work, but it would take a bit more effort to kick off as you basically wouldn't be utilizing step one. If I were to be in this situation, I would start out by checking the local club to see if they had a list of faves by size. That would give me some caches to start off with until the method provided me with a larger pool.

I've read that method and I have to agree with others here. There's nothing easy or peasy about it. That's a lot of work mucking with bookmarks and pocket queries and lists and emails and whatnot.

 

And it doesn't solve my issue. I don't want to avoid certain sizes. I want to have correct size information. The only solution is to educate COs that correct cache listing information is important.

Link to comment

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.

So you want them to add one of these. 5f4588e2-df63-409d-8174-e04076b8d8f1.jpg

 

Hey Avernar, just wanted to say, some of those good park n grabs I've found were your Country Drive caches. I appreciate that you provide good cache containers, real lock n lock containers that are big enough for a few trinkets and that you plant them with a purpose, to show people some of the nice country roads we have in the Golden Horseshoe area.

Link to comment

Hey Avernar, just wanted to say, some of those good park n grabs I've found were your Country Drive caches. I appreciate that you provide good cache containers, real lock n lock containers that are big enough for a few trinkets and that you plant them with a purpose, to show people some of the nice country roads we have in the Golden Horseshoe area.

Thanks for the compliment.

 

I put out caches like the ones I enjoy finding. If I would have put out that series a year ago it would have actually been called the +1 series instead of the CDS series. My caching style has changed since then. In the last year I've spent quite a lot of time in the Waterloo area driving around grabbing the countryside caches.

 

I got a lot of positive feedback on the series and I plan on putting out at least 8 more.

Edited by Avernar
Link to comment
Not quite true. Many COs either on-purpose or inadvertently dupe people into finding their micros by listing them as small.
Or "Other". Or "Not Listed".
And all are easily avoided, leaving more Regular sized caches than you'll ever be able to find. Hooray!!
I've recently found a film canister that was listed as a regular. How am I supposed to easily avoid that?
I went ahead and put back in the part of the quote that you'd taken out, so hopefully it makes more sense within the context that it was stated.

 

You and Lone R listed 3 sizes of caches that cache owners often "either on-purpose or inadvertently" list micros as instead of listing as Micro. So I mentioned it was easy avoid all of those and still leave Regulars. Your reply gave an example of a 4th size, not included previously. I was only saying that you can easily avoid all the micro caches that are mislabeled as Small, Other, or Not Listed, and you'd still have more regular caches than you'll ever find.

 

And what's so special about Regular sized caches? A lot of people in here seem to have some kind of weird fetish regarding Regular sized caches. :lol:
It's more like, a lot of people in here seem to have some kind of weird hatred of Micro sized caches. So when those of us that are trying to help suggest to the Micro haters that they can filter them out, we're almost always met with 2 arguments. One of which is that micros are often mislabeled. So that's why the Regular sized caches get mentioned, since filtering out Micros as well as the other sizes mentioned earlier doesn't eliminate all caches.

 

I actually like finding a variety of caches sizes. Makes things interesting.
Me too.

 

I just hate it when the listed size is incorrect. If it's a micro I want to know it's a micro as it completely changes my search strategy.
Life is full of these inconveniences. I tend to just mention the wrong size in my log so the owner realizes his mistake if it was unintentional, and then I move on.
Link to comment
And all are easily avoided, leaving more Regular sized caches than you'll ever be able to find. Hooray!!
I've recently found a film canister that was listed as a regular. How am I supposed to easily avoid that?
I went ahead and put back in the part of the quote that you'd taken out, so hopefully it makes more sense within the context that it was stated.

 

You and Lone R listed 3 sizes of caches that cache owners often "either on-purpose or inadvertently" list micros as instead of listing as Micro. So I mentioned it was easy avoid all of those and still leave Regulars. Your reply gave an example of a 4th size, not included previously. I was only saying that you can easily avoid all the micro caches that are mislabeled as Small, Other, or Not Listed, and you'd still have more regular caches than you'll ever find.

You did say all are easily avoided. I just said that wasn't 100% true. ;)

 

The point some of the others are trying to make is that filtering out the other three sizes (small, other and not listed) will remove some really good caches from their potential finds.

 

While a method for getting around this was presented it involves a bit of work. This is a little subjective as once you develop a workflow it becomes easy for you. Others however have a hard time wrapping their noodle around it. I have some photographic workflows that are easy and natural for me but others find too complex.

 

It's more like, a lot of people in here seem to have some kind of weird hatred of Micro sized caches. So when those of us that are trying to help suggest to the Micro haters that they can filter them out, we're almost always met with 2 arguments. One of which is that micros are often mislabeled. So that's why the Regular sized caches get mentioned, since filtering out Micros as well as the other sizes mentioned earlier doesn't eliminate all caches.

I don't get the micro hatred either. They can be rather fun if done well. I've seen quite a few amazing micro hides which is why I still look for them.

 

I agree with the others that mislabeled micros are an annoyance, for them because they hate micros and for me because it wastes my time and has lead to several DNFs. What I don't get is why they think the problem is that micros exists instead of the real issue of a inaccurate listings.

 

Life is full of these inconveniences. I tend to just mention the wrong size in my log so the owner realizes his mistake if it was unintentional, and then I move on.

So do I. I just tend to get more annoyed when I find out it was done on purpose to "make the cache more difficult".

Link to comment

It's more like, a lot of people in here seem to have some kind of weird hatred of Micro sized caches.

 

Not seeing that....no one has said they hate every micro even the clever/scenic/funny/creative micros. In fact, everyone has said they like those micros and lament that if they filter out all micros they miss out on those finds.

Link to comment
And all are easily avoided, leaving more Regular sized caches than you'll ever be able to find. Hooray!!
I've recently found a film canister that was listed as a regular. How am I supposed to easily avoid that?
I went ahead and put back in the part of the quote that you'd taken out, so hopefully it makes more sense within the context that it was stated.

 

You and Lone R listed 3 sizes of caches that cache owners often "either on-purpose or inadvertently" list micros as instead of listing as Micro. So I mentioned it was easy avoid all of those and still leave Regulars. Your reply gave an example of a 4th size, not included previously. I was only saying that you can easily avoid all the micro caches that are mislabeled as Small, Other, or Not Listed, and you'd still have more regular caches than you'll ever find.

You did say all are easily avoided. I just said that wasn't 100% true. ;)
And once again, by you removing the part of the quote that my ALL was referring to, you've taken my ALL out of context which makes it easier to claim I'm wrong. Nice try.

 

However, the ALL that I was referring to, was the set of micros that are categorized as either Small, Other, or Not Chosen. You absolutely can avoid all the micros that are in those three size categories, plus the ones in the Micro category, leaving you plenty of caches to find

 

The point some of the others are trying to make is that filtering out the other three sizes (small, other and not listed) will remove some really good caches from their potential finds.
They not only have tried, they've succeeded, in making that point. I guess you think that restating it will make it more true than true?

 

Yes, you'll lose some really good caches. But you won't lose ALL of the really good caches. If someone hates micros (take another look at the title of this thread) then they can avoid most of them easily (see now that I'm not talking about the sub set, I'm not saying ALL micros). Doing this will seriously increase the ratio of caches that they like to caches that they don't like. This will overall improve their caching fun. That's pretty easy peasy to understand, or at least it should be.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Link to comment
It's more like, a lot of people in here seem to have some kind of weird hatred of Micro sized caches.
Not seeing that....no one has said they hate every micro even the clever/scenic/funny/creative micros. In fact, everyone has said they like those micros and lament that if they filter out all micros they miss out on those finds.

The title of THIS thread is "Micro caches, waste of time".

 

I had to go all the way to post number 1 before I found someone that seemed to hate every micro cache, and didn't give any qualifiers as to the location or view.

 

The entire post is " am not happy about the emergence of these pathetic mini caches - why bother at all."

 

If you don't think there are a lot of people that hate micros, you're just not paying attention.

Link to comment

If I were to be in this situation, I would start out by checking the local club to see if they had a list of faves by size. That would give me some caches to start off with until the method provided me with a larger pool.

 

I thought the concept of taking into account someone elses recommendation was a flawed one sbell111?

Why did you think that? Why would searching out a list of large caches be a bad thing if someone simply didn't wish to find micros? This is much different than merely knowing which caches were 'liked' by a bunch of strangers that may or may not have the same likes and dislikes as you. This would be an attempt to find a list of caches that are known to not have the quality that you dislike (micros).

Link to comment
And it doesn't solve my issue. I don't want to avoid certain sizes. I want to have correct size information. The only solution is to educate COs that correct cache listing information is important.
Agreed, but you are completely missing my and Mushtang's point.

 

In a perfect world it would be awesome if every cache was correctly rated and were all totally awesome. We don't live and play in a perfect world.

Link to comment

And once again, by you removing the part of the quote that my ALL was referring to, you've taken my ALL out of context which makes it easier to claim I'm wrong. Nice try.

Not claiming you were wrong. I was just pointing out that was the source of the miscommunication. That's why I put the smiley there.

 

However, the ALL that I was referring to, was the set of micros that are categorized as either Small, Other, or Not Chosen. You absolutely can avoid all the micros that are in those three size categories, plus the ones in the Micro category, leaving you plenty of caches to find

You did not indicate what ALL referred to. Here's the relevant section:

 

Not quite true. Many COs either on-purpose or inadvertently dupe people into finding their micros by listing them as small.
Or "Other". Or "Not Listed".
And all are easily avoided, leaving more Regular sized caches than you'll ever be able to find. Hooray!!

When I wrote the Or "Other". Or "Not Listed" comment I was referring to all mislabeled micros. So when you said ALL without explicitly saying what ALL referred to that's what I thought it meant. If I knew where this topic would end up I would have put Or "Regular" in my original post as well.

 

They not only have tried, they've succeeded, in making that point. I guess you think that restating it will make it more true than true?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

Why are you restating your solution of filtering out smalls? Yes, I 100% agree that it will greatly reduce the chance of accidentally finding a micro. And for some people that's a perfectly acceptable solution. For others it is not. So can we now move on to the next issue, how do people avoid micros without filtering out other desirable sizes?

 

Yes, you'll lose some really good caches. But you won't lose ALL of the really good caches. If someone hates micros (take another look at the title of this thread) then they can avoid most of them easily (see now that I'm not talking about the sub set, I'm not saying ALL micros). Doing this will seriously increase the ratio of caches that they like to caches that they don't like. This will overall improve their caching fun. That's pretty easy peasy to understand, or at least it should be.

I did look at the title. Don't see anything about hating or not wanting to find small/other sized caches in it. Why are you assuming that the OP likes regular caches over small caches? I know a couple of people who thing regular caches are too easy to find and boring.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Why not? Just don't eat it all at once. ;)

 

But seriously, if someone wanted to not find micros what so unreasonable about them expecting to not get micros when they filter out micros in a PQ?

 

While mistakes happen (mainly because of the description used for the small and micro sizes), Lone R was pointing out that some COs do it on purpose. Those COs won't change it because some finder asks them nicely in an email. Groundspeak doesn't care. People won't see it if you put it in your log as most don't read every single sentence of every log.

 

A rating system might work to discourage this behavior. The cache would be rated down fairly quickly by all the people would don't like micros. Developing a good rating system is a whole different topic. If it was one of those eBay style ones with the multi questions one of them could be "How accurate is the cache page information?"

Link to comment

Agreed, but you are completely missing my and Mushtang's point.

 

In a perfect world it would be awesome if every cache was correctly rated and were all totally awesome. We don't live and play in a perfect world.

No, I got your point. But what's with the defeatist attitude? Yes the world is not perfect but that doesn't mean we should do nothing about it. What's wrong with trying to figure out a way to improve it?

 

Why can't every cache be correctly rated? The extreme solution would be to have a "This Cache Listing Is Inaccurate" button and it gets archived when enough people complain. While effective it would be a little too heavy handed.

 

A rating system could work, kind of like how the Needs Maintenance flag does now. That flag motivates COs to do a maintenance run as people will start avoiding the cache. Same with a low rating. Cache page is inaccurate, rating goes down, people start avoiding the cache, CO fixes the listing.

Edited by Avernar
Link to comment

If I were to be in this situation, I would start out by checking the local club to see if they had a list of faves by size. That would give me some caches to start off with until the method provided me with a larger pool.

 

I thought the concept of taking into account someone elses recommendation was a flawed one sbell111?

Why did you think that? Why would searching out a list of large caches be a bad thing if someone simply didn't wish to find micros? This is much different than merely knowing which caches were 'liked' by a bunch of strangers that may or may not have the same likes and dislikes as you. This would be an attempt to find a list of caches that are known to not have the quality that you dislike (micros).

 

First up I do not 'dislike' micros, I dislike some micros. I do not wish to filter out all micros, I would like to see a system, along with many others, where I can easily have an idea if it is a micro worth finding or not.

 

Secondly I regard the opinions of fellow strangers highly. The overall concensus on these boards is that hardly anyone enjoys a boring drive by cache, why should other non posting strangers think any differently? With a user rating system a high scoring cache will be through a majority vote and not on an individuals opinion.

Link to comment
So can we now move on to the next issue, how do people avoid micros without filtering out other desirable sizes?
They don't. This isn't that hard to understand.

 

I did look at the title. Don't see anything about hating or not wanting to find small/other sized caches in it. Why are you assuming that the OP likes regular caches over small caches?
I'm not. I'm assuming he hates micro caches. I'm assuming he'd like to avoid them. I'm suggesting that if he really wants to avoid them enough, it's possible. There are some trade offs, but it's possible.

 

I know a couple of people who thing regular caches are too easy to find and boring.
In that case, I wouldn't suggest that these particular people filter out the caches that they DO enjoy.

 

But seriously, if someone wanted to not find micros what so unreasonable about them expecting to not get micros when they filter out micros in a PQ?
Because there are a lot of cache owners that hide micros but assign them to a different size category. This is just how it is. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm not saying I do it, and I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying that if someone wants to avoid micros completely, then there is more to it than just filtering out micros. The solution will still allow them to find geocaches.

 

If you want to filter out all Micros, no matter what size category they're given, yet leave all the other caches, then you're just out of luck. Cache owners have made sure that's not possible. Again, life is unfair.

Link to comment
If I were to be in this situation, I would start out by checking the local club to see if they had a list of faves by size. That would give me some caches to start off with until the method provided me with a larger pool.
I thought the concept of taking into account someone elses recommendation was a flawed one sbell111?
Why did you think that? Why would searching out a list of large caches be a bad thing if someone simply didn't wish to find micros? This is much different than merely knowing which caches were 'liked' by a bunch of strangers that may or may not have the same likes and dislikes as you. This would be an attempt to find a list of caches that are known to not have the quality that you dislike (micros).
First up I do not 'dislike' micros, I dislike some micros. I do not wish to filter out all micros, I would like to see a system, along with many others, where I can easily have an idea if it is a micro worth finding or not.

 

Secondly I regard the opinions of fellow strangers highly. The overall concensus on these boards is that hardly anyone enjoys a boring drive by cache, why should other non posting strangers think any differently? With a user rating system a high scoring cache will be through a majority vote and not on an individuals opinion.

I would suggest that you're in the wrong thread, and posting off topic.

 

This topic is about a dislike of Micro Caches.

 

You should look for threads about 1) Lame caches and/or 2) Cache rating system. There are plenty of each.

Link to comment
So can we now move on to the next issue, how do people avoid micros without filtering out other desirable sizes?
They don't. This isn't that hard to understand.

Why is your world so black and white? Yes, you've already made it perfectly clear that there's no current way to do what I've asked. That's why I was hoping that question would lead to ideas on how it can be accomplished in the future. That failed.

 

So let me rephrase my original question: In what can we or Groundspeak do so that people can avoid micros without filtering out other desirable sizes?

 

Because there are a lot of cache owners that hide micros but assign them to a different size category. This is just how it is. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm not saying I do it, and I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying that if someone wants to avoid micros completely, then there is more to it than just filtering out micros. The solution will still allow them to find geocaches.

 

If you want to filter out all Micros, no matter what size category they're given, yet leave all the other caches, then you're just out of luck. Cache owners have made sure that's not possible. Again, life is unfair.

Now you're repeating yourself. Yes, you have a way to avoid micros that has drawbacks. I've already acknowledged it.

 

Yes, life is unfair. I don't need to keep hearing that over and over either. I've already said that doesn't mean you should try to improve it. I don't like repeating myself either.

 

What I want to know is what ideas can we come up with that will improve the accurate of cache listings? And don't say "Nothing".

Link to comment
The overall concensus on these boards is that hardly anyone enjoys a boring drive by cache, why should other non posting strangers think any differently? With a user rating system a high scoring cache will be through a majority vote and not on an individuals opinion.

 

I love drive by micro caches and was a non posting stranger. There is only so much time I have for hikes through forests. Rating system seems like it would be highly flawed unless it was a plain thumbs up thumbs down rating. Hate this 0-5 rating systems where everyone has their own reasons for what number they rate.

 

I <3 Microcaches and their creators.

 

-edit-

microcaches were enough to get me to become a premium member.

Edited by nitroburn
Link to comment

I would suggest that you're in the wrong thread, and posting off topic.

 

This topic is about a dislike of Micro Caches.

How's that off topic? A lot of people hate micros because most of them are lame. Figure out a way to filter out the lame micros and people will start liking micros again.

 

See, very on topic.

Link to comment

How's that off topic? A lot of people hate micros because most of them are lame. Figure out a way to filter out the lame micros and people will start liking micros again.

 

See, very on topic.

 

Do you have stats to quantify "a lot" or what the standard of "lame" is? You seem to be quite sure about what "people" want.

Link to comment

I love drive by micro caches and was a non posting stranger. There is only so much time I have for hikes through forests. Rating system seems like it would be highly flawed unless it was a plain thumbs up thumbs down rating. Hate this 0-5 rating systems where everyone has their own reasons for what number they rate.

The same thing can be said with a thumbs up thumbs down rating system. That's why it needs to be more elaborate (but still easy to use).

 

Questions like how accurate the listing is, how clean the cache area is, how does it rate against others hidden in a similar way, how fun was it, etc. Make each question optional and allow PQ filtering on each one.

 

So those wanting to avoid micros could filter on the accuracy question for example.

Link to comment

I love drive by micro caches and was a non posting stranger. There is only so much time I have for hikes through forests. Rating system seems like it would be highly flawed unless it was a plain thumbs up thumbs down rating. Hate this 0-5 rating systems where everyone has their own reasons for what number they rate.

The same thing can be said with a thumbs up thumbs down rating system. That's why it needs to be more elaborate (but still easy to use).

 

Questions like how accurate the listing is, how clean the cache area is, how does it rate against others hidden in a similar way, how fun was it, etc. Make each question optional and allow PQ filtering on each one.

 

The more elaborate, the less accurate. I'd still only use 1* or 5* to rate 99% of finds. Either I liked it or I didn't. Don't want to turn peoples caches into some popularity contest when so many depend on how the last finder left the cache. I just like the hunt of any sized cache. However, I TNLN, so maybe that is a factor. I like the exercise and fresh air. I've seen some great caches destroyed by either muggles or other cachers, would hate to have a great cache poorly rated due to others actions.

 

-edit-

So those wanting to avoid micros could filter on the accuracy question for example.

 

Assuming the data provided on accuracy was accurate.

If you are doubting the accuracy of the accuracy data, how are you assuming the other accuracy data is more accurate?

Edited by nitroburn
Link to comment

Do you have stats to quantify "a lot" or what the standard of "lame" is? You seem to be quite sure about what "people" want.

Do you have any stats to prove me wrong? See, that works both ways. Let's see now:

 

A Lot - More than half, less than all.

Lame - Boring, uninteresting, +1.

People - "People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

 

I never said any of that was a hard fact. Just my own observations of conversations in the forums and at events and while out caching with people.

 

One of the main reasons people hate micros is because COs hide them without putting much thought or effort into the hide. Bad locations, bad containers, the same kind of hide over and over, etc.

Link to comment

The more elaborate, the less accurate. I'd still only use 1* or 5* to rate 99% of finds. Either I liked it or I didn't. Don't want to turn peoples caches into some popularity contest when so many depend on how the last finder left the cache. I just like the hunt of any sized cache. However, I TNLN, so maybe that is a factor. I like the exercise and fresh air.

A lot of my questions could be turned into Yes, No format. My point was that there should be some objective questions to prod the CO to keep their listing accurate.

 

I've seen some great caches destroyed by either muggles or other cachers, would hate to have a great cache poorly rated due to others actions.

That's another form of feedback. If the cache got muggled often, maybe it wasn't such a good area. I'd actually like to avoid caches that might not be there so this could be a positive side effect.

Link to comment

One of the main reasons people hate micros is because COs hide them without putting much thought or effort into the hide. Bad locations, bad containers, the same kind of hide over and over, etc.

 

Please, can't you just speak for yourself rather then trying to speak for the "people"? I'm sure they can comment if they feel the need. I've liked the microcaches I've found, good containers, good locations. I've actually got some good container/location ideas from some I've found.

 

I'm taking exception to the fact it seems like you are speaking for me (being that I am one of the people who geocache), when I don't agree with what you are saying.

 

Also, to me "a lot" means a large amount but not necessary a majority. I've never seen reference to "a lot" meaning more then 50%. Especially not in the context you see on the news.

Edited by nitroburn
Link to comment
So can we now move on to the next issue, how do people avoid micros without filtering out other desirable sizes?
They don't. This isn't that hard to understand.
Why is your world so black and white? Yes, you've already made it perfectly clear that there's no current way to do what I've asked. That's why I was hoping that question would lead to ideas on how it can be accomplished in the future. That failed.

 

So let me rephrase my original question: In what can we or Groundspeak do so that people can avoid micros without filtering out other desirable sizes?

Nothing. And the reason we, or Groundspeak, can't do anything about it is because there are a lot of cache owners that hide micros but assign them to a different size category.

 

Because there are a lot of cache owners that hide micros but assign them to a different size category. This is just how it is. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm not saying I do it, and I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying that if someone wants to avoid micros completely, then there is more to it than just filtering out micros. The solution will still allow them to find geocaches.

 

If you want to filter out all Micros, no matter what size category they're given, yet leave all the other caches, then you're just out of luck. Cache owners have made sure that's not possible. Again, life is unfair.

Now you're repeating yourself. Yes, you have a way to avoid micros that has drawbacks. I've already acknowledged it.

 

Yes, life is unfair. I don't need to keep hearing that over and over either. I've already said that doesn't mean you should try to improve it. I don't like repeating myself either.

If you don't want to keep hearing the same answer over and over, stop asking the same question over and over.

 

What I want to know is what ideas can we come up with that will improve the accurate of cache listings? And don't say "Nothing".
Nothing. Other than somehow get cache owners to list caches the way YOU want them to. I'm not suggesting that I approve of listing a micro as a Small, but if they want to list it as Other, or Not Selected, that's fine with me, and apparently fine with Groundspeak. The cache owners have their reasons for doing this. Like it or lump it.
Link to comment
I would suggest that you're in the wrong thread, and posting off topic.

 

This topic is about a dislike of Micro Caches.

How's that off topic? A lot of people hate micros because most of them are lame. Figure out a way to filter out the lame micros and people will start liking micros again.

 

See, very on topic.

So when people say that they don't like Micro caches, you think what they really mean is that they don't like lame caches. So to you, nobody actually dislikes a cache because of the size - they're just unable to select the correct English words when expressing their opinion. You've read their minds and you know that even though they say one thing, they actually mean another.

 

That's impressive. (Hint, I actually used the word "impressive" but meant something else. Do you know what I really meant?) ;)

Link to comment

Please, can't you just speak for yourself rather then trying to speak for the "people"? I'm sure they can comment if they feel the need. I've liked the microcaches I've found, good containers, good locations. I've actually got some good container/location ideas from some I've found.

I've already made my position clear. I don't mind micros. Why are you taking exception to me repeating what I've heard other people say or write? Not everyone likes to come into the forums. There's a few that avoid it like the plague.

 

I'm taking exception to the fact it seems like you are speaking for me (being that I am one of the people who geocache), when I don't agree with what you are saying.

Since I didn't say ALL then that would leave room for you in the category of "People I'm not speaking for".

 

So what don't you agree with? The number of people, the amount of bad micro hides, what constitutes a bad micro hide, all of the above?

 

Also, to me "a lot" means a large amount but not necessary a majority. I've never seen reference to "a lot" meaning more then 50%. Especially not in the context you see on the news.

Methinks I need to sprinkle more smileys in my posts. I figured the Men In Black definition for People would be a dead giveaway. ;)

Link to comment
So let me rephrase my original question: In what can we or Groundspeak do so that people can avoid micros without filtering out other desirable sizes?
Nothing. And the reason we, or Groundspeak, can't do anything about it is because there are a lot of cache owners that hide micros but assign them to a different size category.

Nothing? I can create a public bookmark list of micros not listed as micros. There. Proved you wrong.

 

If you don't want to keep hearing the same answer over and over, stop asking the same question over and over.

Didn't ask the same question over and over. Just getting the same unproductive answer over and over.

 

I and a few others have come up with a few ideas yet you seem to be ignoring them and keep repeating "Nothing we can do".

 

What I want to know is what ideas can we come up with that will improve the accurate of cache listings? And don't say "Nothing".
Nothing. Other than somehow get cache owners to list caches the way YOU want them to. I'm not suggesting that I approve of listing a micro as a Small, but if they want to list it as Other, or Not Selected, that's fine with me, and apparently fine with Groundspeak. The cache owners have their reasons for doing this. Like it or lump it.

You must have poor vision. Didn't I ask not to reply with "Nothing"?

 

I want listings to be accurate. You seem to think that's too much to ask for. So why not allow inaccurate coordinates then too?

 

There are two reasons I've seen why COs do this. 1) To artificially raise the difficulty. 2) To trick more people into finding it.

 

I've already stated the problems that both of these cause.

 

As for the "Like it or lump it", that's why I'd like to see some kind of rating system.

Edited by Avernar
Link to comment

So when people say that they don't like Micro caches, you think what they really mean is that they don't like lame caches.

Not phrased that way. I think (yes this is an opinion before you just all over me again) that people grow to dislike micros is because they run into a disproportionate amount a bad micro hides versus good micro hides.

 

So to you, nobody actually dislikes a cache because of the size - they're just unable to select the correct English words when expressing their opinion. You've read their minds and you know that even though they say one thing, they actually mean another.

I wish you and some of the others would stop over-analyzing my sentences. I'm not the greatest writer in the world so I'd appreciate that the focus would be on my ideas and not my choice of wording.

 

I just wanted to show that the topic is not as narrow as you'd want it to be.

Link to comment
So let me rephrase my original question: In what can we or Groundspeak do so that people can avoid micros without filtering out other desirable sizes?
Nothing. And the reason we, or Groundspeak, can't do anything about it is because there are a lot of cache owners that hide micros but assign them to a different size category.
Nothing? I can create a public bookmark list of micros not listed as micros. There. Proved you wrong.
Wow, so creating a bookmark will allow people to avoid micros without filtering out other desirable sizes? Awesome. Create that bookmark and share it, and together we'll let everyone know that you've solved the problem.

 

What I want to know is what ideas can we come up with that will improve the accurate of cache listings? And don't say "Nothing".
Nothing. Other than somehow get cache owners to list caches the way YOU want them to. I'm not suggesting that I approve of listing a micro as a Small, but if they want to list it as Other, or Not Selected, that's fine with me, and apparently fine with Groundspeak. The cache owners have their reasons for doing this. Like it or lump it.
You must have poor vision. Didn't I ask not to reply with "Nothing"?
You must have a poor sense of self importance. What makes you think that you can tell me what not to say here? :rolleyes:

 

I want listings to be accurate. You seem to think that's too much to ask for. So why not allow inaccurate coordinates then too?
Straw man.

 

There are two reasons I've seen why COs do this. 1) To artificially raise the difficulty. 2) To trick more people into finding it.

 

I've already stated the problems that both of these cause.

And I've already agreed, several times, that I don't think listing a micro as Small is good, but why would it matter if they don't want to list the size at all?

 

As for the "Like it or lump it", that's why I'd like to see some kind of rating system.
No rating system will give you what you're asking for.
Link to comment
So when people say that they don't like Micro caches, you think what they really mean is that they don't like lame caches.
Not phrased that way. I think (yes this is an opinion before you just all over me again) that people grow to dislike micros is because they run into a disproportionate amount a bad micro hides versus good micro hides.
Then why don't we see threads against bad micro hides? We see LOTS of threads against lame caches, and LOTS of threads against micros. In the anti-micro threads (like this one) someone always tries to say that it's not the size, it's the lameness. And when they do, they're off topic. Like you.

 

So to you, nobody actually dislikes a cache because of the size - they're just unable to select the correct English words when expressing their opinion. You've read their minds and you know that even though they say one thing, they actually mean another.
I wish you and some of the others would stop over-analyzing my sentences. I'm not the greatest writer in the world so I'd appreciate that the focus would be on my ideas and not my choice of wording.

 

I just wanted to show that the topic is not as narrow as you'd want it to be.

And I just wanted to show you that when you say that people don't like micros only because they're lame, you're wrong. There are LOTS of people that don't like micros because they're small and hard to find, or because they don't contain swag, or because they tend to leak more than ammo cans, or whatever. You keep trying to say that you know what "people" think, and you don't.
Link to comment
So when people say that they don't like Micro caches, you think what they really mean is that they don't like lame caches.
Not phrased that way. I think (yes this is an opinion before you just all over me again) that people grow to dislike micros is because they run into a disproportionate amount a bad micro hides versus good micro hides.
Then why don't we see threads against bad micro hides? We see LOTS of threads against lame caches, and LOTS of threads against micros. In the anti-micro threads (like this one) someone always tries to say that it's not the size, it's the lameness. And when they do, they're off topic. Like you.

 

So to you, nobody actually dislikes a cache because of the size - they're just unable to select the correct English words when expressing their opinion. You've read their minds and you know that even though they say one thing, they actually mean another.
I wish you and some of the others would stop over-analyzing my sentences. I'm not the greatest writer in the world so I'd appreciate that the focus would be on my ideas and not my choice of wording.

 

I just wanted to show that the topic is not as narrow as you'd want it to be.

And I just wanted to show you that when you say that people don't like micros only because they're lame, you're wrong. There are LOTS of people that don't like micros because they're small and hard to find, or because they don't contain swag, or because they tend to leak more than ammo cans, or whatever. You keep trying to say that you know what "people" think, and you don't.

 

Most of them are lame and thats why I and the people at large dislike most of them, Avernar is spot on.

 

Is there anyway to setup a poll? It seems this would be the only way of convincing you and a couple of others on here that the majority of people do actually agree.

Link to comment
If I were to be in this situation, I would start out by checking the local club to see if they had a list of faves by size. That would give me some caches to start off with until the method provided me with a larger pool.
I thought the concept of taking into account someone elses recommendation was a flawed one sbell111?
Why did you think that? Why would searching out a list of large caches be a bad thing if someone simply didn't wish to find micros? This is much different than merely knowing which caches were 'liked' by a bunch of strangers that may or may not have the same likes and dislikes as you. This would be an attempt to find a list of caches that are known to not have the quality that you dislike (micros).
First up I do not 'dislike' micros, I dislike some micros. I do not wish to filter out all micros, I would like to see a system, along with many others, where I can easily have an idea if it is a micro worth finding or not.
If you do not like micros, why are you spending a bunch of time fighting me over my reply to someone who wanted to avoid all micros?

 

If this were a forum about new cars and some people were discussing good options for family vehicles that didn't include minivans, would you but in and demand a way to find a good minivan?

Secondly I regard the opinions of fellow strangers highly.
If you highly regard the opinions of strangers, why did you have a problem with my suggestion to check with local caching organizations to see if a 'best of' list exists?
The overall concensus on these boards is that hardly anyone enjoys a boring drive by cache, why should other non posting strangers think any differently?
You are mistaking a few complainers for an 'overall concensus' and adding color to your post (boring) in a thinly veiled attempt to stop anyone from arguing against your position. Lame.
With a user rating system a high scoring cache will be through a majority vote and not on an individuals opinion.
A rating system that you propose would not be effective for the reasons discussed in this thread and dozens of others. If you would like to discuss the problems of ratings systems further, I suggest that you either read the old threads, or start a new one. It's Thursday, it's time for a ratings thread, anyway.

 

Are you just arguing for argument's sake? If so, I wish you would stop as it takes time away from discussions with serious posters.

Link to comment
What I want to know is what ideas can we come up with that will improve the accurate of cache listings? And don't say "Nothing".
You could put all cache owners on payroll and then have paid reviewers travel to each cache location prior to publishing the cache. Anyone that submits a cache for review with bad or misleading information would be docked. Successive attempts would prompt a formal disciplinary process that, if the problem is continues to be repeated, would lead to the employees eventual suspension and termination.
Link to comment
So those wanting to avoid micros could filter on the accuracy question for example.
Assuming the data provided on accuracy was accurate.

If you are doubting the accuracy of the accuracy data, how are you assuming the other accuracy data is more accurate?

That's a very good point. Imagine a cache that Averner and Method rank poorly on 'accuracy'. The cache owner sees the low rating and fixes the problem. Future cachers either ignore the cache assuming that it has a problem or go seek it but assumes that the problem still exists, so are looking for the wrong sized cache. In this instance, the rating system actually creates the problem for future cachers that Averner and Method want it to solve.

 

Also, there is a problem with this rating method because future seekers would only know that something on the cache page is believed to be incorrect. They have no idea what that something is.

 

Still, this ratings system talk is better for another thread.

Link to comment
So let me rephrase my original question: In what can we or Groundspeak do so that people can avoid micros without filtering out other desirable sizes?
Nothing. And the reason we, or Groundspeak, can't do anything about it is because there are a lot of cache owners that hide micros but assign them to a different size category.
Nothing? I can create a public bookmark list of micros not listed as micros. There. Proved you wrong.
If you don't want to keep hearing the same answer over and over, stop asking the same question over and over.
Didn't ask the same question over and over. Just getting the same unproductive answer over and over.

 

I and a few others have come up with a few ideas yet you seem to be ignoring them and keep repeating "Nothing we can do".

What I want to know is what ideas can we come up with that will improve the accurate of cache listings? And don't say "Nothing".
Nothing. Other than somehow get cache owners to list caches the way YOU want them to. I'm not suggesting that I approve of listing a micro as a Small, but if they want to list it as Other, or Not Selected, that's fine with me, and apparently fine with Groundspeak. The cache owners have their reasons for doing this. Like it or lump it.
You must have poor vision. Didn't I ask not to reply with "Nothing"?
You can't always get what you want. This is a public forum. If you post something, people will give their opinion in response. This opinion is not always what you want to hear. If you do not want to hear these opinions, a blog might be a better place for you.
I want listings to be accurate. You seem to think that's too much to ask for. So why not allow inaccurate coordinates then too?

 

There are two reasons I've seen why COs do this. 1) To artificially raise the difficulty. 2) To trick more people into finding it.

If you believe that those are the only two reasons or the primary ones, you haven't been reading this thread very carefully.
I've already stated the problems that both of these cause.

 

As for the "Like it or lump it", that's why I'd like to see some kind of rating system.

Then start a thread about a ratings system.
Link to comment
Most of them are lame and thats why I and the people at large dislike most of them, Avernar is spot on.
Dude, if you'd been around in these forums longer you would know that a "I hate micros" thread pops up as often as any other topic. And the posters aren't dissatisfied with the quality of the view, they're against the small size of the cache.

 

Granted, there ARE people that dislike micros for the reasons you and Avernar give (lameness), but that's not nearly the biggest reason.

 

Is there anyway to setup a poll? It seems this would be the only way of convincing you and a couple of others on here that the majority of people do actually agree.
Says the guy that just showed up to the party and starts telling everyone what everyone else thinks.

 

No, there hasn't been a way to start a poll here in years.

 

The majority of the people do actually agree on what exactly? That micros are disliked only because they're seen in a lot of lame hides, or that micros are disliked by quite a lot of people?

Link to comment
Secondly I regard the opinions of fellow strangers highly.
If you highly regard the opinions of strangers, why did you have a problem with my suggestion to check with local caching organizations to see if a 'best of' list exists?

 

Why can't we have more options?

Use bookmark lists, ask an organization, use GCVote, use an in-house rating system.

You do not need to use any of these services or use the one you find most favorable to your caching needs.

Link to comment

Granted, there ARE people that dislike micros for the reasons you and Avernar give (lameness), but that's not nearly the biggest reason.

 

From what I've read in this discussion alone (never mind the myriad of other micro discussions), the biggest reason micros are disliked is because the vast majority are uninspired, cheap hides, placed only to up the find/hide count. There's so much chaff that it's really difficult to find the wheat - there is no easy peasy method. If this is incorrect, from this discussion thread, please point out the "biggest reason" people dislike micros.

Link to comment
If this is incorrect, from this discussion thread, please point out the "biggest reason" people dislike micros.
Why do I need to limit my reasons to only those in this thread?

 

From my years here on the forums, I've learned that when people post "I hate micro" threads they're mostly upset with the smallness of the container. It's too hard to find, it doesn't hold swag, etc.

 

Once it was shown (again and again) that they're easy to avoid and complaining about them was useless, people added, "Yeah, but they're lame". Lots of "I hate lame cache" threads have also been created.

 

However, as in this thread, whenever a "I hate micros" thread is started it's very rare that the quality of the experience is mentioned by the OP. They're not complaining about the lameness of the view, the surrounding area, the lack of a hike, etc. That comes from the other people that jump in.

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...