Jump to content

Micro Caches


mad007

Recommended Posts

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.

I'm not against options. Heck, method is for some reason upset with me because I gave two options in this thread that could help him. What I am against is the implementation of flawed options just to see if they will work. That's a recipe for disaster.

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.
Thank you O great Carnac. Can you tell me what I am thinking right now?

 

(To those who missed my point, Lone R is again claiming to know the reasons that all caches that he doesn't like were hidden. I don't know why he and BS aren't happy with just explaining why they do not enjoy some caches. Instead they have to pretend to know what everyone else is thinking.)

There's so much chaff that it's really difficult to find the wheat - there is no easy peasy method.
Of course there is an easy peasy method. In fact, I went through it's steps in this very thread. I even broke down each step to discuss just how easy and peasy each step is, even though the method works from step one, which is super easy and peasy.

 

It should also be noted that someone apparently doesn't know what 'chaff' is.

If this is incorrect, from this discussion thread, please point out the "biggest reason" people dislike micros.
Several reasons have been given. A frequent one is 'no room for trinkets'. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

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.

No, it's only a piece of the solution. I never stated how effective it would be and nowhere did I claim that it solved the problem completely.

 

What I did do was disprove your claim that there's absolutely nothing we can do.

 

You must have a poor sense of self importance. What makes you think that you can tell me what not to say here? :rolleyes:

Yet you seem to have taken it upon yourself to tell others what's on topic here and that they should go away.... :D

 

It was my question and I can ask that responses that I've seen before be excluded. You can choose not to answer.

 

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.

No it's not. A listing with a size bigger than what it really is has many of the detrimental effects as inaccurate coordinates. For example people will expand out their search radius too much looking for it or make multiple trips which will negatively impact the cache area. And the "artificially raise the difficulty" reason applies to both as well.

 

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?

Because it's an artificial way of raising the difficulty the same way soft coordinates do. Groundspeak will disable a cache if they find out the coordinates are out deliberately.

 

And it's also harder to tell if the cache is missing or not which will just waste peoples time if it is.

 

No rating system will give you what you're asking for.

Not by itself, but it may help. Just like the needs maintenance flag helps promote cache maintenance.

Link to comment

I'm not against options. Heck, method is for some reason upset with me because I gave two options in this thread that could help him. What I am against is the implementation of flawed options just to see if they will work. That's a recipe for disaster.

 

You are saying the opinion of one person (bookmark lists) or a few (geo clubs) is not flawed, yet the opinion of many (in-house rating system) is flawed. And you're saying you like options as long as you get to pick the options for everyone. If you don't like an option then no one should have access to it, correct?

 

How's it going to be a detriment to you to not use an in-house rating system? A rating system would have no negative effect on your caching experience. You don't like it, don't use it.

Link to comment

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.

Because the discussion usually happens in the "I hate micros" threads. No need to start a separate topic for every facet of the same discussion.

 

Again, who gave you the right to decide what's on topic or not? I and others believe Size vs Lameness is a valid discussion in why people hate micros. In this case the OP did not specify a reason for the hate so it gives the topic a bit of latitude. The OP even used the word pathetic which does indicate that lameness may be a factor in his hate.

 

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.

I never said that's the only reason. And other than "small and hard to find", everything else you listed falls under the category of "lame".

Link to comment

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.

What a hypocrite! From your other post:

 

You keep trying to say that you know what "people" think, and you don't.

So why are you allowed to say what other people think and I am not? :D:rolleyes:

Link to comment

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.

While I know you're taking a jab at me :rolleyes: you did answer my question which is what I asked for.

 

Your suggestion would fall on the other extreme end of the scale. I'm kind of hoping for something more in the middle. :D

 

Here's a though, perhaps something to automate your easy peasy method?

Link to comment

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.

The people who only don't like the size have a quick way of filtering them out. And a method has been posted to get that filtering close to 100% if they're willing to sacrifice some other sizes. That pretty much ends that thread.

 

The people who dislike micros for other reasons has some room for discussion. I proposed that perhaps some of them would like micros if the ratio of good/lame hides were a lot higher.

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.
Thank you O great Carnac. Can you tell me what I am thinking right now?

 

(To those who missed my point, Lone R is again claiming to know the reasons that all caches that he doesn't like were hidden. I don't know why he and BS aren't happy with just explaining why they do not enjoy some caches. Instead they have to pretend to know what everyone else is thinking.)

Funny you should jump on Lone R and BS for mind reading yet Mushtang did the exact same thing.

 

All of them, including me, are just recounting what we've seen in other threads and heard at events. Since we haven't all read the same threads or been to the same events what we heard will be different.

 

You are correct that why they themselves don't like certain caches holds more weight than what other people have said elsewhere. But you shouldn't discount the other information completely.

Link to comment
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.

The people who only don't like the size have a quick way of filtering them out. And a method has been posted to get that filtering close to 100% if they're willing to sacrifice some other sizes. That pretty much ends that thread.

 

The people who dislike micros for other reasons has some room for discussion. I proposed that perhaps some of them would like micros if the ratio of good/lame hides were a lot higher.

And round and round and round we go.....

Link to comment

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.

I didn't say the system was perfect, that's why the discussion about it is good.

 

Regarding your two issues about it. You can make the question more specific then: "Is the size listed correctly?". And for the stickiness of it, make it reset after the owner changes the size to something else.

 

Perhaps instead of being a part of the rating system, make it a log type like needs maintenance? Or an extra field in the log just like the post alternate coordinates we have now. The reason the extra field would be better than just writing it in the log is because it would stand out more and make it so that GSAK macros can pick up on it just like the macro I saw that adds those alternate coordinates as additional child waypoints.

Link to comment
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.

No, not the only two. I haven't decided if I think they're the primary ones. What other reasons are there for a CO to misrate the cache size?

 

Then start a thread about a ratings system.

I don't want to discuss all aspects of a rating system, only the things that apply to micro filtering. And if you see my other post it's moved off a rating system approach and onto another idea.

Link to comment

Perhaps a topic on how to avoid lame caches would be better. Then the argument could be made that there is no easy peasy method to avoid lame caches - primarily because lameness is subjective. What is lame to me may not be lame to you.

 

The argument that most micros are lame may confuse cause and effect. It may be that locations you find lame are more amenable to hiding micros than small or regular sized caches (where's that picture of the ammo can under the light post skirt?). Some people don't like micros in the woods and complain these are lame because they are harder to find and may result in more damage to environement. I happen to enjoy micros in the woods and find most are hidden closer to trails and in some reasonable fashion so they can be searched for with much less impact than bushwhacking off trail to find a larger cache. So I'd argue that only a few micros in the woods are "lame" because they lead to damage and if this is a reason to consider a cache lame, larger caches can be just as lame as any micro. Finally there is the perception that micros are cheap containers and lend themselves to being used by cachers who just placing a lot of caches with little though. Two problems with this view - many micros are containers that cost a few bucks - bison tubes, nanos, magnetic hide-a-keys. Even those that repurpose used containers are often better cache containers than repurposed small and regular containers - plastic pill bottles, diabetes test strip containers, and even certain kinds of film cans are relatively water tight compared to coffee cans, gladware, and many other containers that are commonly used for small and regular size caches. The other issue is a personal preference. Many people clearly do enjoy the power trails or the day spent urban caching. Some people prefer this to hiking in the woods. If your personal preference is to take a long hike or drive to a unique location and if there happens to be a cache there - all the better, then you may find the caches left all over town in areas you have no interest in visiting "lame". But there are other people who just want to find a cache and convenience and cache density are more important than seeing something unusual or going for a long walk in nature. What is lame to one group may not be to the other.

Link to comment

Perhaps a topic on how to avoid lame caches would be better. Then the argument could be made that there is no easy peasy method to avoid lame caches - primarily because lameness is subjective. What is lame to me may not be lame to you.

 

The argument that most micros are lame may confuse cause and effect. It may be that locations you find lame are more amenable to hiding micros than small or regular sized caches (where's that picture of the ammo can under the light post skirt?). Some people don't like micros in the woods and complain these are lame because they are harder to find and may result in more damage to environement. I happen to enjoy micros in the woods and find most are hidden closer to trails and in some reasonable fashion so they can be searched for with much less impact than bushwhacking off trail to find a larger cache. So I'd argue that only a few micros in the woods are "lame" because they lead to damage and if this is a reason to consider a cache lame, larger caches can be just as lame as any micro. Finally there is the perception that micros are cheap containers and lend themselves to being used by cachers who just placing a lot of caches with little though. Two problems with this view - many micros are containers that cost a few bucks - bison tubes, nanos, magnetic hide-a-keys. Even those that repurpose used containers are often better cache containers than repurposed small and regular containers - plastic pill bottles, diabetes test strip containers, and even certain kinds of film cans are relatively water tight compared to coffee cans, gladware, and many other containers that are commonly used for small and regular size caches. The other issue is a personal preference. Many people clearly do enjoy the power trails or the day spent urban caching. Some people prefer this to hiking in the woods. If your personal preference is to take a long hike or drive to a unique location and if there happens to be a cache there - all the better, then you may find the caches left all over town in areas you have no interest in visiting "lame". But there are other people who just want to find a cache and convenience and cache density are more important than seeing something unusual or going for a long walk in nature. What is lame to one group may not be to the other.

 

I found your post interesting and started a spin-off thread.....What is your definition of a lame cache?

Link to comment

I'm not against options. Heck, method is for some reason upset with me because I gave two options in this thread that could help him. What I am against is the implementation of flawed options just to see if they will work. That's a recipe for disaster.

 

You are saying the opinion of one person (bookmark lists) or a few (geo clubs) is not flawed, yet the opinion of many (in-house rating system) is flawed. And you're saying you like options as long as you get to pick the options for everyone. If you don't like an option then no one should have access to it, correct?

 

How's it going to be a detriment to you to not use an in-house rating system? A rating system would have no negative effect on your caching experience. You don't like it, don't use it.

wow. Twist positions much?

Link to comment

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.

While I know you're taking a jab at me :rolleyes: you did answer my question which is what I asked for.

 

Your suggestion would fall on the other extreme end of the scale. I'm kind of hoping for something more in the middle. :D

I do occasional take a jab at people, but I fail to find anything in THAT post that could be considered a jab against you specifically.

Here's a though, perhaps something to automate your easy peasy method?

The beauty of the method is that most of it does end up getting automated. Caches fall to regular PQs that you set up and have automagically sent to you.
Link to comment

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.

The people who only don't like the size have a quick way of filtering them out. And a method has been posted to get that filtering close to 100% if they're willing to sacrifice some other sizes. That pretty much ends that thread.

 

The people who dislike micros for other reasons has some room for discussion. I proposed that perhaps some of them would like micros if the ratio of good/lame hides were a lot higher.

That is the exact reason that the easy peasy method was developed.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Funny you should jump on Lone R and BS for mind reading yet Mushtang did the exact same thing.

 

All of them, including me, are just recounting what we've seen in other threads and heard at events. Since we haven't all read the same threads or been to the same events what we heard will be different.

 

You are correct that why they themselves don't like certain caches holds more weight than what other people have said elsewhere. But you shouldn't discount the other information completely.

Mushtang was repeating things that people posted in this thread and the other one that was active a few days ago. There's no mindreading involved in that.

 

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.

I didn't say the system was perfect, that's why the discussion about it is good.

 

Regarding your two issues about it. You can make the question more specific then: "Is the size listed correctly?". And for the stickiness of it, make it reset after the owner changes the size to something else.

You then quickly get into a situation where teh rating system is basically a huge questionaire to be answered about every cache that one finds. The more questions that you add, the less likely that anyone will use it or be careful with their selections.

 

Perhaps instead of being a part of the rating system, make it a log type like needs maintenance? Or an extra field in the log just like the post alternate coordinates we have now. The reason the extra field would be better than just writing it in the log is because it would stand out more and make it so that GSAK macros can pick up on it just like the macro I saw that adds those alternate coordinates as additional child waypoints.

Why couldn't you simply use the 'needs maintenance' flag rather than do all that?

 

And round and round and round we go.....

So what are you expecting to see here then? If you would like the discussion to go in a certain direction, post something to take it in that direction.

I'm pretty sure that he was commenting on the fact that as these threads evolve, we tend to discuss exactly the same thing over and over and over again. In a similar thread some time back, I started to just go back to earlier pages and copy my previous replies, rather than to type them out again and again.

Link to comment

I do occasional take a jab at people, but I fail to find anything in THAT post that could be considered a jab against you specifically.

I mean jab as in a friendly elbow to the ribs kind of thing. :rolleyes:

 

The beauty of the method is that most of it does end up getting automated. Caches fall to regular PQs that you set up and have automagically sent to you.

For a smaller caching area I can see it being quite workable. For a larger area a few of the steps could become time consuming. It probably would depend on how patient some people are.

Edited by Avernar
Link to comment

Mushtang was repeating things that people posted in this thread and the other one that was active a few days ago. There's no mindreading involved in that.

I was doing the same but with older threads and conversations with cachers at events. It might also depend on the geographical area.

 

You then quickly get into a situation where teh rating system is basically a huge questionaire to be answered about every cache that one finds. The more questions that you add, the less likely that anyone will use it or be careful with their selections.

That depends on how it was set up. If each question was optional it wouldn't inconvenience the loggers. But I'm not going to discuss the rating system further as I like my other ideas better.

 

Why couldn't you simply use the 'needs maintenance' flag rather than do all that?

I just feel that needs maintenance would be a little heavy handed for this. Kind of like reporting a slight coordinate error with a needs maintenance. It's the same with the Needs Archived being a little heavy handed for getting the reviewers attention.

 

I'm pretty sure that he was commenting on the fact that as these threads evolve, we tend to discuss exactly the same thing over and over and over again. In a similar thread some time back, I started to just go back to earlier pages and copy my previous replies, rather than to type them out again and again.

That tends to happen when people essentially post the same question or same answer without any variation. Sometimes it just takes a little different wording to spur the conversation to go in another direction.

Edited by Avernar
Link to comment
The beauty of the method is that most of it does end up getting automated. Caches fall to regular PQs that you set up and have automagically sent to you.
For a smaller caching area I can see it being quite workable. For a larger area a few of the steps could become time consuming. It probably would depend on how patient some people are.
I like how you messed up the quotes. It reads like you are having a debate with yourself.

 

Anyway, one thing about my method is you don't have to do any additional step for all the caches in your area all at once (or at all, really). Hear of a good cache? Toss it on your watchlist. Identify a stinker? Ignore it. No stress or big time consuming activities required.

I'm probably going to regret this question....

 

I wonder how many people hate micros because nanos are in the same size category?

I dunno. Let's see if we get some movement from some hatas when they implement the 'nano' size.
Link to comment

I think puzzles and multis are a waste of time - Micro or otherwise. So we can do away with micros when we get rid of all the puzzles and multis. Wait I don't like to do puzzles and multis but obviously some folks do. I don't usually look for multis or try to solve puzzles and don't include them in my PQs - pretty simple.

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...