I don't get it...

4.2k · June 14, 2011

I feel like I've been sucked in to the Twilight Zone of cookware.

9.3k · June 14, 2011

I only used the word "stupid" once in the whole thread

Well then, that makes it OK. After all, you only insulted people once. Actually, that's not quite true. You were pretty insulting throughout that whole post. But it's true, you only used that particular insult once. Perhaps I should not have pointed out the obvious hypocrisy of someone slinging insults, being bothered by insults. Still, it does have a pot/kettle feel, eh? You, being bothered by insults, just cracks me up. That's akin to Toz being bothered by ice cream references. :lol:

(Love ya, Toz!)

maybe you need some more perspective.

Been there, done that, didn't get a t-shirt. While I find many parts of New York state amazingly beautiful, I am absolutely repulsed by the city bearing the same name. How anyone can choose to live in such a place is beyond me. And yes, I recognize that these views are simply my personal bias. There must be millions of people who enjoy being surrounded by concrete, pollution, and traffic nightmares. By your "perspective" comment, you seem to be suggesting that I don't see your city as a place geared toward urban micros. Trust me. I do understand your dilemma. I have a much, much smaller city a bit south of me that suffers the same fate, though obviously on a different scale. There simply are not a lot of locations which would be suitable for anything bigger than a thimble. I'm not sure how I could gain more perspective on the matter, other than returning to NYC and geocaching, which I am unwilling to do.

But I'd go back to the Adirondacks in a heartbeat.

You & I have different tastes. There are things I like which you may not, and there are things you like which I may not. The difference between us is I am unwilling to insult you simply because we are different. Nor, am I willing to silence your opinions, as I still consider them valuable even though I disagree with them.

19k · June 14, 2011

Why I like P&G's

By Someone Who Lives In An Urban Area

I like P&Gs, Micros, Nanos, and everything else. Why? Because the only chance I get to go out to the lovely parks that are in the outskirts of my fair city are on weekends. Were it not for all the micros, nanos, P&Gs, LPCs, and all the other derided types by the so-called experts in the sport, I'd hunt exactly 1 day a week and not be able to do something I enjoy every single day.

I'm really sorry I don't live in an area where I can walk out on my front porch, pat my hound dog on the head, point at a mountain and go "Yep, I'm goin' up thar today." I just don't. I live in New York City; the Bronx to be specific. There just aren't a lot of "interesting" (at least by the standards of the moaners) places to hide a cache here. It doesn't get much better the more you circle out from here until you get to Westchester / Rockland, but like I said, I have a job (some of you have probably heard of that) and that doesn't really allow me the opportunity to run 30 miles away from where I live to find ammo boxes in tree stumps, which I agree are the height of creativity and interestingness. I like them particularly when they're filled with business cards, keychains, and candy bar wrappers (a new one on me; came across one of those today).

In closing, allow me to say that there's a simple solution if you don't like P&G's, Nanos, urban caching, virtuals, or anything else: Use a filter and ignore them. This is a tough concept for a lot of you, but it's an important one because doing so allows you to not have to go through the pain of seing those horrible evil things in your list that ruin your day on a regular basis to the point where you have to whine bitch and complain in the forum, while those of us who can't breathe that wonderful damp mountain air on a regular basis and are relegated to our only jungle being made of concrete can still have a little fun in our spare time. It's not about being lazy, unimaginative, or anything else. Sometimes, and in my experience and area most of the time, that's what the area will bear. If I put a Lock & Lock in the 4 places I have caches, it would be gone instantly. I know some of you would say "then it's a bad spot for a cache." Well, no, stupid. It's New York City. We don't have a lot of places you can hide something that big, and the places that you can hide 'em are already home to other caches. Funny how that works in an urban area, isn't it?

I really do hope that clears things up and I'm really sorry to "clutter" your network of lock and locks and ammo boxes with anything smaller than a box of tissues.

Seriously, people. Get a grip already. Enough bitching. You don't like 'em, ignore 'em. Some of us do. Go ahead and have your fun, just try not to crap on our fun, ok?

Perhaps it is time for a gentle reminder.

June 14, 2011

Perhaps it is time for a gentle reminder.

Well let's see about reminders. In 2 weeks, I've learned:

1. Micro caches are clutter and people planting them are ruining the game.

2. New York city is a craphole of pollution and overcrowding.

3. Religious articles in caches are so egregrious they must be removed and thrown in the trash.

4. The mere suggestion of connecting Geocaching.com to anything more social than the forums causes people to erupt in self-righteous indignation.

5. If you dare suggest anything that the forum finds unacceptable, you get pounced on, both feet, both hands, and a truck, so as to shut you up.

6. Any change made to the site will invariably be followed by "it was better the old way," no matter what the change was.

7. Every time you hide a film can, a fairy dies.

8. Anything not hidden in a forest, park, or in the woods in general is clutter and waste, unless of course it's the one exception (and every one has their one exception, but of course everything else is crap).

9. If you don't like something, it must be banned and stopped immediately (kind of ties into the social networking thing; God forbid you just don't use it, it must not exist at all!).

Trust me; I don't need a reminder. I've seen very little that changes my mind since the initially overly-hostile post that prompted that exchange between you and I. In fact, quite a few of the discussions since then have been about similar topics with similar people taking similarly hostile tones to people and some jerks in particular mentioning people by name and insulting them directly.

Yeah, reminders indeed.

Edited June 14, 2011 by vincenzosi

June 14, 2011

I am grateful for those that take the time to place a hide. Be it a P&G or a level 5 without their effort there would be no sport.

June 14, 2011

And dammit, why the hell doesn't the ignore feature work on this stupid forum?

Update: This time It worked! YAY!

Edited June 14, 2011 by vincenzosi

June 14, 2011

I am grateful for those that take the time to place a hide. Be it a P&G or a level 5 without their effort there would be no sport.

You obviously don't understand the forum protocol. If it's not a level 5 hanging off a cliff face in Utah, it's crap.

(that's exaggeration for the sarcasm-impaired)

June 14, 2011

I am grateful for those that take the time to place a hide. Be it a P&G or a level 5 without their effort there would be no sport.

You obviously don't understand the forum protocol. If it's not a level 5 hanging off a cliff face in Utah, it's crap.

(that's exaggeration for the sarcasm-impaired)

How about a C&G? Instead of a Park and Grab, it would instead be trying to park at a cliff top and crashing and then on the way down, snagging the cache in hand before the eventual explosion at the bottom.

Now THAT... that is a cache!

June 14, 2011

At 69 hanging off a ladder to change a light bulb can be dangerous for me LOL

June 14, 2011

How about a C&G? Instead of a Park and Grab, it would instead be trying to park at a cliff top and crashing and then on the way down, snagging the cache in hand before the eventual explosion at the bottom.

Now THAT... that is a cache!

I was pondering the "nano" idiocy that permeates this forum yesterday. Went to look for a cache right on the promenade by the 59th Street Bridge in Manhattan. It was so brilliantly hidden that I wanted to hug the people who hid it. Completely in plain sight and out in the open, but if you had never seen the official nano, you'd have no idea what you're looking for. By most standards, the coordinates were dead on, so it was basically a C&D (or P&G if you could find P) but where it brought you was so great and the hiding was so clever... Just made me think about how many people get so angry that nanos exist at all and wonder what the hell their problem is?

The assumption that "nano=crap" permeates this forum, but the problem is that most of the people who push it live in areas where you can hide bigger stuff. That's life, I guess. Play the game the way that you can play it.

June 14, 2011

At 69 hanging off a ladder to change a light bulb can be dangerous for me LOL

At 62, my father fell of a kitchen chair changing a lightbulb, sprained his knee and broke both arms. No explanation needed, my friend.

June 14, 2011

How about a C&G? Instead of a Park and Grab, it would instead be trying to park at a cliff top and crashing and then on the way down, snagging the cache in hand before the eventual explosion at the bottom.

Now THAT... that is a cache!

I was pondering the "nano" idiocy that permeates this forum yesterday. Went to look for a cache right on the promenade by the 59th Street Bridge in Manhattan. It was so brilliantly hidden that I wanted to hug the people who hid it. Completely in plain sight and out in the open, but if you had never seen the official nano, you'd have no idea what you're looking for. By most standards, the coordinates were dead on, so it was basically a C&D (or P&G if you could find P) but where it brought you was so great and the hiding was so clever... Just made me think about how many people get so angry that nanos exist at all and wonder what the hell their problem is?

The assumption that "nano=crap" permeates this forum, but the problem is that most of the people who push it live in areas where you can hide bigger stuff. That's life, I guess. Play the game the way that you can play it.

My perspective may be wrong, but I haven't heard people say "nanos are crap". I've heard people say "using caches smaller then necessary is crap". IE: If it could've fit a small, why put a nano?

I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's what I recall reading here. Personally, I'd rather avoid that mindset and rely upon COs to inject creativity *even if* the container is smaller then it could've been.

8.3k · June 14, 2011

One #1, what's wrong with a micro? Heck, I even do LPC's. Won't argue about #2, that is pretty close. On #3, the tracts are fine, especially out in the woods and, ah, er, there are needs. #4 is okay, after some of the high ranked wants are addressed, like API's and bookmark enhancements. #5 is expressing opinions. I see you were able to express yours. #6 is pretty much human nature. Some of us lament not being able to buy buggy whips or have the phone say number please? when we pick up the receiver. On #7 I guess I missed the memo, I thought it was a kitten. On #8, see #1. Whats wrong with banning something you don't agree with? There are some religions built on that premise. Isn't geocaching just another religion?

Edited June 14, 2011 by jholly

June 14, 2011

Isn't geocaching just another religion?

You mean loaded with a lot of zealots that usually answer questions with answers like "just because" and "that's what I'm told?" Yeah, I guess it is.

(Sarcasm, again, people. No letters or hatemail).

8.3k · June 14, 2011

Isn't geocaching just another religion?

You mean loaded with a lot of zealots that usually answer questions with answers like "just because" and "that's what I'm told?" Yeah, I guess it is.

(Sarcasm, again, people. No letters or hatemail).

Oh, zealot is such a hard and nasty word. We prefer to use the more soften and nicer puritan.

June 14, 2011

One #1, what's wrong with a micro? Heck, I even do LPC's.

They're litter and clutter. Oh, and trash. Don't forget trash. Those are all words I've gotten from the forum.

Won't argue about #2, that is pretty close.

Bite me.

On #3, the tracts are fine, especially out in the woods and, ah, er, there are needs.

I guess a bear really does crap in the woods!

#4 is okay, after some of the high ranked wants are addressed, like API's and bookmark enhancements.

If something garners a lot of wants and moves up the ranking, doesn't it stand to reason that it's ranked highly? An iPad version has quite a bit of backing.

#5 is expressing opinions. I see you were able to express yours.

The point is not that you can't have your own opinion (my, there's quite an oppression complex on here, isn't there?). It's that when threads start with a question about a bottle cap container and within two posts become a raging insultfest, there's a problem. That's the kind of "pouncing" I'm talking about, and it happens A LOT here.

On #7 I guess I missed the memo, I thought it was a kitten.

Check the sig of one of the people on here. It's in there.

There!

June 14, 2011

Oh, zealot is such a hard and nasty word. We prefer to use the more soften and nicer puritan.

Tomato... Tomahto...

19k · June 14, 2011

Perhaps it is time for a gentle reminder.

Well let's see about reminders. In 2 weeks, I've learned:

1. Micro caches are clutter and people planting them are ruining the game.

2. New York city is a craphole of pollution and overcrowding.

3. Religious articles in caches are so egregrious they must be removed and thrown in the trash.

4. The mere suggestion of connecting Geocaching.com to anything more social than the forums causes people to erupt in self-righteous indignation.

5. If you dare suggest anything that the forum finds unacceptable, you get pounced on, both feet, both hands, and a truck, so as to shut you up.

6. Any change made to the site will invariably be followed by "it was better the old way," no matter what the change was.

7. Every time you hide a film can, a fairy dies.

8. Anything not hidden in a forest, park, or in the woods in general is clutter and waste, unless of course it's the one exception (and every one has their one exception, but of course everything else is crap).

9. If you don't like something, it must be banned and stopped immediately (kind of ties into the social networking thing; God forbid you just don't use it, it must not exist at all!).

Trust me; I don't need a reminder. I've seen very little that changes my mind since the initially overly-hostile post that prompted that exchange between you and I. In fact, quite a few of the discussions since then have been about similar topics with similar people taking similarly hostile tones to people and some jerks in particular mentioning people by name and insulting them directly.

Yeah, reminders indeed.

And do you remember my response to your reply?

PLEASE hang around and post here more often, then. We need more like you.

Of course, I intended to mean for you to help by example, and not by criticism.

I guess I don't recall any "overly-hostile post that prompted that exchange between you and I". Perhaps I just didn't notice.

June 14, 2011

I guess I don't recall any "overly-hostile post that prompted that exchange between you and I". Perhaps I just didn't notice.

Not between you and I; in the thread preceding it between some loudmouth and the OP. Go back and read it. It's what prompted my reaction and your subsequent comment.

9.3k · June 14, 2011

...some loudmouth...

Priceless... Absolutely priceless. :lol:

19k · June 14, 2011

I guess I don't recall any "overly-hostile post that prompted that exchange between you and I". Perhaps I just didn't notice.

Not between you and I; in the thread preceding it between some loudmouth and the OP. Go back and read it. It's what prompted my reaction and your subsequent comment.

"some loudmouth"? I'm not sure which loudmouth you are referring to, but it may very well be a friend of mine. Frankly, I'm not seeing you doing anything differently than those that you are criticizing. If you don't like the way things are, then you need to do what you can to shift the balance by posting positive comments. You aren't going to change people, but you can help change the tone (I often need to be reminded of this!)

June 14, 2011

I guess I don't recall any "overly-hostile post that prompted that exchange between you and I". Perhaps I just didn't notice.

Not between you and I; in the thread preceding it between some loudmouth and the OP. Go back and read it. It's what prompted my reaction and your subsequent comment.

"some loudmouth"? I'm not sure which loudmouth you are referring to, but it may very well be a friend of mine. Frankly, I'm not seeing you doing anything differently than those that you are criticizing. If you don't like the way things are, then you need to do what you can to shift the balance by posting positive comments. You aren't going to change people, but you can help change the tone (I often need to be reminded of this!)

19k · June 14, 2011

I guess I don't recall any "overly-hostile post that prompted that exchange between you and I". Perhaps I just didn't notice.

Not between you and I; in the thread preceding it between some loudmouth and the OP. Go back and read it. It's what prompted my reaction and your subsequent comment.

"some loudmouth"? I'm not sure which loudmouth you are referring to, but it may very well be a friend of mine. Frankly, I'm not seeing you doing anything differently than those that you are criticizing. If you don't like the way things are, then you need to do what you can to shift the balance by posting positive comments. You aren't going to change people, but you can help change the tone (I often need to be reminded of this!)

That is MUCH better!!! :lol:

June 14, 2011

WOW.......................Third page. :blink:

19k · June 14, 2011

WOW.......................Third page.

Yeah... I don't get it...

June 14, 2011

WOW.......................Third page.

Yeah... I don't get it...

Me either

9.3k · June 15, 2011

Has anyone seen Flask's neighbor's cat lately? :unsure:

8k · June 15, 2011

I had to go back an read the entire thread again so see where it began to deteriorate amd it came down to Clan Riffster's response to my ice analogy that I had to read three times when he first posted it to understand.

Sure there will be ice cream critics who will write in the icecream.com forum that chocolate and vanilla are the only real flavors of ice cream.

That seems like it would be a very lonely job. One could almost liken the ice cream critic to the guys in these forums who use thousands of words of text to convey their theory that their view of caching is the only acceptable one, and those who disagree should "quit whining". I much prefer the current format, where those who like catfish & bourbon ice cream can eat it to their heart's content, while those who think it's icky can express their dissenting view.

Perhaps because we've had the debate before I was able to understand what he meant eventually.

CR has often complained about caches he considers lame - but he always point out that he is just expressing his personal preferences. I always enjoy this because he likes to point out that he prefers to be nipple deep in a swamp full of alligators when searching for a cache. Clearly he knows that this is a personal preferences about as popular as catfish and bourbon ice cream. I think most people understand why someone who lives in the city may like to find lots of urban micros and why someone else in the city can't wait to get out to the countryside and explore a natural setting when looking for caches.

:mmraspberry:

19k · June 15, 2011

I had to go back an read the entire thread again so see where it began to deteriorate amd it came down to Clan Riffster's response to my ice analogy that I had to read three times when he first posted it to understand.

Sure there will be ice cream critics who will write in the icecream.com forum that chocolate and vanilla are the only real flavors of ice cream.

That seems like it would be a very lonely job. One could almost liken the ice cream critic to the guys in these forums who use thousands of words of text to convey their theory that their view of caching is the only acceptable one, and those who disagree should "quit whining". I much prefer the current format, where those who like catfish & bourbon ice cream can eat it to their heart's content, while those who think it's icky can express their dissenting view.

Perhaps because we've had the debate before I was able to understand what he meant eventually.

CR has often complained about caches he considers lame - but he always point out that he is just expressing his personal preferences. I always enjoy this because he likes to point out that he prefers to be nipple deep in a swamp full of alligators when searching for a cache. Clearly he knows that this is a personal preferences about as popular as catfish and bourbon ice cream. I think most people understand why someone who lives in the city may like to find lots of urban micros and why someone else in the city can't wait to get out to the countryside and explore a natural setting when looking for caches.

Are you SURE that it didn't begin to go south on Sure there will be ice cream critics who will write in the icecream.com forum that chocolate and vanilla are the only real flavors of ice cream.?

7.9k · June 15, 2011

If I recall correctly, the original issue was not about what type, size, or hiding style was lame, stupid, pointless or whatever, but rather why someone would continue to hide many hundreds of caches that could be characterized as lame, stupid or pointless.

At what point is hiding more lame, stupid, pointless caches lame, stupid and pointless?

I just love write-ups that begin 'I noticed there wasn't a cache within 528 feet, so I thought I'd place one.'

June 15, 2011

At what point is hiding more lame, stupid, pointless caches lame, stupid and pointless?

Great question. Now as a group let's just decide what constitutes lame, pointless, and stupid. As soon as we agree on that, everything will be settled!

Yeah. Exactly.

Therein lies the problem

19k · June 15, 2011

At what point is hiding more lame, stupid, pointless caches lame, stupid and pointless?

Great question. Now as a group let's just decide what constitutes lame, pointless, and stupid. As soon as we agree on that, everything will be settled!

Yeah. Exactly.

Therein lies the problem

Actually, I think it wouldn't be all that hard to arrive at a consensus. Sure, there will be dissenters, but basically, a lame, pointless, and stupid cache is one that was placed simply and purely for the purpose of placing a cache. Absolutely no thought was given to being unique either in hiding style or in location, little or no thought was given to the quality of the container in so far as its ability to hold up to the environment, little or no thought was given to the muggle situation. I could probably continue, but I think that all but the most argumentative amongst us at the very least know what I am talking about. You get there, find the thing, and either think to yourself, or say out loud, "This cache is lame, pointless, and stupid!!"

June 15, 2011

Actually, I think it wouldn't be all that hard to arrive at a consensus. Sure, there will be dissenters, but basically, a lame, pointless, and stupid cache is one that was placed simply and purely for the purpose of placing a cache. Absolutely no thought was given to being unique either in hiding style or in location, little or no thought was given to the quality of the container in so far as its ability to hold up to the environment, little or no thought was given to the muggle situation. I could probably continue, but I think that all but the most argumentative amongst us at the very least know what I am talking about. You get there, find the thing, and either think to yourself, or say out loud, "This cache is lame, pointless, and stupid!!"

Some people think certain types are lame by themselves (ie: Virtuals, Micros, Earthcaches) whether or not they're interesting. They dismiss entire types, regardless of content or quality.

Purely playing devil's advocate...

I enjoy going lot to lot collecting park and grabs. It's a fun thing for me to do when I'm bored and don't feel like suiting up, driving to the nearest location there are actually woods, and hunting stuff down. I don't think "lame cache" when I pull one out of a well disguised parking lot or a lamp post or whatever, but plenty of people do and would automatically assume that such placements represent LPS (Lame, Pointless & Stupid) hides regardless of who might enjoy it.

As for holding up to the environment: again, who the hell knows. I went to a cache a few weeks back that was completely destroyed. Nothing left of it but the container, filled with mud, and strewn about the general area. Stupid? No consideration for the environment? You would think so, except that it was put there in 2002 and lasted 9 years. Did he not consider the environment? Did he have 9 years of incredible luck?

As far as muggles... There's on P&G I'm determined to get, but it's 10 feet from the entrance to a Target. Tough grab! I see it as a challenge. Others would see it as stupid. Who's right?

And this is where it really does start to break down. It's so subjective that it's hard to say with certainty what's "right" and what's "LPS." I think the only ones you'd agree on would be placing a Micro in the woods, but honestly I found one of those a few weeks back and it was one of the funnest hunts ever because it was so difficult.

I don't know. I'm not saying one way or the other, just kinda batting around the ideas. It would be easy to reach consensus, but the consensus would be on the lowest common denominator which represents such a small portion of what's out there that I can't see it making much of a difference.

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.

9.3k · June 15, 2011

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.

You're not wrong. Labels such as "Lame, Pointless and Stupid" are entirely subjective. I could tell you what I consider to be LPS, and my definition would likely come real close to that of the pooch who knows Chad, but the next guy might think they are the bee's knees. As such, I prefer to qualify all my LPS statements by pointing out that they are my opinion, and that I recognize that my opinion is biased.

June 15, 2011

I know you all hate social media, but hear me out...

What if there were a cache rating system? Users could thumbs up or thumbs down a cache and leave a short (let's say 40 characters) review. While I may not agree with someone's determination of a cache's value, if 100 reviews say it sucks, I may avoid it... Think of it as a combination of YouTube's "thumbs up" system and Amazon's review system, shortened for brevity.

I know this is in the logs, but by adding this little addition, you could theoretically run PQ's that only pull back caches that are 75% positive and avoid the LPS stuff (as voted on by the community).

Seems like a rational solution, and would make PQ's more valuable because they wouldn't just throw you everything, they would throw you everything that's good (and good could be determined by a threshold you define).

Maybe that's the answer?

June 15, 2011

I know you all hate social media, but hear me out...

What if there were a cache rating system? Users could thumbs up or thumbs down a cache and leave a short (let's say 40 characters) review. While I may not agree with someone's determination of a cache's value, if 100 reviews say it sucks, I may avoid it... Think of it as a combination of YouTube's "thumbs up" system and Amazon's review system, shortened for brevity.

I know this is in the logs, but by adding this little addition, you could theoretically run PQ's that only pull back caches that are 75% positive and avoid the LPS stuff (as voted on by the community).

Seems like a rational solution, and would make PQ's more valuable because they wouldn't just throw you everything, they would throw you everything that's good (and good could be determined by a threshold you define).

Maybe that's the answer?

I think the favorite system works well enough. It just needs t be integrated into PQs now I suppose. I don't like negative feedback for caches, because not all caches are FOR all types of cachers. A silly hobby like this should be kept purely positive.

The favorites system is still very new and will be improved. I don't think we need a second system to fix a problem very few cachers actually have.

EDIT: I would like to add, again, that I almost never find lame caches and I can't imagine how anyone does it by accident. They are typically easy to spot and avoid searching for. I'm probably alone, but I wish I had MORE favorite points to distribute, because so many of the caches I fnd in my area make me very happy to find them. It's really just 1/20 that has me asking, "really? Hrm... weird"

I suppose it's because I'm still fairly new and haven't burned through all the great hides yet?

Edited June 15, 2011 by d+n.s

June 15, 2011

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.

You're not wrong. Labels such as "Lame, Pointless and Stupid" are entirely subjective. I could tell you what I consider to be LPS, and my definition would likely come real close to that of the pooch who knows Chad, but the next guy might think they are the bee's knees. As such, I prefer to qualify all my LPS statements by pointing out that they are my opinion, and that I recognize that my opinion is biased.

They're all LPS and are mightily cussed until I find 'em,then it's "Oh Gee,that wasn't to hard,darn good hide actually".

8k · June 15, 2011

At what point is hiding more lame, stupid, pointless caches lame, stupid and pointless?

Great question. Now as a group let's just decide what constitutes lame, pointless, and stupid. As soon as we agree on that, everything will be settled!

Yeah. Exactly.

Therein lies the problem

Actually, I think it wouldn't be all that hard to arrive at a consensus. Sure, there will be dissenters, but basically, a lame, pointless, and stupid cache is one that was placed simply and purely for the purpose of placing a cache. Absolutely no thought was given to being unique either in hiding style or in location, little or no thought was given to the quality of the container in so far as its ability to hold up to the environment, little or no thought was given to the muggle situation. I could probably continue, but I think that all but the most argumentative amongst us at the very least know what I am talking about. You get there, find the thing, and either think to yourself, or say out loud, "This cache is lame, pointless, and stupid!!"

I dissent (but perhaps you knew I would). I don't mind fizzymagic's definition so much - caches placed with so little thought that they end up be in locations nobody would really want to be in to find a cache. (Sort of an everyman's swamp full of alligators ). His examples include places used as toilets by the homeless (or by non homeless to lazy to hike to the outhouse) or smelly trash dumps. Caches where someone (even the majority of cachers) would say "why did you bring me here?" may be below average - but the are not so lame that someone doesn't enjoy them. Numbers folks like these because there is another cache to grab. And if you keep an open mind, sometimes these turn into memorable caches.

I often give the example of these two caches GCVP78 and GC1HF2V. One cache explains that at this location use to be an historic barn that belonged to the former world heavyweight champion Jim Jefferies. The other decribes the location as another Burbank hide to help increase the cache density in the area. It turns out both are were LPCs in the parking lot. I honestly did not find the reason the cache was hidden here made any difference. Perhaps because the Jefferies cache was there first, when I found the other I already knew what made the location "special". But I also knew the hider and his intent in placing it. That was a good enough reason for placing another cache here (and for making it another LPC).

I know you all hate social media, but hear me out...

What if there were a cache rating system? Users could thumbs up or thumbs down a cache and leave a short (let's say 40 characters) review. While I may not agree with someone's determination of a cache's value, if 100 reviews say it sucks, I may avoid it... Think of it as a combination of YouTube's "thumbs up" system and Amazon's review system, shortened for brevity.

I know this is in the logs, but by adding this little addition, you could theoretically run PQ's that only pull back caches that are 75% positive and avoid the LPS stuff (as voted on by the community).

Seems like a rational solution, and would make PQ's more valuable because they wouldn't just throw you everything, they would throw you everything that's good (and good could be determined by a threshold you define).

Maybe that's the answer?

I don't get it...

Rating systems have been discussed here for a long time. A consensus has sort of formed that averaging votes doesn't do it - whether 1 to 5 stars or just an up/down vote. This tells you what a hypothetical 'average' cacher would rate the cache. I contend there is no such thing as an average cacher. People's tastes are so varied. A better system would look for people who rated caches similar to the way I rate them and suggest caches I might like based on this.

What we came up with is the favorites system. Premium members can designate up to 10% of their finds as favorites. We can now find caches that have many favorite votes. In practice the caches that some people complain about don't get that many favorite votes. Even number cachers who like them are not likely to give all their favorite points to these caches. People tend to save their favorite votes for caches that really stand out and are memorable. So caches with high favorite counts tend to be in interesting places, have a unique style hide, or (for puzzles and high terrain or difficulty) have exceptional challenges.

By clicking on the favorites ribbon, you and also see who favorited that cache. After awhile you learn who likes the same sort of caches you do and you and can look at their list of favorites for recommendations.

Many people who complain that urban micros are lame have refused to implement the easy-peasy solution of just not doing these caches. Then tend to argue that some urban micros were in really interesting locations, or had really clever camouflage, or provide and exceptional challenge - precisely the attributes that generally earn a cache favorite points. So one would think that this would put an end to the threads complaining of lame caches. But it hasn't.

Edited June 15, 2011 by tozainamboku

8.3k · June 15, 2011

I know you all hate social media, but hear me out...

What if there were a cache rating system? Users could thumbs up or thumbs down a cache and leave a short (let's say 40 characters) review. While I may not agree with someone's determination of a cache's value, if 100 reviews say it sucks, I may avoid it... Think of it as a combination of YouTube's "thumbs up" system and Amazon's review system, shortened for brevity.

I know this is in the logs, but by adding this little addition, you could theoretically run PQ's that only pull back caches that are 75% positive and avoid the LPS stuff (as voted on by the community).

Seems like a rational solution, and would make PQ's more valuable because they wouldn't just throw you everything, they would throw you everything that's good (and good could be determined by a threshold you define).

Maybe that's the answer?

Isn't that what the favorite system is? If you like the cache spend a vote on it and leave a nice log for the next person to read. I don't know for sure, but the August update is suppose to allow the down load of favorite points so maybe you can set a threshold on what to include in the PQ.

2.5k · June 15, 2011

I read page one about one topic and jumped to page three and thought I was on a different thread. Wasn't this really about powertrails or too many micros in a row? Maybe lame caches? :blink:

4.2k · June 15, 2011

I know you all hate social media, but hear me out...

What if there were a cache rating system? Users could thumbs up or thumbs down a cache and leave a short (let's say 40 characters) review. While I may not agree with someone's determination of a cache's value, if 100 reviews say it sucks, I may avoid it... Think of it as a combination of YouTube's "thumbs up" system and Amazon's review system, shortened for brevity.

I know this is in the logs, but by adding this little addition, you could theoretically run PQ's that only pull back caches that are 75% positive and avoid the LPS stuff (as voted on by the community).

Seems like a rational solution, and would make PQ's more valuable because they wouldn't just throw you everything, they would throw you everything that's good (and good could be determined by a threshold you define).

Maybe that's the answer?

Couple of things. 1: I don't hate social media and to use that characterization misses this point made by more than a few in the other thread. 2: That's what the favorite points are supposed to be doing and integration of that into our PQs is what I'd rather see long before any other social media perks.

June 15, 2011

Isn't that what the favorite system is? If you like the cache spend a vote on it and leave a nice log for the next person to read. I don't know for sure, but the August update is suppose to allow the down load of favorite points so maybe you can set a threshold on what to include in the PQ.

Not really, and here's why.

I know a group of folks in this area who go out every weekend and knock off 50-60 at a time. They're also very active in the community, so they know where the good stuff is. They may favorite a few, but may have had one of those days where everything deserved a recommendation. And what about the folks that go out and find 10, get one favorite point, but liked all of them? And the log may be great, but I can't generate a PQ based on their logs because there's no 'data' to query, just text, which is why I think even adding a "would you recommend this cache to others" in the log fields would be really helpful. Favorite points are great, and I understand the reasoning in limiting favorites, but I still think that that's not the best solution because there are plenty I've found (in my lowly weak 42) that I would "recommend" but I wouldn't consider a "favorite" and burn a blue ribbon on.

integration of that into our PQs is what I'd rather see long before any other social media perks.

I used the term "social media" because liking and not liking a cache is a social media style convention. This isn't a "social media perk," it's a geocaching feature.

June 15, 2011

I'm and equal opportunity Cacher.

19k · June 15, 2011

Actually, I think it wouldn't be all that hard to arrive at a consensus. Sure, there will be dissenters, but basically, a lame, pointless, and stupid cache is one that was placed simply and purely for the purpose of placing a cache. Absolutely no thought was given to being unique either in hiding style or in location, little or no thought was given to the quality of the container in so far as its ability to hold up to the environment, little or no thought was given to the muggle situation. I could probably continue, but I think that all but the most argumentative amongst us at the very least know what I am talking about. You get there, find the thing, and either think to yourself, or say out loud, "This cache is lame, pointless, and stupid!!"

Some people think certain types are lame by themselves (ie: Virtuals, Micros, Earthcaches) whether or not they're interesting. They dismiss entire types, regardless of content or quality.

Purely playing devil's advocate...

I enjoy going lot to lot collecting park and grabs. It's a fun thing for me to do when I'm bored and don't feel like suiting up, driving to the nearest location there are actually woods, and hunting stuff down. I don't think "lame cache" when I pull one out of a well disguised parking lot or a lamp post or whatever, but plenty of people do and would automatically assume that such placements represent LPS (Lame, Pointless & Stupid) hides regardless of who might enjoy it.

We will have to wait to see if that will hold your interest for five or six years. I'm guessing it will get old for you much sooner than that, though, and you will find yourself wanting more. Time will tell.

As for holding up to the environment: again, who the hell knows. I went to a cache a few weeks back that was completely destroyed. Nothing left of it but the container, filled with mud, and strewn about the general area. Stupid? No consideration for the environment? You would think so, except that it was put there in 2002 and lasted 9 years. Did he not consider the environment? Did he have 9 years of incredible luck?

I was referring to the use of containers that are known to not hold up well. Any container, even the durable ammocan, can fail.

As far as muggles... There's on P&G I'm determined to get, but it's 10 feet from the entrance to a Target. Tough grab! I see it as a challenge. Others would see it as stupid. Who's right?

Again, time will tell if that sort of cache really can hold your interest.

And this is where it really does start to break down. It's so subjective that it's hard to say with certainty what's "right" and what's "LPS." I think the only ones you'd agree on would be placing a Micro in the woods, but honestly I found one of those a few weeks back and it was one of the funnest hunts ever because it was so difficult.

Of course its subjective. Part of the problem in a forum like this, I believe, is that people (myself included) forget to prefix their opinions with "I think". Instead of "I think LPCs are lame", they simply say "Lame LPCs", and those that happen to find LPCs to be quite acceptable get their dander up.

I don't know. I'm not saying one way or the other, just kinda batting around the ideas. It would be easy to reach consensus, but the consensus would be on the lowest common denominator which represents such a small portion of what's out there that I can't see it making much of a difference.

Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.

Of course you're wrong. In my opinion, that is. :lol:

June 15, 2011

We will have to wait to see if that will hold your interest for five or six years. I'm guessing it will get old for you much sooner than that, though, and you will find yourself wanting more. Time will tell.

Well, in many cases, it's the only geo-action I have time for, so it's either that or nothing. I guess if these were all I was doing, you'd be right, but the weekends are saved for the "good stuff" with the wife who LOVES puzzle / mystery caches!

7.5k · June 15, 2011

Isn't that what the favorite system is? If you like the cache spend a vote on it and leave a nice log for the next person to read. I don't know for sure, but the August update is suppose to allow the down load of favorite points so maybe you can set a threshold on what to include in the PQ.

Not really, and here's why.

I know a group of folks in this area who go out every weekend and knock off 50-60 at a time. They're also very active in the community, so they know where the good stuff is. They may favorite a few, but may have had one of those days where everything deserved a recommendation. And what about the folks that go out and find 10, get one favorite point, but liked all of them? And the log may be great, but I can't generate a PQ based on their logs because there's no 'data' to query, just text, which is why I think even adding a "would you recommend this cache to others" in the log fields would be really helpful. Favorite points are great, and I understand the reasoning in limiting favorites, but I still think that that's not the best solution because there are plenty I've found (in my lowly weak 42) that I would "recommend" but I wouldn't consider a "favorite" and burn a blue ribbon on.

integration of that into our PQs is what I'd rather see long before any other social media perks.

I used the term "social media" because liking and not liking a cache is a social media style convention. This isn't a "social media perk," it's a geocaching feature.

You make like the GCVote rating system. It's a greasemonkey script. You can rate a cache from 1-5 stars. If it's not being used much in your area, start using it and maybe others will find it useful too.

7.5k · June 15, 2011

We will have to wait to see if that will hold your interest for five or six years. I'm guessing it will get old for you much sooner than that, though, and you will find yourself wanting more. Time will tell.

Well, in many cases, it's the only geo-action I have time for, so it's either that or nothing. I guess if these were all I was doing, you'd be right, but the weekends are saved for the "good stuff" with the wife who LOVES puzzle / mystery caches!

That's how it was for me. I had my fill of cheap micro hides at around year 6 of geocaching. So I started filtering out micros. I also started paying more attention to the last logs. If they're not favorable, I skip the cache.

8.3k · June 15, 2011

Isn't that what the favorite system is? If you like the cache spend a vote on it and leave a nice log for the next person to read. I don't know for sure, but the August update is suppose to allow the down load of favorite points so maybe you can set a threshold on what to include in the PQ.

Not really, and here's why.

I know a group of folks in this area who go out every weekend and knock off 50-60 at a time. They're also very active in the community, so they know where the good stuff is. They may favorite a few, but may have had one of those days where everything deserved a recommendation. And what about the folks that go out and find 10, get one favorite point, but liked all of them? And the log may be great, but I can't generate a PQ based on their logs because there's no 'data' to query, just text, which is why I think even adding a "would you recommend this cache to others" in the log fields would be really helpful. Favorite points are great, and I understand the reasoning in limiting favorites, but I still think that that's not the best solution because there are plenty I've found (in my lowly weak 42) that I would "recommend" but I wouldn't consider a "favorite" and burn a blue ribbon on.

So then every cache you liked would get five stars and we now have star pollution to contend with. At least with the favorite system you need to think about dropping that vote because you don't get that many. Maybe we should start rating caches on yelp.

June 15, 2011

Maybe we should start rating caches on yelp.

Yeah, because that's obviously the logical direction I was going in.

June 15, 2011

WOW.............now it's favorite points.

I don't get it................................................. :lostsignal:

Come on page 4

I don't get it...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment