Micros taking up areas perfect for larger caches

22k · January 11, 2012

Apparently you aren't watching enough logs. Unfortunately most tend to avoid confrontation by not posting in cache logs and keeping it to the forums. Then the forum crowd does a dump on feel good caching. Hey dude what's you're problem? Why aren't you happy to find a cache?

Now I'm confused. Am I not watching enough logs or do people lie in the logs to avoid confrontation?

Most tend. What's the sample for your position?

3.7k · January 11, 2012

When I hide caches, I try to hide the largest cache I can which can be hidden in that area. I prefer to hide caches with room for swag because I cache with kids and those are the type of caches they like.

However, I can see why many people would be happy with a micro, especially if they are focussed on enjoying the walk/hike and increasing their numbers (and never trade).

I have to say, howevre, that I am disappointed when I come to a nice large area and all I find is a micro, but fortunately that doesn't happen too much where I live.

Edited January 11, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

6.1k · January 11, 2012

It really doesn't make sense to fill a small wooded area with regular caches. One, with the rest being micros, usually suffices. Most cachers are not into trading anymore, and will not write much more in the logbook other than their nickname. If there is a regular size cache with several micros, then that is fine. The swag in the ammo cans degrades quickly unless it is in a place that is very remote and difficult to get to, so why use more than 1 regular cache per mile anyhow?

22k · January 11, 2012

It really doesn't make sense to fill a small wooded area with regular caches. One, with the rest being micros, usually suffices. Most cachers are not into trading anymore, and will not write much more in the logbook other than their nickname. If there is a regular size cache with several micros, then that is fine. The swag in the ammo cans degrades quickly unless it is in a place that is very remote and difficult to get to, so why use more than 1 regular cache per mile anyhow?

Sadly I can't argue with that. Kind of like debating why send a hand-written letter.

bd

Edited January 11, 2012 by BlueDeuce

22k · January 11, 2012

Oh, in case any is wondering. I put micros in the same category as "fun-sized" candy bars.

Smaller is not better.

9.3k · January 11, 2012

Not everyone has a good income and can afford nice containers.

I gotta say, that's the saddest excuse for micro-spew I've ever seen. Micro size containers which have stood the test of time in multiple environments run between $0.00 and $0.88, so I find it hard to accept that some mook who spits out black & gray film cans can't afford to use quality containers.

Its not always about lazy hiders.

true. There are rare exceptions. But mostly, I'd say either cheap or lazy.

what does the container size have to do with the type of log you going to write?

what happened to geocaching being about the experience?

You do know what the word "experience" means, don't you?

Just in case you don't, I'll offer a crash course.

When one is geocaching, part of the "experience" includes a container. Not all containers are created equal. This is especially true when discussing micros, as, (at least locally), when folks opt to create a micro hide, the odds are very high that they will use a sucky container. While there are exceptions to the rule, they are just that; exceptions. Micro usually equals crappy, around here. It's more about the quality of the container, as opposed to the volume, but since the terms "Micro" and "Crappy" are almost interchangeable, it does come into play. If I discover a crappy film can with a moldy log at the end of a hike, my "experience" has just been sullied somewhat. I would even go so far as to say I would enjoy the "experience" a lot less than if I had found a quality container. As a cache owner, I've discovered that, for the most part, the better the "experience", the longer the logs will be.

Crappy caches tend toward copy/paste acronym logs.

So, yeah. Container size can impact the incoming logs.

I think that geocaching at it's best is a full-package thing. A good location, a quality container, a swag size container for those who like trading swag and trackables, and a CO that takes care of the container and cache listing. You break these things down into it's separate parts and the experience loses part of the quality.

+2

Exercising my right to agree. :lol:

3.2k · January 11, 2012

Most tend. What's the sample for your position?

Not able to parse that first part. As to the second, are you wanting me to sort out all the micros from the current 1 million+ active or just the 3000 or so micros/unknowns I have actually found? Do you want me to post the list of caches?

The latter gets complaints often because the unknown are not labeled properly (generally because the are micros). However a cursory view of the logs on those caches in several states does not find much, if any, complaining about the size.

You will recall I did not make the untrue, yet to be substantiated claim that "You please more people with a swag size cache". Since we have such a low percentage of cachers who actually visit the forums and among those only a small fraction who continue to whine about micros, I think it is a far more safe assumption that mcbroke mcjunk is not as important to majority as the actual find and, to a lesser extent, the experience.

Back to my question you sidestepped; Am I not watching enough logs or do people lie in the logs to avoid confrontation?

7.5k · January 11, 2012

You please more people with a swag size cache.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Because most of the whining complaining I see about micros is in the forums, not the logs, which would appear to support the opposite.

Joe just wants to sign a logbook.

Charles has a few trackables with him and would like to leave one and hopefully take one.

Mary has some handcrafted signature items. She'd like to leave one in every cache she finds.

Brenda's kids love to trade for dollar store toys.

Bob likes to paw through the swag but rarely takes anything.

They all go hunting for the same film canister micro (which happened to be listed as a small so everyone expected some room in the container for at least a couple of geocoin size items). Joe's happy because he gets to sign a logbook. Charles, Mary, Brenda's kids, and Bob are not pleased, they don't consider it a full caching experience because there was no room to for trackables or swag.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Leon R

7.5k · January 11, 2012

It really doesn't make sense to fill a small wooded area with regular caches. One, with the rest being micros, usually suffices. Most cachers are not into trading anymore, and will not write much more in the logbook other than their nickname. If there is a regular size cache with several micros, then that is fine. The swag in the ammo cans degrades quickly unless it is in a place that is very remote and difficult to get to, so why use more than 1 regular cache per mile anyhow?

Sadly I can't argue with that. Kind of like debating why send a hand-written letter.

bd

I think we're still at the stage when the telephone was introduced. I'm sure people then were saying, why send a handwritten letter when you can telephone. If geocaching becomes more like Munzees (electronic - find the barcode you claim your smiley) then I think it can be argued that swag no longer matters.

2k · January 11, 2012

Oh, in case any is wondering. I put micros in the same category as "fun-sized" candy bars.

Smaller is not better.

Unless you're diabetic.

3.2k · January 11, 2012

You please more people with a swag size cache.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Because most of the whining complaining I see about micros is in the forums, not the logs, which would appear to support the opposite.

Joe just wants to sign a logbook.

Charles has a few trackables with him and would like to leave one and hopefully take one.

Mary has some handcrafted signature items. She'd like to leave one in every cache she finds.

Brenda's kids love to trade for dollar store toys.

Bob likes to paw through the swag but rarely takes anything.

They all go hunting for the same film canister micro (which happened to be listed as a small so everyone expected some room in the container for at least a couple of geocoin size items). Joe's happy because he gets to sign a logbook. Charles, Mary, Brenda's kids, and Bob are not pleased, they don't consider it a full caching experience because there was no room to for trackables or swag.

Okay rather than answer the question we want to deal with with hypotheticals.Tthe yarn above is an issue with a CO incorrectly listing the size. This can happen with any size and is more of an exception than the rule. We can't fix stupid.

I can send you 100 caches hidden in parks or wooods without one log that complains a larger size should be there. Can you do the same for you position.

You're just going to have to accept that micro, jsut like any other size, is always an appropriate chice for the hider to use. Any chance you will take a swing at the question that I have asked you at least twice now?

7.5k · January 11, 2012

You please more people with a swag size cache.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Because most of the whining complaining I see about micros is in the forums, not the logs, which would appear to support the opposite.

Joe just wants to sign a logbook.

Charles has a few trackables with him and would like to leave one and hopefully take one.

Mary has some handcrafted signature items. She'd like to leave one in every cache she finds.

Brenda's kids love to trade for dollar store toys.

Bob likes to paw through the swag but rarely takes anything.

They all go hunting for the same film canister micro (which happened to be listed as a small so everyone expected some room in the container for at least a couple of geocoin size items). Joe's happy because he gets to sign a logbook. Charles, Mary, Brenda's kids, and Bob are not pleased, they don't consider it a full caching experience because there was no room to for trackables or swag.

Okay rather than answer the question we want to deal with with hypotheticals.Tthe yarn above is an issue with a CO incorrectly listing the size. This can happen with any size and is more of an exception than the rule. We can't fix stupid.

I can send you 100 caches hidden in parks or wooods without one log that complains a larger size should be there. Can you do the same for you position.

You're just going to have to accept that micro, jsut like any other size, is always an appropriate chice for the hider to use. Any chance you will take a swing at the question that I have asked you at least twice now?

Someone already addressed that. Most people don't say anything in the logs and some come into the forums to vent. I for one do and have provided criticism/advice via the logs. In one case, the next finder chastised my comment in their log. Luckily, the CO took my criticism as feedback and did go back out and replace the leaky micro (that was hidden deep into the thick woods - a 60 meter bushwack) with a water tight swag size cache - I think it was even an ammo can but I'd have to go look it up). And I've had my find deleted by one CO who didn't like my criticism about the wrong terrain rating and the wrong cache size listed (a micro tin pill container listed as a small). So I can see why people refrain from criticism/feedback via the online logs. Doesn't stop me though. It's our only method of getting the message across.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Leon R

9.3k · January 11, 2012

So I can see why people refrain from criticism/feedback via the online logs

Very true. For me, I've reached a point where I simply don't log the crappy ones at all. I call it the Thumper Rule, with the applied principal being, "If you can't say nothin' nice, don't say nuthin' at all". I would rather have my find count be off by several dozen finds than deal with the drama which results from being honest.

The cachers I speak with who do log stinkers tend to fall into two categories:

Some have no problems with any cache, so long as their find count goes up. They are generally content to find anything, no matter how crappy, so long as they get their smiley. Their contentment is expressed in their online log, worded honestly to the effect of "Thanx for the cache". The rest actually have preferences, liking quality containers over crappy ones, liking swag sized caches over micros, etc, but they still want their smiley, and they also want to avoid drama. These folks dissemble, posting a seemingly dishonest log worded to the effect of, "Thanx for the cache".

The rare exception are those, like yourself, who have preferences, and do not fear expressing their preferences in their logs. Kudos!

January 11, 2012

I would shake my head when I would find a micro where a larger container would fit. Now days I just appreciate when a cache owner hides a non-leaky container for me to find, no matter what size. It's the COs choice to hide whatever size container they like. After all it is their cache. Just be happy there's a cache for you to find.

January 12, 2012

I enjoy finding any cache.

Did some caching over the holidays on vacay and found everything from large ammo boxes/pretzel jars to nanos. One of my favs was the pretzel jar because of the challenge getting to the area. My other fav was one of the micros because it was really tough to find, liked the challenge.

22k · January 12, 2012

Most tend. What's the sample for your position?

Not able to parse that first part. As to the second, are you wanting me to sort out all the micros from the current 1 million+ active or just the 3000 or so micros/unknowns I have actually found? Do you want me to post the list of caches?

The latter gets complaints often because the unknown are not labeled properly (generally because the are micros). However a cursory view of the logs on those caches in several states does not find much, if any, complaining about the size.

You will recall I did not make the untrue, yet to be substantiated claim that "You please more people with a swag size cache". Since we have such a low percentage of cachers who actually visit the forums and among those only a small fraction who continue to whine about micros, I think it is a far more safe assumption that mcbroke mcjunk is not as important to majority as the actual find and, to a lesser extent, the experience.

Back to my question you sidestepped; Am I not watching enough logs or do people lie in the logs to avoid confrontation?

Having found that many micros and reading many of your posts I agree that you give a good opinion concerning caches. I was talking about knowing the general consciousness of opinion of every other cacher. It's one thing to find a cache type enjoyable but does that mean your opinion speaks for everyone?

What I see is a common topic answered by a few regulars saying that people need to find the caches they like. You say it's a small faction of complainers.

Edited for clarification

Edited January 12, 2012 by BlueDeuce

3.2k · January 12, 2012

I was talking about knowing the general consciousness of opinion of every other cacher. It's one thing to find a cache type enjoyable but does that mean your opinion speaks for everyone?

Back up there a minute. Originally I asked for evidence from Leon R who claimed that the majority of cachers will be happier with a ammo box gimme type hide. I never claimed to speak for all, just stated the obvious from information available.

While someone looking at things objectively would most likely reach the conclusion that micros are not an issue for most, all I stated was facts. 1. Only a very small percentage of cachers utilize the forums 2. Of that small percentage, only a small percentage whine about micros 3. logs do not indicate what was stated about cachers not liking micros.

I like ammo cans. Heck, we all want a gimme find every once and a while. But I enjoy micros and smalls to and, living in a metropolitan area, many of the cachers I have encountered at events and the like seem to find them more enjoyable.

My issue is when someone states that cachers will enjoy ammos more than something challenging. I would even take issue with the reverse. I don't like pine tree hides and, if you find one of my logs you can tell it is a pine tree because often I will put the line "not my favorite hide style". Like it or not, cachers do tend to hide what they want to find and I am betting you are proof of that.

Edited January 12, 2012 by baloo&bd

January 12, 2012

I enjoy the big caches but only because they are fun to take my kids to. By myself, they're a little too easy. Having said that, I haven't found a big one in a while. My swag is starting to pile up...

3.6k · January 12, 2012

I know one cache that is in a Guard Rail and there is a nice tree on the other side of the road PERFECT for a reg size cache. This is what the OP is trying to get at.

And get this, I drive by it everyday and LAUGH at the CO. :lol:

Edited January 12, 2012 by SwineFlew

January 12, 2012

I know one cache that is in a Guard Rail and there is a nice tree on the other side of the road PERFECT for a reg size cache. This is what the OP is trying to get at.

And get this, I drive by it everyday and LAUGH at the CO.

I understand that but since I didn't place a cache there 1st, I feel I have no right to complain.

Every time I'm looking for spots to hide some rather large ones I created, I find a micro too dang close. I'm just about to the point of offering them my containers if they'd just swap them out.

9.3k · January 13, 2012

1. Only a very small percentage of cachers utilize the forums

Very true. Some day I'd like to find out what the actual percentage is for active players who have never been to these forums, and the percentage of active players who have only been here a few times, for whatever reason. If I had to guess, I'd put the percentage of both very high. Just a smidgen under 100%. For those who might be curious, I must admit I have absolutely no data to support my guess.

2. Of that small percentage, only a small percentage whine about micros

Again, from a strictly numerical standpoint, that is true. But I don't think that this statistic carries as much weight as you might wish. After all, "Micros Suck" (or similar statements worded to that effect), does seem to be the most recurring thread title. The fact that "Micros Suck" is such a recurring theme is at least indicative of a high degree of displeasure over that particular cache size.

3. logs do not indicate what was stated about cachers not liking micros.

I'm not sure that's true. You seem to be operating under the assumption that anyone who does not express their displeasure over the COs choice of containers must be OK with that choice. This assumption doesn't seem to be very well grounded in reality, given the number of folks in here who have stated they will not make negative comments in a found it log. There is also a theory which has been bounced around in here which suggests that a seeker will generally write a longer than normal log (for them), for a cache that they totally loved, and will generally post shorter than normal logs for caches they felt really sucked. Again, I have no data to support such a claim, but that is certainly consistent with my observations.

Locally, those caches which tend to collect the most acronym only logs are micros.

These indicators, combined, are suggestive that many, if not most folks, prefer caches which are a bit larger.

My issue is when someone states that cachers will enjoy ammos more than something challenging.

This suggests that ammo cans are not challenging? I would argue that this is patently false. When I think back over the years to those caches which challenged me the most, physically, mentally and spiritually, the majority were ammo cans. When I think back to those caches which challenged me the least, (P&Gs with the hiding spot identified before I even exit my vehicle), without exception, every single one was a micro.

Like it or not, cachers do tend to hide what they want to find and I am betting you are proof of that.

Some do, that's true. But I'm not sure the numbers are high enough to call it a tendency. I've seen so many folks post in here that they prefer smalls and/or regulars, but they hide micros for numerous reasons, (economics, easier to maintain, easier to hide, require less creativity, less likely to be stolen, etc), that I don't think we can call it a tendency. I've also spoken personally with countless hordes of cachers who have expressed a preference for larger caches, yet hide the smaller ones for the same reasons listed.

I will say that your statement is dead on, for me, and I suspect it is also entirely accurate for many seasoned forum regulars. After all, the "Hide what you like to find" mantra is wonderful advice which is oft stated in here. It's the advice I offer to those folks who feel frustrated by micro-spew, in the hopes that, by hiding a regular, they might act as a catylist to get others to hide regulars. I know I've lost count of the number of cachers who have approached me, saying that one of my hides acted as an inspiration for one of their's.

4.2k · January 14, 2012

what does the container size have to do with the type of log you going to write?

what happened to geocaching being about the experience?

You do know what the word "experience" means, don't you?

Just in case you don't, I'll offer a crash course.

When one is geocaching, part of the "experience" includes a container. Not all containers are created equal. This is especially true when discussing micros, as, (at least locally), when folks opt to create a micro hide, the odds are very high that they will use a sucky container. While there are exceptions to the rule, they are just that; exceptions. Micro usually equals crappy, around here. It's more about the quality of the container, as opposed to the volume, but since the terms "Micro" and "Crappy" are almost interchangeable, it does come into play. If I discover a crappy film can with a moldy log at the end of a hike, my "experience" has just been sullied somewhat. I would even go so far as to say I would enjoy the "experience" a lot less than if I had found a quality container. As a cache owner, I've discovered that, for the most part, the better the "experience", the longer the logs will be.

Crappy caches tend toward copy/paste acronym logs.

So, yeah. Container size can impact the incoming logs.

that is YOUR definition of "experience", it should be apparent from my previous post that its not mine

i don't care for swag and if the container is crappy and soggy it will definitely not influence my "experience"

it will be mentioned in my log after i praise the location and the "experience" of getting there

it all depends what "geocaching" is for you, or each individual

we use it as means of discovering new places or revisiting some nice ones, having and enjoyable hike, the cache is an incentive to get there and does not change the "experience"

January 15, 2012

I'm new to this, but I have to admit, searching for a micro in a park tree line, or out in the country, where you could easily hide a decent sized cache does get a little frustrating. I know I'm a newbie, but it's not much fun not finding a chapstick sized cache in the middle of the woods. For now, I'm just going to filter out micros until I get more experience...just saying.

January 15, 2012

I've just returned from a holiday in Florida where I started caching 4 years ago, ( I live in Canada), one local cacher has 24 micros placed in areas that could easily hide ammo cans, but to make matters worse when you get to GZ and find a container its marked "DECOY", the caches are never at GZ always 7 to 10 meters away. Am I wrong in thinking that the cache should be where it is posted. We eventually gave up this guys caches as they were just frustrating. I appreciate the effort put into "urban hides" but they are just not my style, I usually avoid them. I prefer a 20 minute walk with a 2 minute look, but when you hike through state parks and bushwack through palmettos I expect something bigger than a bison tube.

January 16, 2012

but to make matters worse when you get to GZ and find a container its marked "DECOY", the caches are never at GZ always 7 to 10 meters away. Am I wrong in thinking that the cache should be where it is posted.

Unless the cache is listed as a mystery or maybe a multi then I also feel that the cache should be at the posted coordinates and not 30 feet away from a decoy.

21.9k · January 16, 2012

In response to complaints, I deleted some off-topic posts from this thread. Please keep on topic and, if you wish to debate a fine point with another member of the community, use the private message function to work things out. Thanks!

3.7k · January 16, 2012

I'm new to this, but I have to admit, searching for a micro in a park tree line, or out in the country, where you could easily hide a decent sized cache does get a little frustrating. I know I'm a newbie, but it's not much fun not finding a chapstick sized cache in the middle of the woods. For now, I'm just going to filter out micros until I get more experience...just saying.

We filtered out micros too, when we first started caching. A really good idea.

15.3k · January 16, 2012

Am I wrong in thinking that the cache should be where it is posted.

No, you are not wrong. According to the guidelines:

Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates. You must visit the geocache site and obtain all the coordinates with a GPS device. GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and finding geocaches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions.

And according to the Geocache Types page, "The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page provide the geocache’s exact location."

Of course, more variation is allowed for other cache types. But yes, traditional caches should be at the exact coordinates published in the cache listing.

Micros taking up areas perfect for larger caches

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

Join the conversation