Jump to content

Micro Saturation


Recommended Posts

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death, but there's no one else to vent to, so I am bringing my frustrations here.

 

Micro's irritate me. Yes there have been a few very creative micros that I have found, but in general they seem like they are placed just to place a cache in an empty spot. I know I can just avoid them, but it drives me nuts when I find a new place to explore and more than 50% of the caches are micros (most likely of the unimaginative variety). I also have a notification set up to email me when a new cache is placed. My initial excitement of a new cache is quickly replaced with "awww man, another micro :("

 

I am not looking for a solution to this. As I said, I am just sharing my frustrations.

Link to comment

A crappy cache in a crappy place is the same big or small.

 

That's true. The crappy cache in a good place is often what irks me more. And more often than not, that crappy cache is a micro. (To me anyways)

 

So how is a LnL or ammo can just sitting at the base of a tree better than a bison tube? It can fit swag and trackables? That also means it can be full of water, and junk...That cache you mentioned is not a crappy cache because it's small, it's a crappy cache because there was no thought put into it-I've seen some cool caches that where micro's, and some boring caches that where big.

Link to comment

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death, but there's no one else to vent to, so I am bringing my frustrations here.

 

Micro's irritate me. Yes there have been a few very creative micros that I have found, but in general they seem like they are placed just to place a cache in an empty spot. I know I can just avoid them, but it drives me nuts when I find a new place to explore and more than 50% of the caches are micros (most likely of the unimaginative variety). I also have a notification set up to email me when a new cache is placed. My initial excitement of a new cache is quickly replaced with "awww man, another micro :("

 

I am not looking for a solution to this. As I said, I am just sharing my frustrations.

 

Yes, it is frustrating. There was a ray of sunshine when the Favorite Votes were introduced. If you want to see some better quality micros go for micros with 5 FPs or more. But one caveat, after awhile you'll see the same old same old. The bison tube in/on a dollar store plastic animal (rat, spider, butterfly, bird, etc), the hollow bolt, the centrifuge tube in a golf ball, a little piece of paper shoved into the keyhole area of a lock. All of these examples will often get over 40% fav votes.

 

What's especially frustrating is when whole trails are taken up with leaky pill bottle after pill bottle. Where's the incentive to go for a walk on that trail? Especially if you are not a numbers cacher.

 

At least with a swag size cache the contents change all the time. It's part of the fun of opening a cache - is it going to be a dud or a container with some fun stuff to paw through? And occasionally you find something cool like a signature item, an impressive geocoin, a cute travelbug, or someone's handmade swag. And you can leave something that you want to share with people. That's some of the many reasons I prefer a swag size cache. And it's not that people need to hide a large cache. Even a 3" round water tight cache at least has room for small trackables and trade items. Swag size adds to the fun.

Link to comment

A crappy cache in a crappy place is the same big or small.

 

That's true. The crappy cache in a good place is often what irks me more. And more often than not, that crappy cache is a micro. (To me anyways)

 

So how is a LnL or ammo can just sitting at the base of a tree better than a bison tube? It can fit swag and trackables? That also means it can be full of water, and junk...That cache you mentioned is not a crappy cache because it's small, it's a crappy cache because there was no thought put into it-I've seen some cool caches that where micro's, and some boring caches that where big.

 

Yes, but a crappy micro is easier to place, therefore there are more of them. I am not disputing that there are crappy caches of all sizes, just saying that most caches that are being placed in my area are micros. I don't bother with them unless they have a few favourite points, or if I am in the area.

Link to comment

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death, but there's no one else to vent to, so I am bringing my frustrations here.

 

Micro's irritate me. Yes there have been a few very creative micros that I have found, but in general they seem like they are placed just to place a cache in an empty spot. I know I can just avoid them, but it drives me nuts when I find a new place to explore and more than 50% of the caches are micros (most likely of the unimaginative variety). I also have a notification set up to email me when a new cache is placed. My initial excitement of a new cache is quickly replaced with "awww man, another micro :("

 

I am not looking for a solution to this. As I said, I am just sharing my frustrations.

I totally agree with you. Back when I started micros were the exception and ammo cans were the norm. Micros were placed where ammo cans would not work.Very few of the most recent caches I have found have not been worthy of finding.

Link to comment

I always wondered why Micros were the whipping boy of cache types.

 

I think that it is not the cache size, but rather that certain people may believe there are just too many caches. When they look around at the caches they feel are extraneous, they are likely to see that the majority of these are micros. In many case they may even feel that the smaller sizes have made it easier to place these extraneous caches.

 

Clearly, as the game has become more urban, there have been more urban hides and these tend to be micro as larger containers will quickly go missing in these environments. I suspect that most cachers who complaing about micros, actually are quite happy to have urban micros to find - so long as these are in someplace they consider worthy. If you don't care to find geocaches in parking lots, alleys, or on street signs in residential neighborhoods, you might end up saying there are too many micros when you realy mean there ate too many caches in places you find unworthy.

 

But micros have appeared in not so urban areas, usually in some form that some people will view as cache overload. Power trails are opposed by some people who simply can't understand why anyone would be enjoy such a repetitive caching experience. Not suprisingly, given the cost of containers, power trails are made using micros that are inexpensive or free. Additionally, we have people who leave caches when they go to find the older, larger, hiking caches. I'm not sure what started this, but some people seem to feel the more caches on a trail the better and are quite happy to leave an inexpensive micro in every gap of 528 feet or more. At one time there was no such "need" to fill in gaps. If you added to an existing trail, perhaps you added one or two cache. Nowadays we see a trail with a few caches get filled in after few months and we even see people who will populate a new trail with micros every 528 feet.

 

I used to post :mmraspberry: in response to anti-micro threads, as cache size is a matter of taste. Even whether you prefer parks to parking lots is a personnal preference.

 

I suppose liking numbers (more caches) vs. prefering fewer caches and counting the overall experience as more important that number of smileys is a matter of taste as well. However, I see the numbers hiders and the use of cheap repurposed containers as having created the concept of the generic cache. My main complaint about throwdowns is that they are basically saying "here's a generic replacement for your generic cache". Anyone who feels they made a effort to select a container to hide or to place the cache in a particular hiding spot, is being told they could have just put a pill bottle under some rocks and had the same cache. I don't know a good way to tell the generic cache from a non-generic one. Perhaps looking for the generic "TFTC" in the logs is one way. It isn't going to make those with a preference for the generic go away. So like the Cadillac commericial where the guy tosses the vanilla ice cream cone in the wastebasket, we come full circle to :mmraspberry:

Link to comment

Hey, tozainamboku, that was a good post.

 

I took a look at the OP's area, which I do recommend to anyone replying to this thread. The micro saturation in that area is unusually high for the population density. That's normally the degree I find in big cities. If I had travel bugs with me in this area, I would be quite frustrated, trying to place them.

 

I don't have a problem,per se, with micros, especially when they're creatively hidden. I find that the opportunities for creative hiding are much greater with micros than with larger caches. However, like tozainamboku said, the typical micro is usually a cheap repurposed container in some random place. My biggest problem with the smaller cache sizes is the disparity in their frequency of occurance. Even in areas where the most common micros, thanks to the efforts of the local hiders, are generally creative, the overabundance of micros gets tiresome. Yes, the biggest caches do disappear more quickly than the micros, which is why it takes a conscious effort as a hider to decide on the most appropriate size for a given location.

 

Numbers cachers will ultimately overrun the cachers who aim for quality, as a hundred bad caches can be cranked out in the time it takes to come up with one really good cache. Micros will ultimately overrun the regulars, because they're so much easier to make, hide, maintain and stock. The people who are most likely to have their preferred type overrun are more likely to get frustrated as finders, because the others are happy at finding either type.

Edited by nonaeroterraqueous
Link to comment

The people who are most likely to have their preferred type overrun are more likely to get frustrated as finders, because the others are happy at finding either type.

There really isn't a reason to be frustrated (particularly for premium members). If you prefer larger caches just filter out micros. If you still like micros if they are clever or in a great location, use favorite points to find micros that you are more likely to enjoy. It seems silly to complain about too many caches, even if the the problem is that too many caches are generic. There are ways to increase the number of non-generic caches you search for and reduce the number of generic ones.

 

Off topic:

 

My guess is that GM wants you to think that Lexus and Audi are generic luxury cars, so you will buy theirs. That seems funny to someone who is old enough to remember when Cadillac was the generic luxury car. But then TahoeJoe remembers when the ammo can or large tupperware was the generic geocache.

Link to comment

I always wondered why Micros were the whipping boy of cache types.

 

I think that it is not the cache size, but rather that certain people may believe there are just too many caches. When they look around at the caches they feel are extraneous, they are likely to see that the majority of these are micros. In many case they may even feel that the smaller sizes have made it easier to place these extraneous caches.

 

I disagree.

 

My experience has been that those who dislike micros most are parents who want to cache with their children. Kids don't get excited about finding a film canister with a soggy log in the forest, but they love opening an ammo can full of goodies.

Link to comment

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death, but there's no one else to vent to, so I am bringing my frustrations here.

 

Micro's irritate me. Yes there have been a few very creative micros that I have found, but in general they seem like they are placed just to place a cache in an empty spot. I know I can just avoid them, but it drives me nuts when I find a new place to explore and more than 50% of the caches are micros (most likely of the unimaginative variety). I also have a notification set up to email me when a new cache is placed. My initial excitement of a new cache is quickly replaced with "awww man, another micro :("

 

I am not looking for a solution to this. As I said, I am just sharing my frustrations.

 

Micros still beat the new cache where the first line of the text says "this cache is a nano".

Link to comment

Ah. Hmm... I have a lot of hides that are Lock and Locks or ammo cans in the woods. Suburban and rural areas. I also have a lot of caches hidden in a very urban area. Those are almost entirely micros. Guess which ones get more finds? (Hopefully, my urban caches show you interesting areas that would not support anything larger...)

Meh. For people who like hikes in the woods: There they are! For those who like urban micros: Got them too!

What I dislike is the increasing number of rural micros. Hike a mile along the trail through the woods, and find five bison tubes, where a Lock and Lock would be as easy to hide.

I do have caches in five of the six most densely populated municipalities in the EE.UU.

If you don't like micros, don't do urban hides.

Link to comment

I might be old school, but I have always enjoyed the ammo can. In urban settings, I understand the use of micros, but in the middle of the forest a micro is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Several of my caches I have placed (ammo cans) are going on 12 years now and they are as good as the day I placed them. This includes being buried under several feet of snow all winter. To each his own though. :)

Link to comment

It seems silly to complain about too many caches, even if the the problem is that too many caches are generic. There are ways to increase the number of non-generic caches you search for and reduce the number of generic ones.

 

I'll give you credit for finding a way to say that without mentioning the supposed condition of my knickers, but the fact is that I'm not premium, and when I was I never had much use for the pocket query (though I'll grant you that the original poster is, in fact, premium). As far as I know, there's no way to filter out non-POI (point of interest) caches, no way to filter out power trails and no way to differentiate between clever micros and simple nanos. Also, regarding the problem of too many caches, when your isolated cache on a trail suddenly becomes just another cache in someone's power trail, there's no way to filter out the generic logs (which make me think, "dang, why did I waste time and money putting that thing out there?").

 

When it really comes down to it, I think I'm closer to ignoring all caches. It's much easier, and it lets me hike my favorite trails, drive straight to my destination without stopping repeatedly and spares me from an increased risk of snake bites and ticks. You're right. There's no such thing as too many geocaches. Have fun. I don't think I care anymore.

Link to comment

Not to pick on you, but you only hid one, at least be grateful that others are hiding, no matter what kind they are. If you don't like them, filter them out. Others may like them and will keep them in. That;s what makes the game interesting. One of the few "games" you can play any way you like. Just my 2 cents, again, I'm not being a wise guy...

Link to comment

 

When it really comes down to it, I think I'm closer to ignoring all caches. It's much easier, and it lets me hike my favorite trails, drive straight to my destination without stopping repeatedly and spares me from an increased risk of snake bites and ticks. You're right. There's no such thing as too many geocaches. Have fun. I don't think I care anymore.

 

Judge 1: 1

Judge 2: 2

Judge 3: 1

Judge 4: 2

Judge 5: 2

 

Geocide score: 1.67

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment
...regarding the problem of too many caches, when your isolated cache on a trail suddenly becomes just another cache in someone's power trail, there's no way to filter out the generic logs (which make me think, "dang, why did I waste time and money putting that thing out there?").

+1

We archived a mystery series when the bike run became a power trail, with our hides a simple battleship.

We don't ignore all caches, but we have no problem skipping by the "put here 'cause I was on my way..." hides, to the original one that was placed to show the view, waterfall or historic spot.

When it really comes down to it, I think I'm closer to ignoring all caches. It's much easier, and it lets me hike my favorite trails, drive straight to my destination without stopping repeatedly and spares me from an increased risk of snake bites and ticks.

:)

Hiked, rock and tree climbed way before there was such a thing as geocaching.

We still enjoy the outdoors. If there's a (to us) decent hide along the way...cool.

Edited by cerberus1
Link to comment
...regarding the problem of too many caches, when your isolated cache on a trail suddenly becomes just another cache in someone's power trail, there's no way to filter out the generic logs (which make me think, "dang, why did I waste time and money putting that thing out there?").

+1

We archived a mystery series when the bike run became a power trail, with our hides a simple battleship.

We don't ignore all caches, but we have no problem skipping by the "put here 'cause I was on my way..." hides, to the original one that was placed to show the view, waterfall or historic spot.

When it really comes down to it, I think I'm closer to ignoring all caches. It's much easier, and it lets me hike my favorite trails, drive straight to my destination without stopping repeatedly and spares me from an increased risk of snake bites and ticks.

:)

Hiked, rock and tree climbed way before there was such a thing as geocaching.

We still enjoy the outdoors. If there's a (to us) decent hide along the way...cool.

 

The arm of the power trail stretches far. A cache of ours, about a kilometer away from a power trail, consistently got logs thanking the owner of the powertrail for my hide. And our cache hide was significantly different then the PT hides - mine is a cemetery hide, the PT is a rail-to-trail hydro-towers hide.

 

One of the things that has changed about geocaching, it used to be you could geocache to discover nice places and expect to have a decent swag-size cache experience. Now you find a nice spot first then check to see if there's a cache nearby that would be worth the effort to hunt.

Link to comment
I suspect that most cachers who complaing about micros, actually are quite happy to have urban micros to find - so long as these are in someplace they consider worthy. If you don't care to find geocaches in parking lots, alleys, or on street signs in residential neighborhoods, you might end up saying there are too many micros when you realy mean there ate too many caches in places you find unworthy.

Bingo!

 

It's not the cache size that bothers me, it is the placement. In fact, two of the three micros I hid this past weekend were micros. They were in locations I felt were "cache worthy" but where I expect a larger container would not last. The third location is one where I felt a Small would survive so that's what I hid there.

Link to comment

What I dislike is the increasing number of rural micros. Hike a mile along the trail through the woods, and find five bison tubes, where a Lock and Lock would be as easy to hide.

Normally I agree. This last winter we had a lot more snow than normal and for the first time in my caching career I was really happy to have some rural/hiking micros to find because it saved me 20 minutes of pushing around snow looking for a LnL.

Link to comment

If ignoring all caches isn't quitting, I don't know what is. :unsure:

 

I don't know. I just came in from working on my next cache placement to be accused of quitting. I found that ironic. Yet, if you think I've been actively caching, then I would wonder what you'd think of me finding my first cache in 2014 as late as June. The truth is that I have been generally ignoring all caches, with a few finds here and there just to say I did, but these past couple of years have been my most enjoyable in terms of geocaching.

Link to comment
When it really comes down to it, I think I'm closer to ignoring all caches. It's much easier, and it lets me hike my favorite trails, drive straight to my destination without stopping repeatedly and spares me from an increased risk of snake bites and ticks. You're right. There's no such thing as too many geocaches. Have fun. I don't think I care anymore.

 

Pretty much my thoughts, caches may serve as a handy pointer to places that might be interesting and a trail of caches might indicate a trail worth hiking. But I can hike the trail without stopping to find endless film pots along the way.

Link to comment

Not to pick on you, but you only hid one, at least be grateful that others are hiding, no matter what kind they are. If you don't like them, filter them out. Others may like them and will keep them in. That;s what makes the game interesting. One of the few "games" you can play any way you like. Just my 2 cents, again, I'm not being a wise guy...

 

While the "you can play any you like" meme has become popular and sounds good in theory, in practice, it's rather meaningless unless the state of the game is such that one can derive an equal amount of enjoyment, no matter how one plays the game.

 

The fact is, over the past several years, caching for the numbers, and the placement of caches which cater to those that want high find counts has become a significant trend. The point that nonaeroterraqueous makes over in Roman's "Win a free premium membership" thread is that "caching for the numbers" and "caching based on finding caches at point of interest" do not peacefully coexist. If how you (the generic you) like to play is to find as many caches as possible, then you have little to complain about because that is the trend geocaching has taken. However, if you (again, the generic you) prefer to find caches created at a specific point of interest (other than it is more than 528' from the nearest physical cache) then you may find that the game is less and less enjoyable. As nonaeroterraqueous writes in that other thread, "POI caches do not interfere with power trails, because the trail can always be laid right on top of existing caches and assimilate them against their owners' wish. The POI cachers cannot pluck a wasted point of interest out of a power trail."

 

You write that, "If you don't like them, filter them out." That's something that a numbers cacher doesn't have to do, but is becoming more and more burdensome for the POI cacher. Despite many requests, we still don't have an attribute for power trails, and even if we did that still doesn't prevent POI cachers from getting dozens if not hundreds of email notifications every time a series of caches, which they have no interest in finding, is published. We've heard examples of caches getting assimilated into a new power trail getting the same cut-n-paste logs thanking the *power trail" owner rather than the owner of the cache that pre-existed the power trail. I don't know how many times I've seen someone justify writing terse and/or cut-n-paste logs because they found so many caches that it would take too long to write a unique log, and although there are other factors, I think that caching for the numbers had led to the general degradation of online logs in general.

 

The fact is, those that play the POI cache game have very little, if any negative impact on those that play the numbers game, but the inverse is absolutely not the case, and it's only getting worse. I found out the other day that I might be going to Guanzhou, China for business in September, so of course I checked out flight options to see if I might have a layover in a country I had not yet cached. I discovered that one of the options would provide a long layover in Seoul, South Korea so I looked at the caching opportunities. Here's a portion of the map:

 

seoul.jpg

 

Looking at the map I see many strings of cache placements and a park totally saturated with several series of caches. If I turn that into a PQ query to "filter out what I don't like" (e.g. excluding micros, "other" cache sizes) it reduces it from 1000 caches to 700. The area totally caters to the numbers cacher and makes it difficult for those that want to find POI caches. The thing is, that map is hardly unique. Look at almost any mid to major city in the U.S. and Europe and you see the same thing.

Link to comment

snip....When it really comes down to it, I think I'm closer to ignoring all caches. It's much easier,.....snip

 

This is close to what we're doing these days. Used to be that we'd run regular PQ's of our local area and PQ's of areas where we were headed on vacation. Then we'd just hit "find closest" on the ol' Garmin and head off for a fun (to us) day that would usually include a variety of caches, including some micros. Well, these days we could spend all day and end up chasing "soggy film pots" (to quote a PP).

 

Now we just look at new cache notifications for local hides and very rarely do we go after one of them. As for out-of-town trips, I do an on-line search near the zip code, search by fave points and start looking at individual caches. If I think we'll like it, I bookmark it. I continue until I'm tired of looking at pages. Then I run a PQ just over my bookmark list. After the trip, I log the caches, and delete the bookmark. A lot more work involved than there used to be in order to cache like *WE* like to do and I know we probably miss some good caches that way.

 

The effect of all this effort is that we do a lot less caching than we used to do and we have longer dry spells. Who knows, eventually we may just fizzle out.

 

Mrs. Car54

 

P.S. Note that this is not a geocide, either. :laughing:

Link to comment

You write that, "If you don't like them, filter them out." That's something that a numbers cacher doesn't have to do, but is becoming more and more burdensome for the POI cacher.

:signalviolin:

 

Sure, I understand that had you looked at the map of Seoul and seen only 10 caches, you would have been able to read the descriptions and logs on all 10 and picked out one or two to find during your layover. When there are several hundred caches, it would be too burdensome to to read through all of them to make a selection. But you still have tools to make it likely you can enjoy a few caches during your layover. You can sort by favorite points, you can eliminate micros, you can look in a tourist guide to find places you might want to visit and then check if there are any caches nearby. Sure, there could be additional attributes and tools to help filter caches and make it easier find ones that highlight a point of interest. But I doubt that is that hard to find a few caches in Seoul that would take you to a point of interest.

 

I went to the market the other day to buy pistachio ice cream. The market had 5 freezer sections of just vanilla ice cream; they had several more with chocolate; they had a section with nothing ice cream noveleties. The had surgar-free, low fat, frozen yogurt, and gelato. I found around a few containers of some less popular flavors scattered around. Going from section to section, I began to doubt that I would find the pistachio. The I spotted something green; it was mint chocolate chip. I gave up and went home hungry. :mmraspberry:

Link to comment

You write that, "If you don't like them, filter them out." That's something that a numbers cacher doesn't have to do, but is becoming more and more burdensome for the POI cacher.

:signalviolin:

 

Sure, I understand that had you looked at the map of Seoul and seen only 10 caches, you would have been able to read the descriptions and logs on all 10 and picked out one or two to find during your layover. When there are several hundred caches, it would be too burdensome to to read through all of them to make a selection. But you still have tools to make it likely you can enjoy a few caches during your layover. You can sort by favorite points, you can eliminate micros, you can look in a tourist guide to find places you might want to visit and then check if there are any caches nearby. Sure, there could be additional attributes and tools to help filter caches and make it easier find ones that highlight a point of interest. But I doubt that is that hard to find a few caches in Seoul that would take you to a point of interest.

 

The map of Seoul really has nothing to do with a layover, or even geocaching while traveling. The fact that it's in Seoul is irrelevant. The fact that it's not atypical exemplifies that the trend of the game caters to those that are indiscriminate about the types of caches they find as long as they can find as many as possible. It illustrates the absurdity of statements like "we an all play in our own way" and "how others play the game doesn't effect anyone else", as if the different ways one might choose to play the game are all equal.

 

 

I went to the market the other day to buy pistachio ice cream. The market had 5 freezer sections of just vanilla ice cream; they had several more with chocolate; they had a section with nothing ice cream noveleties. The had surgar-free, low fat, frozen yogurt, and gelato. I found around a few containers of some less popular flavors scattered around. Going from section to section, I began to doubt that I would find the pistachio. The I spotted something green; it was mint chocolate chip. I gave up and went home hungry. :mmraspberry:

 

And that's exactly what's happening. Those that having a more difficult time finding they're favorite kind of ice cream are going hungry and some are choosing to stop eating ice cream entirely.

Link to comment

You write that, "If you don't like them, filter them out." That's something that a numbers cacher doesn't have to do, but is becoming more and more burdensome for the POI cacher.

:signalviolin:

 

Sure, I understand that had you looked at the map of Seoul and seen only 10 caches, you would have been able to read the descriptions and logs on all 10 and picked out one or two to find during your layover. When there are several hundred caches, it would be too burdensome to to read through all of them to make a selection. But you still have tools to make it likely you can enjoy a few caches during your layover. You can sort by favorite points, you can eliminate micros, you can look in a tourist guide to find places you might want to visit and then check if there are any caches nearby. Sure, there could be additional attributes and tools to help filter caches and make it easier find ones that highlight a point of interest. But I doubt that is that hard to find a few caches in Seoul that would take you to a point of interest.

 

The map of Seoul really has nothing to do with a layover, or even geocaching while traveling. The fact that it's in Seoul is irrelevant. The fact that it's not atypical exemplifies that the trend of the game caters to those that are indiscriminate about the types of caches they find as long as they can find as many as possible. It illustrates the absurdity of statements like "we an all play in our own way" and "how others play the game doesn't effect anyone else", as if the different ways one might choose to play the game are all equal.

 

 

I went to the market the other day to buy pistachio ice cream. The market had 5 freezer sections of just vanilla ice cream; they had several more with chocolate; they had a section with nothing ice cream noveleties. The had surgar-free, low fat, frozen yogurt, and gelato. I found around a few containers of some less popular flavors scattered around. Going from section to section, I began to doubt that I would find the pistachio. The I spotted something green; it was mint chocolate chip. I gave up and went home hungry. :mmraspberry:

 

And that's exactly what's happening. Those that having a more difficult time finding they're favorite kind of ice cream are going hungry and some are choosing to stop eating ice cream entirely.

That's their choice. Most people either try another store or would buy their second choice instead of pistachio. Most would not blame the vanilla for having to do so.
Link to comment

And that's exactly what's happening. Those that having a more difficult time finding they're favorite kind of ice cream are going hungry and some are choosing to stop eating ice cream entirely.

That's their choice. Most people either try another store or would buy their second choice instead of pistachio. Most would not blame the vanilla for having to do so.

I'm thinking there was one carton of pistachio, but it's buried on the bottom shelf between two non-descript cartons of vanilla and he missed it. It's because of all the boring vanilla ice cream that it's harder to find the pistachios.

 

Me, I like all kinds of ice cream. Any day with any ice cream is better than no ice cream at all.

Link to comment

Not to pick on you, but you only hid one, at least be grateful that others are hiding, no matter what kind they are. If you don't like them, filter them out. Others may like them and will keep them in. That;s what makes the game interesting. One of the few "games" you can play any way you like. Just my 2 cents, again, I'm not being a wise guy...

 

While the "you can play any you like" meme has become popular and sounds good in theory, in practice, it's rather meaningless unless the state of the game is such that one can derive an equal amount of enjoyment, no matter how one plays the game.

 

The fact is, over the past several years, caching for the numbers, and the placement of caches which cater to those that want high find counts has become a significant trend. The point that nonaeroterraqueous makes over in Roman's "Win a free premium membership" thread is that "caching for the numbers" and "caching based on finding caches at point of interest" do not peacefully coexist. If how you (the generic you) like to play is to find as many caches as possible, then you have little to complain about because that is the trend geocaching has taken. However, if you (again, the generic you) prefer to find caches created at a specific point of interest (other than it is more than 528' from the nearest physical cache) then you may find that the game is less and less enjoyable. As nonaeroterraqueous writes in that other thread, "POI caches do not interfere with power trails, because the trail can always be laid right on top of existing caches and assimilate them against their owners' wish. The POI cachers cannot pluck a wasted point of interest out of a power trail."

 

You write that, "If you don't like them, filter them out." That's something that a numbers cacher doesn't have to do, but is becoming more and more burdensome for the POI cacher. Despite many requests, we still don't have an attribute for power trails, and even if we did that still doesn't prevent POI cachers from getting dozens if not hundreds of email notifications every time a series of caches, which they have no interest in finding, is published. We've heard examples of caches getting assimilated into a new power trail getting the same cut-n-paste logs thanking the *power trail" owner rather than the owner of the cache that pre-existed the power trail. I don't know how many times I've seen someone justify writing terse and/or cut-n-paste logs because they found so many caches that it would take too long to write a unique log, and although there are other factors, I think that caching for the numbers had led to the general degradation of online logs in general.

 

The fact is, those that play the POI cache game have very little, if any negative impact on those that play the numbers game, but the inverse is absolutely not the case, and it's only getting worse. I found out the other day that I might be going to Guanzhou, China for business in September, so of course I checked out flight options to see if I might have a layover in a country I had not yet cached. I discovered that one of the options would provide a long layover in Seoul, South Korea so I looked at the caching opportunities. Here's a portion of the map:

 

seoul.jpg

 

Looking at the map I see many strings of cache placements and a park totally saturated with several series of caches. If I turn that into a PQ query to "filter out what I don't like" (e.g. excluding micros, "other" cache sizes) it reduces it from 1000 caches to 700. The area totally caters to the numbers cacher and makes it difficult for those that want to find POI caches. The thing is, that map is hardly unique. Look at almost any mid to major city in the U.S. and Europe and you see the same thing.

 

I enjoy all types of caching, I do long hikes and bike rides, I do power trails and I've travelled through out the States a lot. Recently I took 2 weeks, spent the first part driving through the lower States visiting cool caches on the way. I then met friends in Vegas and we hit a power trail.

 

In all my hikes, trips and PT I have never had a problem filtering out the caches I wanted to find in each instance, it's not that hard.

 

I will agree though that we could use a PT attribute to make it even easier.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

And that's exactly what's happening. Those that having a more difficult time finding they're favorite kind of ice cream are going hungry and some are choosing to stop eating ice cream entirely.

That's their choice. Most people either try another store or would buy their second choice instead of pistachio. Most would not blame the vanilla for having to do so.

I'm thinking there was one carton of pistachio, but it's buried on the bottom shelf between two non-descript cartons of vanilla and he missed it. It's because of all the boring vanilla ice cream that it's harder to find the pistachios.

 

Me, I like all kinds of ice cream. Any day with any ice cream is better than no ice cream at all.

 

When you do find that carton of pistachio, don't forget to thank the maker of the vanilla ice cream for putting it in there!

Link to comment

And that's exactly what's happening. Those that having a more difficult time finding they're favorite kind of ice cream are going hungry and some are choosing to stop eating ice cream entirely.

That's their choice. Most people either try another store or would buy their second choice instead of pistachio. Most would not blame the vanilla for having to do so.

I'm thinking there was one carton of pistachio, but it's buried on the bottom shelf between two non-descript cartons of vanilla and he missed it. It's because of all the boring vanilla ice cream that it's harder to find the pistachios.

 

Me, I like all kinds of ice cream. Any day with any ice cream is better than no ice cream at all.

 

When you do find that carton of pistachio, don't forget to thank the maker of the vanilla ice cream for putting it in there!

...and also thank them because it's because all of the vanillas are so boring that makes the pistachio that much more special.

Link to comment
When you do find that carton of pistachio, don't forget to thank the maker of the vanilla ice cream for putting it in there!
Somehow, I have this image in my head of someone going into a premium ice cream shop and trying to pay with a buy-one-get-one coupon for the local supermarket chain's house brand.
Link to comment

I was just in Italy where the pistachio ice cream was grey so harder to spot and looked somewhat unappealing. I guess that is why it is green in many places... but I digress...

 

I think there are at least 2 issues here. One is the quality of caches in general, the big increase in numbers, etc. And for that size isn't really so relevant. Other than large trails do tend to have smaller caches due to cost. An owner is unlikely to hide 1000 ammo cans along a mega power trail. But the issue with the power trail (for those who don't like it) is more about the trail itself than the containers.

 

However - all being equal, I do prefer larger containers. Especially in the woods. I'm not a fan of "needle in a haystack" searches... and looking for a micro out in the woods (especially with no hint and tree cover causing issues with accuracy of coordinates) isn't fun for me. A larger container can still be well hidden, but at least I can narrow it down somewhat to "where could a container that size be?". So I would much prefer to find a lock and lock or ammo can at the base of a tree then a micro bison (or worse a nano) at the base of a tree. I also do like to move trackables, and I think swag trading is good fun for kids.

 

But a clever micro can be fun. Just don't put it in the woods....

 

So my rule of thumb is: If you are hiding an ordinary container; hide a decent sized one if the location can support it. If you are hiding a "clever" container, then do what works best regardless of size.

Link to comment

You write that, "If you don't like them, filter them out." That's something that a numbers cacher doesn't have to do, but is becoming more and more burdensome for the POI cacher.

:signalviolin:

 

Sure, I understand that had you looked at the map of Seoul and seen only 10 caches, you would have been able to read the descriptions and logs on all 10 and picked out one or two to find during your layover. When there are several hundred caches, it would be too burdensome to to read through all of them to make a selection. But you still have tools to make it likely you can enjoy a few caches during your layover. You can sort by favorite points, you can eliminate micros, you can look in a tourist guide to find places you might want to visit and then check if there are any caches nearby. Sure, there could be additional attributes and tools to help filter caches and make it easier find ones that highlight a point of interest. But I doubt that is that hard to find a few caches in Seoul that would take you to a point of interest.

 

The map of Seoul really has nothing to do with a layover, or even geocaching while traveling. The fact that it's in Seoul is irrelevant. The fact that it's not atypical exemplifies that the trend of the game caters to those that are indiscriminate about the types of caches they find as long as they can find as many as possible. It illustrates the absurdity of statements like "we an all play in our own way" and "how others play the game doesn't effect anyone else", as if the different ways one might choose to play the game are all equal.

 

 

I went to the market the other day to buy pistachio ice cream. The market had 5 freezer sections of just vanilla ice cream; they had several more with chocolate; they had a section with nothing ice cream noveleties. The had surgar-free, low fat, frozen yogurt, and gelato. I found around a few containers of some less popular flavors scattered around. Going from section to section, I began to doubt that I would find the pistachio. The I spotted something green; it was mint chocolate chip. I gave up and went home hungry. :mmraspberry:

 

And that's exactly what's happening. Those that having a more difficult time finding they're favorite kind of ice cream are going hungry and some are choosing to stop eating ice cream entirely.

That's their choice. Most people either try another store or would buy their second choice instead of pistachio. Most would not blame the vanilla for having to do so.

 

So what's the second choice for POI cachers who really have no interest in finding endless film pots behind posts?

 

Of course in an urban area it doesn't work to just filter out micros because you'd end up with practically nothing, and usually a micro is all that can be hidden because anything bigger will get muggled. An individual micro might even involve a point of interest in a way that 85 micros over the course of 10 miles almost certainly won't.

Link to comment

 

So what's the second choice for POI cachers who really have no interest in finding endless film pots behind posts?

 

 

You probably already do all of this.. but this is what I do...

 

In General:

 

- Use the map to identify interesting looking locations. E.g. seeing a cache or caches on a footpath showing elevation gains, forests, views etc. (Mainly for non-urban).

 

- Look at caches with high number/percentage of Favorite Points.

 

- Look at puzzle and multis (Wherigos too). There are less of these, and in general I find them to be "higher quality".

 

Additionally for my local area:

 

- I am already pretty familiar with the caches in the immediate area from repeatedly looking at the map, reading logs, etc. As new caches come in and I get notifications I'll look at those and make a note if they look interesting or not. This will include considering the cache owner (if I know they typically hide caches I like or not) as well as the location.

 

When travelling:

 

- While location is always important to me, when travelling it is even more so. I like to combine caching with sites I would want to see anyway. If the cache is near somewhere I want to visit then I'm happy even if the cache itself is on a signpost.

 

- I also look to Favorite Points to try not to miss something which looks really special.

Link to comment

 

So what's the second choice for POI cachers who really have no interest in finding endless film pots behind posts?

 

 

You probably already do all of this.. but this is what I do...

 

In General:

 

- Use the map to identify interesting looking locations. E.g. seeing a cache or caches on a footpath showing elevation gains, forests, views etc. (Mainly for non-urban).

 

- Look at caches with high number/percentage of Favorite Points.

 

- Look at puzzle and multis (Wherigos too). There are less of these, and in general I find them to be "higher quality".

 

Puzzles and multis can be interesting, as long as the owner has put a bit of effort into the page to give an idea of what's likely to be involved. Some owners provide a lot of detail, others less so. There used to be two Wherigo caches within 10 miles of where I live, and I solved (and enjoyed) them both. I think the next nearest one is far enough afield that I'm unlikely to make a special trip out there.

 

Living in an urban area the vast majority of what's nearby is either a micro or part of a trail. There are a few larger caches but again I've found most of them that are within comfortable striking distance of home. I'm less inclined to travel any great distance for a cache unless I'm headed that way anyway, largely because I've found enough caches that turned out to be soggy film pots or badly maintained takeaway containers that I'm not likely to rush to spend money on fuel or train tickets to find another one.

 

Favourite points could be a good indicator but the percentage doesn't say much simply because so many of the older caches (i.e. before the craze for endless film pots) have lots of finds and few favourite points because most of the finds were before favourite points were available. It also means looking through ever-more trash to find the treasure.

 

Additionally for my local area:

 

- I am already pretty familiar with the caches in the immediate area from repeatedly looking at the map, reading logs, etc. As new caches come in and I get notifications I'll look at those and make a note if they look interesting or not. This will include considering the cache owner (if I know they typically hide caches I like or not) as well as the location.

 

Most of the time when a notification comes in I look at the cache, realise it's another micro/nano and close the page.

 

When travelling:

 

- While location is always important to me, when travelling it is even more so. I like to combine caching with sites I would want to see anyway. If the cache is near somewhere I want to visit then I'm happy even if the cache itself is on a signpost.

 

- I also look to Favorite Points to try not to miss something which looks really special.

 

For me if I'm travelling I'd like to know of interesting places, and if I find a cool spot then I don't care if the cache is a film pot. Truth be told if caching takes me to a cool spot I don't care if I don't even find the cache - one of the ways I'd define a "good cache" is when I leave the area having not found the cache but glad I went. One cache I found took me eight attempts and even though it's long-since archived I still visit the spot whenever I'm in the area, just because I liked it so much.

 

If I'm travelling I'm more conscious of the value of my limited time there, so have less inclination to hunt a cache that isn't there any more or that turns out to be a soggy micro hidden among the rocks that leaves me wondering whether it's just rainwater that made it damp. I've often found virtuals and earthcaches work best for finding the cool places, there just aren't very many of those around. Last time I ran a "virtual and earthcaches" pocket query around one place I visit fairly often the 1000 caches returned covered a radius of something like 500 miles. The same query showing all cache types covered a radius of more like 30 miles.

Link to comment

So what's the second choice for POI cachers who really have no interest in finding endless film pots behind posts?

 

 

You probably already do all of this.. but this is what I do...

 

In General:

 

- Use the map to identify interesting looking locations. E.g. seeing a cache or caches on a footpath showing elevation gains, forests, views etc. (Mainly for non-urban).

 

- Look at caches with high number/percentage of Favorite Points.

 

- Look at puzzle and multis (Wherigos too). There are less of these, and in general I find them to be "higher quality".

 

Puzzles and multis can be interesting, as long as the owner has put a bit of effort into the page to give an idea of what's likely to be involved. Some owners provide a lot of detail, others less so. There used to be two Wherigo caches within 10 miles of where I live, and I solved (and enjoyed) them both. I think the next nearest one is far enough afield that I'm unlikely to make a special trip out there.

 

Living in an urban area the vast majority of what's nearby is either a micro or part of a trail. There are a few larger caches but again I've found most of them that are within comfortable striking distance of home. I'm less inclined to travel any great distance for a cache unless I'm headed that way anyway, largely because I've found enough caches that turned out to be soggy film pots or badly maintained takeaway containers that I'm not likely to rush to spend money on fuel or train tickets to find another one.

 

Favourite points could be a good indicator but the percentage doesn't say much simply because so many of the older caches (i.e. before the craze for endless film pots) have lots of finds and few favourite points because most of the finds were before favourite points were available. It also means looking through ever-more trash to find the treasure.

 

Additionally for my local area:

 

- I am already pretty familiar with the caches in the immediate area from repeatedly looking at the map, reading logs, etc. As new caches come in and I get notifications I'll look at those and make a note if they look interesting or not. This will include considering the cache owner (if I know they typically hide caches I like or not) as well as the location.

 

Most of the time when a notification comes in I look at the cache, realise it's another micro/nano and close the page.

 

When travelling:

 

- While location is always important to me, when travelling it is even more so. I like to combine caching with sites I would want to see anyway. If the cache is near somewhere I want to visit then I'm happy even if the cache itself is on a signpost.

 

- I also look to Favorite Points to try not to miss something which looks really special.

 

For me if I'm travelling I'd like to know of interesting places, and if I find a cool spot then I don't care if the cache is a film pot. Truth be told if caching takes me to a cool spot I don't care if I don't even find the cache - one of the ways I'd define a "good cache" is when I leave the area having not found the cache but glad I went. One cache I found took me eight attempts and even though it's long-since archived I still visit the spot whenever I'm in the area, just because I liked it so much.

 

If I'm travelling I'm more conscious of the value of my limited time there, so have less inclination to hunt a cache that isn't there any more or that turns out to be a soggy micro hidden among the rocks that leaves me wondering whether it's just rainwater that made it damp. I've often found virtuals and earthcaches work best for finding the cool places, there just aren't very many of those around. Last time I ran a "virtual and earthcaches" pocket query around one place I visit fairly often the 1000 caches returned covered a radius of something like 500 miles. The same query showing all cache types covered a radius of more like 30 miles.

 

When travelling I'm a bit opposite - if I go to a nice spot and the cache is a soggy pill bottle (especially if at least a 3" (authentic, watertight) Lock & Lock could fit), it spoils the moment. When I remember the view I also remember a bad caching experience. Like going to a posh restaurant but being served soup with a fly in it.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

 

So what's the second choice for POI cachers who really have no interest in finding endless film pots behind posts?

 

So the market has removed all flavors of ice cream except vanilla? I would have doubted this, but seeing your location I recalled that Tesco tried to start a supermarket chain in my area a couple of years ago. It failed, in part because they did not stock a big enough variety.

Link to comment

 

So what's the second choice for POI cachers who really have no interest in finding endless film pots behind posts?

 

So the market has removed all flavors of ice cream except vanilla? I would have doubted this, but seeing your location I recalled that Tesco tried to start a supermarket chain in my area a couple of years ago. It failed, in part because they did not stock a big enough variety.

 

The urban nature of the area makes it hard to hide anything much bigger than a film pot. Certainly when I get emails to tell me a new cache has been published anything close enough to home that I might be interested in going out to find it is almost invariably a micro or nano.

Link to comment

So what's the second choice for POI cachers who really have no interest in finding endless film pots behind posts?

 

So the market has removed all flavors of ice cream except vanilla? I would have doubted this, but seeing your location I recalled that Tesco tried to start a supermarket chain in my area a couple of years ago. It failed, in part because they did not stock a big enough variety.

 

And also stopped supplying the quality ice cream made with cream, eggs and vanilla bean and only stock no-name made with modified milk products and thickeners.

Link to comment

So what's the second choice for POI cachers who really have no interest in finding endless film pots behind posts?

 

 

You probably already do all of this.. but this is what I do...

 

In General:

 

- Use the map to identify interesting looking locations. E.g. seeing a cache or caches on a footpath showing elevation gains, forests, views etc. (Mainly for non-urban).

 

- Look at caches with high number/percentage of Favorite Points.

 

- Look at puzzle and multis (Wherigos too). There are less of these, and in general I find them to be "higher quality".

 

Puzzles and multis can be interesting, as long as the owner has put a bit of effort into the page to give an idea of what's likely to be involved. Some owners provide a lot of detail, others less so. There used to be two Wherigo caches within 10 miles of where I live, and I solved (and enjoyed) them both. I think the next nearest one is far enough afield that I'm unlikely to make a special trip out there.

 

Living in an urban area the vast majority of what's nearby is either a micro or part of a trail. There are a few larger caches but again I've found most of them that are within comfortable striking distance of home. I'm less inclined to travel any great distance for a cache unless I'm headed that way anyway, largely because I've found enough caches that turned out to be soggy film pots or badly maintained takeaway containers that I'm not likely to rush to spend money on fuel or train tickets to find another one.

 

Favourite points could be a good indicator but the percentage doesn't say much simply because so many of the older caches (i.e. before the craze for endless film pots) have lots of finds and few favourite points because most of the finds were before favourite points were available. It also means looking through ever-more trash to find the treasure.

 

Additionally for my local area:

 

- I am already pretty familiar with the caches in the immediate area from repeatedly looking at the map, reading logs, etc. As new caches come in and I get notifications I'll look at those and make a note if they look interesting or not. This will include considering the cache owner (if I know they typically hide caches I like or not) as well as the location.

 

Most of the time when a notification comes in I look at the cache, realise it's another micro/nano and close the page.

 

When travelling:

 

- While location is always important to me, when travelling it is even more so. I like to combine caching with sites I would want to see anyway. If the cache is near somewhere I want to visit then I'm happy even if the cache itself is on a signpost.

 

- I also look to Favorite Points to try not to miss something which looks really special.

 

For me if I'm travelling I'd like to know of interesting places, and if I find a cool spot then I don't care if the cache is a film pot. Truth be told if caching takes me to a cool spot I don't care if I don't even find the cache - one of the ways I'd define a "good cache" is when I leave the area having not found the cache but glad I went. One cache I found took me eight attempts and even though it's long-since archived I still visit the spot whenever I'm in the area, just because I liked it so much.

 

If I'm travelling I'm more conscious of the value of my limited time there, so have less inclination to hunt a cache that isn't there any more or that turns out to be a soggy micro hidden among the rocks that leaves me wondering whether it's just rainwater that made it damp. I've often found virtuals and earthcaches work best for finding the cool places, there just aren't very many of those around. Last time I ran a "virtual and earthcaches" pocket query around one place I visit fairly often the 1000 caches returned covered a radius of something like 500 miles. The same query showing all cache types covered a radius of more like 30 miles.

 

When travelling I'm a bit opposite - if I go to a nice spot and the cache is a soggy pill bottle (especially if at least a 3" (authentic, watertight) Lock & Lock could fit), it spoils the moment. When I remember the view I also remember a bad caching experience. Like going to a posh restaurant but being served soup with a fly in it.

 

I always research to try and weed out caches i don't think will be fun to find when i'm traveling. Favorite points, difficulty ratings, and cache size are what i look at for in determining which caches i put on my to do list. For the most part, micros with difficulty ratings below 2/2 are out.

 

Unfortunately, no matter how much effort i put into looking up caches i think will be fun, there will always be some that slip into my query. My remedy is to just walk right on by if my gpsr arrow happens to point to a spot, lightpole for instance, that doesn't interest me. It's not worth my time to stop, lift cover, sign log, and then log online when i get home.

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...