What would you prefer?

[+justintim1999]

What would you prefer?

 

A series of 6 caches. 5 traditionals that contain clues to a final puzzle. The catch. They are all micros.

 

Or

 

6 traditional caches which are large enough to hold swag and trackables?

[+StefandD]

One multi.

[+narcissa]

One multi.

[+bflentje]

Anything but the micros.

[+HHL]

What would you prefer?

[...]

 

This:

"6 traditional caches which are large enough to hold swag and trackables?"

 

Hans

 

NB: Looks like some people having issues with understanding this pretty easy question.

[+justintim1999]

Just to be clear. 5 stand alone traditional caches which contain a clue to a puzzle cache. It could be a milti but the traditionals will be in different parts of town.

[+TriciaG]

6 bigger trads.

 

NB: Looks like some people having issues with understanding this pretty easy question.

Yeah - where did "multi" show up in the question?

[+on4bam]

What would you prefer?

 

A series of 6 caches. 5 traditionals that contain clues to a final puzzle. The catch. They are all micros.

 

Or

 

6 traditional caches which are large enough to hold swag and trackables?

 

6 bigger trads.

 

NB: Looks like some people having issues with understanding this pretty easy question.

Yeah - where did "multi" show up in the question?

 

In that case.. none of the above.

Make it a multi. Less maintenance and more favorites if done right

 

What is it with people littering trads all over the place

[+J Grouchy]

All the complaints micros get here in the forums, I'm surprised people would prefer the multi.

 

Also, it's "dilemma"...not "delema".

[+justintim1999]

All the complaints micros get here in the forums, I'm surprised people would prefer the multi.

 

Also, it's "dilemma"...not "delema".

 

Sorry. English is not my native language.

[+thatbrowncat]

All the complaints micros get here in the forums, I'm surprised people would prefer the multi.

 

Also, it's "dilemma"...not "delema".

 

Sorry. English is not my native language.

 

6 traditional

[+MartyBartfast]

What would you prefer?

 

A series of 6 caches. 5 traditionals that contain clues to a final puzzle. The catch. They are all micros.

 

Or

 

6 traditional caches which are large enough to hold swag and trackables?

 

Why does it have to be Either/Or? why not

A series of traditional caches which are large enough to hold swag and trackables, 5 traditionals that contain clues to a final puzzle. The upside. None of them are micros.

[cezanne]

What would you prefer?

 

A series of 6 caches. 5 traditionals that contain clues to a final puzzle. The catch. They are all micros.

 

Or

 

6 traditional caches which are large enough to hold swag and trackables?

 

I do not understand why the container size plays a role in the set up whether all caches are traditionals or one is a bonus cache.

 

My answer is "It depends". If the hideouts are urban and stealth is required, I might prefer easily findable micros or small containers to

containers large enough for a lot of swag.

 

My preferred set-up would be a multi cache with virtual stages at locations where stealth would be needed to handle a container and a container of a decent

size at a more remote location. On a personal score the difference between your two options would be very marginal for me while there would be a huge gap to the multi version.

 

This will also best for the log quality: much less copy and paste logs.

Edited March 8, 2016 by cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

Just to be clear. 5 stand alone traditional caches which contain a clue to a puzzle cache. It could be a milti but the traditionals will be in different parts of town.

 

Then all swag size caches. I rarely get the final cache in a series. I'm constantly forgetting to take down the secret code for the final.

So I'd like to have swag size containers to find, otherwise I wouldn't do any of the series caches because I filter out micros.

 

Swag size would appeal to a wider audience.

[cezanne]

Swag size would appeal to a wider audience.

 

Depends on the location. In very exposed urban locations one does not have the time to deal with swag anyway and it

is better to encounter a well maintained micro which is available than a swag size container that gets muggled several times.

 

For that reason I prefer virtual stages of a multi cache at such locations (no physical containers) and the set-up as a multi cache with a final swag size container

at a more quite location.

 

The virtual waypoints of the multi cache can be given so that the argument that cachers avoid multi caches as they do not know where they are led to does not apply.

[+narcissa]

Just to be clear. 5 stand alone traditional caches which contain a clue to a puzzle cache. It could be a milti but the traditionals will be in different parts of town.

 

Sounds like a fun multi to me.

[+justintim1999]

Just to be clear. 5 stand alone traditional caches which contain a clue to a puzzle cache. It could be a milti but the traditionals will be in different parts of town.

 

Sounds like a fun multi to me.

 

Thanks for the responses. I guess the question is whether cachers would enjoy more of an adventure, made up of unique (micro) containers in various locations with an interesting field puzzle or simple medium or large sized triditionals to trade swag and move trackables.

 

Would you be more interested in small and unique or large and traditional?

[+narcissa]

Just to be clear. 5 stand alone traditional caches which contain a clue to a puzzle cache. It could be a milti but the traditionals will be in different parts of town.

 

Sounds like a fun multi to me.

 

Thanks for the responses. I guess the question is whether cachers would enjoy more of an adventure, made up of unique (micro) containers in various locations with an interesting field puzzle or simple medium or large sized triditionals to trade swag and move trackables.

 

Would you be more interested in small and unique or large and traditional?

 

The best caches are multis involving field puzzles with one large container at the end.

[+HHL]

[...]

Would you be more interested in small and unique or large and traditional?

 

I like small and unique caches.

 

Hans

[+narcissa]

Then a third alternative would be to turn these caches into virtual stages of a multi cache which would

avoid micro caches.

 

+1

 

Virtual stages are also a nice way to incorporate elements and places that aren't suitable for containers.

[+cerberus1]

What would you prefer?

 

A series of 6 caches. 5 traditionals that contain clues to a final puzzle. The catch. They are all micros.

 

Or

 

6 traditional caches which are large enough to hold swag and trackables?

Similar to cezanne, it depends.

Lately, if either are at awesome views, or unique locations, I'm fine with the caches being either.

The containers (to me) are secondary.

[+Mudfrog]

What would you prefer?

 

A series of 6 caches. 5 traditionals that contain clues to a final puzzle. The catch. They are all micros.

 

Or

 

6 traditional caches which are large enough to hold swag and trackables?

I'd go with the 2nd, 6 large enough to hold swag and trackables traditionals.

 

Would you be more interested in small and unique or large and traditional?

While i prefer larger caches in general, small and unique is good. Creative caches, no matter what size, are always fun to find.

 

And a bit off topic,, As was mentioned above, my answer would change if a multicache set up had been mentioned. If it had been, i'd go with the 5 micros leading to the final. Of course, i'd still prefer the final to be regular or large in size.

[+L0ne.R]

Just to be clear. 5 stand alone traditional caches which contain a clue to a puzzle cache. It could be a milti but the traditionals will be in different parts of town.

 

Sounds like a fun multi to me.

 

Thanks for the responses. I guess the question is whether cachers would enjoy more of an adventure, made up of unique (micro) containers in various locations with an interesting field puzzle or simple medium or large sized triditionals to trade swag and move trackables.

 

Would you be more interested in small and unique or large and traditional?

 

Personally I do not like handling bison tubes and nanos, so hopefully if you did go with micros you would use quality micro containers that are easy on fat fingers. Tiny often tattered, wet and moldy scrolls that need to be unfurled a couple of feet to find a spot to initial; then scrolling them back up so they are tight enough to fit back in the tube, is such a pain.

 

Why would it bother people to find a palm size 100ml 3x2.5 inch Lock & Lock instead of a bison tube at a spot that could hide a 3 inch x 2.5 inch container? If it's downtown urban location with lots of people around I'd be impressed with a little authentic 100ml cache that was hidden well. Although I might not be impressed with the busy location.

[+dprovan]

I guess the question is whether cachers would enjoy more of an adventure, made up of unique (micro) containers in various locations with an interesting field puzzle or simple medium or large sized triditionals to trade swag and move trackables.

 

Would you be more interested in small and unique or large and traditional?

Ah, I see. If I had to choose, I'd take clever, unique containers. Unlike many of the old timers that post in the forums, I like micros as well as larger sizes, particularly if it's something unique. I don't care at all about swag, and I can find somewhere else for trackables.

 

Of course, even better would be to have both, and perhaps encourage people to vote for which series they liked best. And throw in a multi, while you're at it, since so many of the responders want that!

[+justintim1999]

Just to be clear. 5 stand alone traditional caches which contain a clue to a puzzle cache. It could be a milti but the traditionals will be in different parts of town.

 

Sounds like a fun multi to me.

 

Thanks for the responses. I guess the question is whether cachers would enjoy more of an adventure, made up of unique (micro) containers in various locations with an interesting field puzzle or simple medium or large sized triditionals to trade swag and move trackables.

 

Would you be more interested in small and unique or large and traditional?

 

Personally I do not like handling bison tubes and nanos, so hopefully if you did go with micros you would use quality micro containers that are easy on fat fingers. Tiny often tattered, wet and moldy scrolls that need to be unfurled a couple of feet to find a spot to initial; then scrolling them back up so they are tight enough to fit back in the tube, is such a pain.

 

Why would it bother people to find a palm size 100ml 3x2.5 inch Lock & Lock instead of a bison tube at a spot that could hide a 3 inch x 2.5 inch container? If it's downtown urban location with lots of people around I'd be impressed with a little authentic 100ml cache that was hidden well. Although I might not be impressed with the busy location.

 

Good size bison tube with a tension pin set up in the cover that would allow for easy log roll-up. Bison tube is inside a unique secondary container that will provide protection from the elements. The primary function of the secondary container involves the field puzzle.

 

Would the lack of a large final container be a deal breaker for most? Even if the final was something special.

[+L0ne.R]

Just to be clear. 5 stand alone traditional caches which contain a clue to a puzzle cache. It could be a milti but the traditionals will be in different parts of town.

 

Sounds like a fun multi to me.

 

Thanks for the responses. I guess the question is whether cachers would enjoy more of an adventure, made up of unique (micro) containers in various locations with an interesting field puzzle or simple medium or large sized triditionals to trade swag and move trackables.

 

Would you be more interested in small and unique or large and traditional?

 

Personally I do not like handling bison tubes and nanos, so hopefully if you did go with micros you would use quality micro containers that are easy on fat fingers. Tiny often tattered, wet and moldy scrolls that need to be unfurled a couple of feet to find a spot to initial; then scrolling them back up so they are tight enough to fit back in the tube, is such a pain.

 

Why would it bother people to find a palm size 100ml 3x2.5 inch Lock & Lock instead of a bison tube at a spot that could hide a 3 inch x 2.5 inch container? If it's downtown urban location with lots of people around I'd be impressed with a little authentic 100ml cache that was hidden well. Although I might not be impressed with the busy location.

 

Good size bison tube with a tension pin set up in the cover that would allow for easy log roll-up. Bison tube is inside a unique secondary container that will provide protection from the elements. The primary function of the secondary container involves the field puzzle.

 

Would the lack of a large final container be a deal breaker for most? Even if the final was something special.

 

For most --- no. For some --- yes.

If you put a swag size contiainer at the end, then would it be a deal breaker for anyone. No.

 

 

[+narcissa]

 

Would the lack of a large final container be a deal breaker for most? Even if the final was something special.

 

No, if it's special, or in a nice place, it doesn't need to be large. Sometimes smaller caches are more suitable for the surroundings.

[+L0ne.R]

 

Would the lack of a large final container be a deal breaker for most? Even if the final was something special.

 

Doesn't have to large. Just 100ml (palm size). Big enough to hold a couple of small trackables.

 

 

[+on4bam]

Ah, I see. If I had to choose, I'd take clever, unique containers. Unlike many of the old timers that post in the forums, I like micros as well as larger sizes, particularly if it's something unique. I don't care at all about swag, and I can find somewhere else for trackables.

 

I don't care about container size. If there's a log, I'm happy. If there are trackables (or room for them) it's even better. I can't remember the last time I cared about swag, most of the time it's nothing I want to handle anyway.

[+justintim1999]

 

Would the lack of a large final container be a deal breaker for most? Even if the final was something special.

 

Doesn't have to large. Just 100ml (palm size). Big enough to hold a couple of small trackables.

 

 

I hear yah. Unfortunately the final container is what drives the entire field puzzle and the container is simply not big enough for swag.

[+L0ne.R]

Would the lack of a large final container be a deal breaker for most? Even if the final was something special.

 

Doesn't have to large. Just 100ml (palm size). Big enough to hold a couple of small trackables.

 

 

I hear yah. Unfortunately the final container is what drives the entire field puzzle and the container is simply not big enough for swag.

 

Thanks for the extra info. In my case, if the other caches in the series were swag size, and the final is a micro, I would do the series but skip the final. But if I notice that the favourite count for the final was high, I might do the final (if I remembered to collect the clues along the way).

[+narcissa]

 

Would the lack of a large final container be a deal breaker for most? Even if the final was something special.

 

Doesn't have to large. Just 100ml (palm size). Big enough to hold a couple of small trackables.

 

 

I hear yah. Unfortunately the final container is what drives the entire field puzzle and the container is simply not big enough for swag.

 

Very few cachers are hung up on swag. If the container itself is special and the driving point of the cache, that's cool.

 

You can't please everyone. I don't do usually do those 6 traditionals plus a bonus, because I would rather spend that time on a really cool multi. Others want the extra "smileys" and don't like multis. Others do their shopping in geocaches and want them to have premium swag in perfect condition. Make the cache that YOU would enjoy finding and it will be the right cache for you.

[+Manville Possum]

Six traditionals large enough to hold a small note book. Micros are for parking lots.

[+geocat_]

Bigger is better!

[cezanne]

I guess the question is whether cachers would enjoy more of an adventure, made up of unique (micro) containers in various locations with an interesting field puzzle or simple medium or large sized triditionals to trade swag and move trackables.

 

Would you be more interested in small and unique or large and traditional?

Ah, I see. If I had to choose, I'd take clever, unique containers. Unlike many of the old timers that post in the forums, I like micros as well as larger sizes, particularly if it's something unique. I don't care at all about swag, and I can find somewhere else for trackables.

 

Of course, even better would be to have both, and perhaps encourage people to vote for which series they liked best. And throw in a multi, while you're at it, since so many of the responders want that!

 

I think that without further background information voting would not make any sense.

It depends on lot on factors like: Are the locations where the first 5 containers are hidden worth to be visited or is the main reason for sending cachers there the search for the container and/or the wish to present a part of the fields puzzle?

Are the locations exposed to many muggles or are the locations pretty quient corners?

 

I would prefer the multi setup in the scenario I explained: intermediary locations where I do not enjoy to search for a container and where containers and in particular larger ones easily get lost, but where the location is worth to be seen or interesting for some reason. Sending someone to a boring parking lot for example, would not be something I'd implement as virtual stage of a multi cache. I would not enjoy such a location for a traditional or mystery final either however there are cachers out there for which a creative puzzle and/or a creative hide can make up for a boring location and a boring journey to the cache. In such a cache hiding a unique micro will certainly appeal to more cachers than a large swag size cache hidden at such a location.

 

Hiding a creative micro only reachable by a long hike is probably not the best idea as most cachers when they go for a long hike prefer not to have to search around for too long and also do not want to have the fun of the hike spoilt by a frustrating failure.

 

To sum up, I think that there is no cache that fits for everyone and no cache setup that will please everyone. To make the individual decision on how to implement a cache idea, it is very important in my opinion to decide which audience one targets for.

[+WarNinjas]

I'm shocked at all the multi talk. I usually cache outside of my local area and avoid multi's. Especially if it has 5 or 6 points to visit. If you were placing it close to where I live I would get around to it but if it is far away I would be more likely to find the individual ones over many trips and add the codes to my notes. As far as size I would go with what ever works for the spot. A good micro can be as fun or sometimes more fun if done right. Good luck with it!

[+dprovan]

I think that without further background information voting would not make any sense.

It depends on lot on factors like: Are the locations where the first 5 containers are hidden worth to be visited or is the main reason for sending cachers there the search for the container and/or the wish to present a part of the fields puzzle?

Well, it's not voting. He just asked for our opinions. And his question was quite specific. I read it as big and dumb verses small and clever. Sure, there are other things we could consider, but the OP's question basically boiled down to large containers leading to a bonus cache, or small containers exhibiting individual creativity. I think it's a great question because a lot of people posting to the forums complain that there aren't as many big containers as their used to be, yet the trend to small and clever is exactly the reason I don't shed tears about the fact that not every cache is an ammo can.

[+niraD]

If those are my only two options, then:

A series of 6 caches. 5 traditionals that contain clues to a final puzzle. The catch. They are all micros.

No, I don't consider the fact that they are all micros to be a "catch".

 

If I could pick a third option, then I'd pick a multi-stage puzzle cache. Maybe even a multi-stage puzzle night cache.

 

But the real question is this: What kind(s) of caches do you want to own and maintain for the long term?

 

And maybe: What kind(s) of caches do you want to be known for among your local geocaching community (which is certainly different from my local geocaching community).

[cezanne]

 

Well, it's not voting.

 

It was you who came up with the term vote.

 

And his question was quite specific. I read it as big and dumb verses small and clever.

 

The original question did not mention anything about the nature of the hides except the container size.

Moreover, it's still not clear to me (but maybe I'm simply too dumb) why one set-up involves a bonus cache and the other does not - that

should not be a topic of the container size.

 

I think it's a great question because a lot of people posting to the forums complain that there aren't as many big containers as their used to be, yet the trend to small and clever is exactly the reason I don't shed tears about the fact that not every cache is an ammo can.

 

I did not intend to critize the question. Being one of the cachers who would like to encounter more non-micros (they need not be big for me), I'd wanted to address the issue that I do not prefer a bigger container everywhere. For example, when it comes to urban caching I typically prefer micros but at most of these locations I would prefer to not search for a container at all and rather have a virtual stage of a multi cache there if the location and no cache at all if the location is not interesting.

 

If someone hides a creatively hidden, tiny cache at an urban location, I do not mind that much - I can easily skip it without losing something. If someone hides such a cache at the top of a lonesome mountain (such caches get rare anyway), I will lose a cache that I would enjoy.

[cezanne]

I'm shocked at all the multi talk. I usually cache outside of my local area and avoid multi's. Especially if it has 5 or 6 points to visit. If you were placing it close to where I live I would get around to it but if it is far away I would be more likely to find the individual ones over many trips and add the codes to my notes.

 

I have done the same thing for multi caches too on which I worked spread over several days. No issue at all. I do not need to finish off a day with found it logs.

Moreover, many cachers visit several caches at the same day when they travel too - so visiting several stages of cache is feasible for most cachers too (and in particular virtual stages cost often less time than the search for containers and having to wait until muggles leave etc)

[+on4bam]

I'm shocked at all the multi talk. I usually cache outside of my local area and avoid multi's.

 

So am I... about the trads. There are so many traditionals around that finding a decent multi is almost a D4 task these days. For the whole of Belgium (26000 caches) there are 70% traditionals and only 10.9% multis (including 3.5% "takes less than an hour"). This means we can hardly go out within a 20 Km radius. In summer we drive up to 80-120 Km (one way) for well done, longer multis and a few times a year we even spend a weekend at a B&B further away from home to be able to go for those "better (for us) multis/wherigos.

Hence the preference for more multis, especially if a series of trads is set up as if it were a multi.

 

BTW, your area is literary littered with trads so it looks you're well catered for

[+lee737]

6 traditional caches which are large enough to hold swag and trackables.

[+justintim1999]

This is good. Thanks.

 

The other consideration is the find count. I'm not into numbers myself but all things being equal would you rather find six containers and get one smiley (multi) or 6 smileys?

[+on4bam]

This is good. Thanks.

 

The other consideration is the find count. I'm not into numbers myself but all things being equal would you rather find six containers and get one smiley (multi) or 6 smileys?

 

One smiley is plenty

[+L0ne.R]

This is good. Thanks.

 

The other consideration is the find count. I'm not into numbers myself but all things being equal would you rather find six containers and get one smiley (multi) or 6 smileys?

 

It's not about the smiley for me. But with multis I like to know what I'm getting in to. I'd like to know how much travelling is required - the overall distance covered. Can it be done by foot or do I need to get back into the car? How long do you expect it to take - an hour or all day? What are the chances that some of the stages might stump me, are they needle-in-a-haystack stages or hidden from hikers but reasonable easy for a geocacher to find? With traditionals you have a better idea about where you're going and how long it might take.

 

If you're going to hide physical caches, be prepared for some people to find the first stage then log a find. Some may add a logsheet thinking that the original logsheet is missing.

 

You will also get far fewer visitors if you hide a multi. Our multis get found about 20% of the time that our traditional caches get found.

[+narcissa]

I usually cache outside of my local area and avoid multi's.

 

Reduced traffic is one of the many benefits of a multi.

[+narcissa]

This is good. Thanks.

 

The other consideration is the find count. I'm not into numbers myself but all things being equal would you rather find six containers and get one smiley (multi) or 6 smileys?

 

One smiley is plenty

 

One smile for an interesting puzzle or multi is plenty for me. We usually base our caching trips around caches with something interesting to offer, like a good walk, a cool location, or an interesting multi. Unremarkable traditionals get loaded into the GPS so we can grab them when they are convenient. I probably wouldn't notice that someone had made a series with a bonus until it was too late to bother with it.

 

But again, I think the best course of action is to design caches that you would like to find. Not every cache needs to cater to the lowest common denominator.

[+justintim1999]

This is good. Thanks.

 

The other consideration is the find count. I'm not into numbers myself but all things being equal would you rather find six containers and get one smiley (multi) or 6 smileys?

 

It's not about the smiley for me. But with multis I like to know what I'm getting in to. I'd like to know how much travelling is required - the overall distance covered. Can it be done by foot or do I need to get back into the car? How long do you expect it to take - an hour or all day? What are the chances that some of the stages might stump me, are they needle-in-a-haystack stages or hidden from hikers but reasonable easy for a geocacher to find? With traditionals you have a better idea about where you're going and how long it might take.

 

If you're going to hide physical caches, be prepared for some people to find the first stage then log a find. Some may add a logsheet thinking that the original logsheet is missing.

 

You will also get far fewer visitors if you hide a multi. Our multis get found about 20% of the time that our traditional caches get found.

 

I've noticed that same thing with my multi. Seems like it gets much fewer finds. That's why I was leaning toward the 5 stand alone traditionals with clues. If someone wants to find them and ignore the puzzle that's fine. Each traditional will have information on the puzzle in the cache page so hopefully they will know to gather the info when there. Also this one will require some vehicle travel. Should only take between 2-3 hours to complete all 5 and the puzzle.

[cezanne]

I've noticed that same thing with my multi. Seems like it gets much fewer finds.

 

But your multi cache has a ratio of almost 60% FPs and the average log seems to be longer and more interesting to read as the logs for

a cache series typically are.

[+justintim1999]

What to do, what to do?