What would you prefer?

[cezanne]

What to do, what to do?

 

It will depend on your preferences for your cache and what counts the most for you (nice logs, FPs, many visits, making children happy, and many other things). There exists no optimal solution pleasing everyone. See also what narcissa wrote.

[+The Jester]

What to do, what to do?

Both?

[+dprovan]

Well, it's not voting.

It was you who came up with the term vote.

I only used the term "vote" in my suggestion that the OP plant both kinds, then tell people to say which they liked best after they'd done them. It wasn't in reference to anything going on in this discussion.

 

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.

Yes, but I didn't respond to the original question, only to the post where the OP clarified the two options.

 

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.

Dunno, but by your own logic, we should ignore other possibilities not spelled out by the OP.

 

I did not intend to critize the question.

Nor did I mean to imply that was your intent.

 

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.

There seems to be a lot of agreement with this attitude in the forums, which is why I made sure to express my countering view: large caches, location, and being out of the way are all nice features for a cache to have, but they're not my top criteria.

[+dprovan]

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?

I'm honored that you value our opinions so much, and, like the most of the other responders, I enjoy multis and have no problem getting only a single find for the lot.

 

But if you're trying to figure out which will make your cache more popular, I don't think there's any question that you'll get a lot more traffic with individual caches. This is mostly because most cachers would want credit for the 6 finds, but it doesn't hurt that a lot of caches ignore multis to begin with.

[+narcissa]

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.

 

Also, if you are putting a lot of effort into designing the puzzle and there are many parts or special containers, making it a multi might protect it from scallawags.

[cezanne]

Well, it's not voting.

It was you who came up with the term vote.

I only used the term "vote" in my suggestion that the OP plant both kinds, then tell people to say which they liked best after they'd done them. It wasn't in reference to anything going on in this discussion.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood that.

 

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.

Dunno, but by your own logic, we should ignore other possibilities not spelled out by the OP.

 

With "should not a topic" I did not mean that it should not be discussed. I meant I still do not understand why exactly the two alternatives mentioned in the opening post have been

chosen? If the main question is whether more cachers prefer creative micro hides or large standard hides, then the issue with 5 traditionals and a bonus vs 6 traditionals does not play a role.

If it's about whether to have a bonus cache or not, then the cache size does not play a role.

 

There seems to be a lot of agreement with this attitude in the forums, which is why I made sure to express my countering view: large caches, location, and being out of the way are all nice features for a cache to have, but they're not my top criteria.

 

I understood that. I just wanted to make clear that most cachers I know do not categorically prefer a large container - it depends on the situation.

[+justintim1999]

Well, it's not voting.

It was you who came up with the term vote.

I only used the term "vote" in my suggestion that the OP plant both kinds, then tell people to say which they liked best after they'd done them. It wasn't in reference to anything going on in this discussion.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood that.

 

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.

Dunno, but by your own logic, we should ignore other possibilities not spelled out by the OP.

 

With "should not a topic" I did not mean that it should not be discussed. I meant I still do not understand why exactly the two alternatives mentioned in the opening post have been

chosen? If the main question is whether more cachers prefer creative micro hides or large standard hides, then the issue with 5 traditionals and a bonus vs 6 traditionals does not play a role.

If it's about whether to have a bonus cache or not, then the cache size does not play a role.

 

There seems to be a lot of agreement with this attitude in the forums, which is why I made sure to express my countering view: large caches, location, and being out of the way are all nice features for a cache to have, but they're not my top criteria.

 

I understood that. I just wanted to make clear that most cachers I know do not categorically prefer a large container - it depends on the situation.

 

the number of hides is not a factor. This one happens to be 6. It's more about container size and whether to multi or not to multi. I guess its a delicate line trying to hook new cachers and challenging more experienced ones. In this case the easy answer would be to place 5 larger traditionals and a large puzzle. the traditional containers I'm using are unique and hand made but simply not big enough for swag or TB's.

[+Luckyone80]

I personally would prefer: 6 traditional caches which are large enough to hold swag and trackables

[+Luckyone80]

 

the number of hides is not a factor. This one happens to be 6. It's more about container size and whether to multi or not to multi. I guess its a delicate line trying to hook new cachers and challenging more experienced ones. In this case the easy answer would be to place 5 larger traditionals and a large puzzle. the traditional containers I'm using are unique and hand made but simply not big enough for swag or TB's.

 

I would like to find unique containers, even if they aren't big enough to hold swag.

[+Mudfrog]

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

+1

[+Mudfrog]

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

 

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

These days,,, YES!

[+Ambrosia]

The choice between multi and traditional can be difficult, with pros and cons listed by others in this thread.

 

I thought I'd look at some numbers connected to one of my multis. I have a multi that is a two mile walk with 8 virtual stops and simple math. In the same park I have a traditional with a little over a half mile walk round trip, and another traditional that is a park and grab.

 

In the last year, this is how many people visited each cache:

 

Multi: 4

Half mile trad: 30

Park and grab trad: 30

 

How odd that the half mile walk has as many visitors as the park and grab. But you can see that the numbers for the multi is drastically different. But I still love that multi and so does everyone who visits it.

[+bflentje]

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

 

I try to always hide multicaches now, when I can. Be it a multi-cache (proper), a Wherigo, or a field puzzle. But they're usually short and sweet. Generally speaking, it reduces maintenance because it keeps those not so serious cachers away, which in turn, reduces the need for maintenance. (not to be confused with "eliminate" the need for maint).

[+The VanDucks]

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?

[+The VanDucks]

We have so many micros and bison tubes in our area and very few caches that can hold swag, so we have to vote for the series of five or six larger cache containers, perhaps with a clue in each to lead to a really special final cache!

[+Harry Dolphin]

We have so many micros and bison tubes in our area and very few caches that can hold swag, so we have to vote for the series of five or six larger cache containers, perhaps with a clue in each to lead to a really special final cache!

 

I think I will agree with you here. I have a TB that wants to head west. All I've found recently are micros! Could have hidden an ammo can there! Nope. Micros.

[+WarNinjas]

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

 

I try to always hide multicaches now, when I can. Be it a multi-cache (proper), a Wherigo, or a field puzzle. But they're usually short and sweet. Generally speaking, it reduces maintenance because it keeps those not so serious cachers away, which in turn, reduces the need for maintenance. (not to be confused with "eliminate" the need for maint).

I guess it is just something I don't care for multi's because field puzzles and Wherigo's are my favorite caches.