Why Do People Hate Micros

[Andronicus]

I hate micros because 95% of them are in boring places, and 80% of them are in spruce trees (aka MIST).  I refuse to search for micros.  I'm sure I will miss a few good caches, but mostly I will save myself boredom and frustration.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

13 hours ago, Andronicus said:

I hate micros because 95% of them are in boring places, and 80% of them are in spruce trees (aka MIST).  I refuse to search for micros.  I'm sure I will miss a few good caches, but mostly I will save myself boredom and frustration.

The 80% stat could be because you live in an area with a lot of spruce trees.  When I spent a day geocaching in Barcelona the largest cache I found was about the size of a small sandwich size lock-n-lock.  However, most of the spots were in interesting places (including one near Sagrada Familia).  The percentage of micros in several other large cities in Europe was pretty much the same.  Although most are micros, exploring Paris, Rome or Dublin by geocaching more that makes up for the boredom of the actual finds.  

[+geocat_]

For me, it's all about hiding a cache that the area accommodates.  I even have a "large" container hidden called "Don't Hide Micros in the Woods", lol.  It's not that this applies 100% of the time as I have found (and hid) some pretty clever, fun, or otherwise amazing micros in the woods.  But a lot of the time, micros among the wooded areas seem like they are given little thought.  A pill bottle tossed into the nook of a tree, or thrown down next to some honeysuckle.  

I think it's fun to hide the largest container possible in the woods because sometimes it's the only place to adequately hide a larger container where it won't be as easily stumbled upon by a muggle.  

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, geocat_ said:

I think it's fun to hide the largest container possible in the woods because sometimes it's the only place to adequately hide a larger container where it won't be as easily stumbled upon by a muggle.  

Then there's this one which I loved, so adopted (well recreated with the same container; more pics in the original gallery).

[+Cachesaurous]

micros for me or not something I want because I have young kids, my oldest is 3 so we want rewards a hut and one he can participate more active and actually find! a slip of paper is not that much of a thrill Ha

[+MysteryGuy1]

I don't dislike all micros, just certain types.  Like others above, I'm no big fan of very small containers in the woods.  But even worse than that to me are containers that are so small that it takes more time to squeeze the log back in and close the container than it did to make the find.

Edited February 27, 2018 by MysteryGuy1

[sp1tf1re]

I started out primarily doing urban caching. Usually on a lunch break, as there were enough within a walking distance from work that I could hunt for a while. Many were nano's but some weren't. I don't mind the nano either, as long as it is marked as such and is a clever hide. 

 

I personally have hidden two caches and they were both micros. They got some love due to where they were hidden and the type of hide. I admit one of them could have been a small or larger. But I also was afraid anything bigger would get destroyed by maintenance crews.

I see a place for all types, even the urban. But I like urbans when I can do them on a walk around the neighborhood or a park.

[+Isonzo Karst]

One of the weaknesses of a micro hide is that they're more prone to throwdowns.   Some will throwdown (or just log DNFs as finds on anything) but it is rarer to see a pill bottle throwdown "find" on a regular.   (As a size, small has no meaning now. )

[+edexter]

If your main interest in geocaching is to hunt for tiny objects within a few feet of a parking spot, then micros are just the ticket, since they are tiny and generally placed next to parking.  At least half of all new caches fit these two criteria.    If your main interest in geocaching is anything that involves even a small amount of exercise, you can safely ignore them..  Hiding a micro in the woods with no hint is basically a needle in a haystack situation.  Here are some other reasons to hate them:  1, After the o-ring dies on the bison tube you have a tiny wet ball of papier mache, not a log.  2, If you use one of those even tinier plastic tubes inside the bison to keep the log dry, signing the log requires juggling 6 objects (bison and cap, tube and cap, tiny log and pen) just the thing for a tree climb, huh?  3, Nano's are worse, log is even smaller and less fun to roll and unroll.  4,, They require so little thought and effort to create they are placed in the same way..  5.  They are the leading cause of "power trails"  6, They encourage quantity over quality. 7. Given their ubiquity and lack of creativity, you might as well go look for Munzees.  

[+SwineFlew]

Why people complain about everything?

[+The Jester]

14 hours ago, SwineFlew said:

Why people complain about everything?

And why do we complain about people complaining about us complaining? 

Ouch!  I wrote that and it's even making my head hurt, I think I'll go to bed now and sleep it off.  Unless I hear a complaint about that...

[+thebruce0]

On 4/1/2018 at 4:26 AM, The Jester said:

I wrote that and it's even making my head hurt, I think I'll go to bed now and sleep it off.  Unless I hear a complaint about that...

Check. You replied at 4:26am, complaining about your head hurting? You should probably go to bed at a normal time and kill two birds with one stone: you wouldn't have to reply to an internet comment, your head hurt from it or from being up at that insane hour. Follow my perfect solution and your whole life will be peachy from now until the cows come home.

[+The Jester]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Check. You replied at 4:26am, complaining about your head hurting? You should probably go to bed at a normal time and kill two birds with one stone: you wouldn't have to reply to an internet comment, your head hurt from it or from being up at that insane hour. Follow my perfect solution and your whole life will be peachy from now until the cows come home.

It was 1:26 my time, right about my normal bedtime - of course, being retired I'm always up at the crack of noon.

 

[+DragonsWest]

On 4/1/2018 at 1:26 AM, The Jester said:

And why do we complain about people complaining about us complaining? 

Ouch!  I wrote that and it's even making my head hurt, I think I'll go to bed now and sleep it off.  Unless I hear a complaint about that...

There are the kinds of people, those who are Positive Disposition (love finding anything, as long as they find it), Selective Disposition (sort things according to likes, dislikes and strong dislikes), Negative Disposition (nothing will please them, so just go on ignoring them.)

There are well done micros, there are poorly done micros, just like regulars, smalls, larges, other, etc.  I've found a few LARGE caches which were in such a terrible state it was a stretch to thank the CO. When your large is full of filth and some kind cacher left behind a bag with a strip of paper in it that's not much of an improvement over finding a film can.

There are micros I dislike, mostly due to the terrible choice of container (which can apply to any other size), some plastic which will degrade in sun or heat, be gnawed by animals or leak almost immediately.  Nothing quite as pleasing as picking up a pharma bottle, try to pry the cap off and find it disintegrates in my hands.  Yay.

Anyway, that's what Needs Maint. flags are all about.  Use them.

[+justintim1999]

Not everyone hates micros.   Some micro hides are among my favorites.   Any creative cache hidden in an interesting location is a good one.....even micros.   

[+justintim1999]

On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 5:09 PM, Ladybug Kids said:

Micros have their place.  In the woods is not one of those places.  Typical micro hide in the woods up here results in 1000 square feet of forest floor/undergrowth being destroyed underfoot and many branches broken.

I found that the woods are a great place to hide micros.  I guess it all depends on how they are hidden.   As far as damage to the area,  I think that has more to do with the cacher than the hide

Looking carefully with your eyes doesn't destroy anything. 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I found that the woods are a great place to hide micros.  I guess it all depends on how they are hidden.   As far as damage to the area,  I think that has more to do with the cacher than the hide

Looking carefully with your eyes doesn't destroy anything. 

A cache that is more difficult to find is more likely going to have a greater environmental impact (or at least more widespread) than a cache that is easier to find.  A CO most certainly contributes to the damage to the area when they hide a micro in the woods where there are so many possible hiding places.   Although the hiding spot can often be discovered just looking with your eyes,  it also often requires picking up rocks, logs, or moving something to see if it's covering the container.

The woods may be an okay place to hide a micro, but I think the point that many will make is that the woods/forest is conducive to hiding a larger container so why take the easy (and cheap) way and stuff a film can in a stump.  I don't mind micros at all, when it's a location that would be very difficult to hide anything larger.  As I do a lot of geocaching while traveling on business, and that's often to cities,  finding micros in an urban environment lets me discover some very interesting places in cities.  

[garyo1954]

As a person just barely a month in, I'm still trying decide what I think.

About/At least 77 of the 122 in this county are micros (63%).
Many are placed along a route from point A to point B.
Many have no other reason to be than, "I frequently travel this route" with little to nothing about the area, no reason for the cache, and may or may not include "you are looking for a camoed film canister/pill bottle/whatever."

These are things I've come to realize through researching the area caches trying to discover the more interesting ones. Was thinking last night it would be a good idea to know what areas (and what type caches) receive the most visits, i.e., is there a certain type cache, or certain area people go out of the way to see? 

I've already realized that travelers passing through are more likely to stick the main roads which means a trail of micros along a major highway will have more visits then some of the nicer caches well off the highway. From that respect, the cache owner is giving the travelers/stats padders/whatever you call them, exactly what want.

But is a good micro better than an average/or below, regular with some nice swag? I don't know. At least two major variables seem to be the deciding factors. 

1. The cachers interests.
2. How much interest you can generate in your cache (without regard for type).

For now, I reserve hate for broccoli, but even then, if its on my plate, I eat a good portion of it. 

 

 

[+cerberus1]

Decided to not feed 'em...

Edited April 3, 2018 by cerberus1

[+cerberus1]

42 minutes ago, garyo1954 said:

For now, I reserve hate for broccoli, but even then, if its on my plate, I eat a good portion of it. 

I'm okay with raw.  Cooked and I'm retching.  Just saying the word cauliflower does the same.   

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, garyo1954 said:

But is a good micro better than an average/or below, regular with some nice swag?

An age old question here. 

To me, it boils down to the effort the CO has put in when creating the cache (or group of caches).  It doesn't take a lot of creativity for someone to drop a bunch of identical containers  under a small pile of rocks every 600 feet along a road.   A cache doesn't necessarily need to be far from a road to be creative.   IMHO, the reason why you're finding out that most of the caches in your area seem to have no other purpose than to provide a find, is that over the past 7 years or so there has been a downward trend for quantity over quality.  It's that simple.  Many geocachers just don't care about the "quality" of caches they find.  They just want to see their find count grow.

[+justintim1999]

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

A cache that is more difficult to find is more likely going to have a greater environmental impact (or at least more widespread) than a cache that is easier to find.  A CO most certainly contributes to the damage to the area when they hide a micro in the woods where there are so many possible hiding places.   Although the hiding spot can often be discovered just looking with your eyes,  it also often requires picking up rocks, logs, or moving something to see if it's covering the container.

The woods may be an okay place to hide a micro, but I think the point that many will make is that the woods/forest is conducive to hiding a larger container so why take the easy (and cheap) way and stuff a film can in a stump.  I don't mind micros at all, when it's a location that would be very difficult to hide anything larger.  As I do a lot of geocaching while traveling on business, and that's often to cities,  finding micros in an urban environment lets me discover some very interesting places in cities.  

I can see your point.   Some people may be more interested in the smiley than taking care to protect the environment.  I do think cache owners should keep this in mind when hiding any cache.   It's always a good practice to put yourself in the head of someone who's going to be looking for your cache and ask yourself,  "how would I approach this" and "how can I place this to minimize unnecessary digging in areas that shouldn't be disturbed." 

It's also up to each and every cacher to remember that nature (and private property)  is more important than geocaching. 

[+justintim1999]

14 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

An age old question here. 

To me, it boils down to the effort the CO has put in when creating the cache (or group of caches).  It doesn't take a lot of creativity for someone to drop a bunch of identical containers  under a small pile of rocks every 600 feet along a road.   A cache doesn't necessarily need to be far from a road to be creative.   IMHO, the reason why you're finding out that most of the caches in your area seem to have no other purpose than to provide a find, is that over the past 7 years or so there has been a downward trend for quantity over quality.  It's that simple.  Many geocachers just don't care about the "quality" of caches they find.  They just want to see their find count grow.

I upvoted this for the first part which I whole heartedly agree with.  

Over the last 4 or 5 years I've seen an increase in quality caches in my area.   

[+EmzyJanezy]

I don't like nanos for several reasons: I hate the time it takes to roll the log back up, logs tend to fill up fast, nanos can be harder to find, and from the kids' point of view, there's no space for swag and swaps.

However, I do think nanos are brilliant for city centres where anything larger stands a large chance of being muggled.

Oh, hark at me - only 12 finds to my name and acting all big using all the lingo 

I've seen some great magnetic alternatives to nanos in the shape of snails, things like that.  I have a huge phobia of snails though so I wouldn't be going anywhere near them!

[+thebruce0]

Wait until you have to find a nano in the deep of winter.....

[+Stakmaster]

I don't necessarily hate them, but I do value them far less than any other cache. I could talk about them for a while but I guess I'll just sum it up.

-I remember almost none of the micros I have found. Meanwhile I could talk for hours about interesting small to medium caches I found and the memories I made searching for them.

-When looking for normal sized caches I generally expect the journey to be the majority of the fun, and the actual hunt to be somewhere between leisurely to moderate. When hunting for micros I know I will be scouring around for 10-20 minutes for something minuscule. Not a particularly fun prospect.

-Some people "micro-bomb" an area, placing tens of them all over an area in a wide radius. I have a fair few problems with this. Due to the proximity rule it cuts off large areas where larger, more deliberate caches could be placed. When one cacher drops 20 micros in an area, I feel 1/20th of the accomplishment in finding them, and it becomes a chore. No matter how much effort it may have taken to place them all, it appears lazy when that's all they hide and they're all over one area. Plus, finding nothing but micros over and over again gets boring! 

-I feel excitement and happiness and anticipation when I find a normal sized geocache. I feel nothing when I find a microcache. "Well, there it is." You could probably analyze that further but generally speaking I just have no fun finding them anymore. 

 

[+justintim1999]

1 minute ago, Stakmaster said:

I don't necessarily hate them, but I do value them far less than any other cache. I could talk about them for a while but I guess I'll just sum it up.

-I remember almost none of the micros I have found. Meanwhile I could talk for hours about interesting small to medium caches I found and the memories I made searching for them.

-When looking for normal sized caches I generally expect the journey to be the majority of the fun, and the actual hunt to be somewhere between leisurely to moderate. When hunting for micros I know I will be scouring around for 10-20 minutes for something minuscule. Not a particularly fun prospect.

-Some people "micro-bomb" an area, placing tens of them all over an area in a wide radius. I have a fair few problems with this. Due to the proximity rule it cuts off large areas where larger, more deliberate caches could be placed. When one cacher drops 20 micros in an area, I feel 1/20th of the accomplishment in finding them, and it becomes a chore. No matter how much effort it may have taken to place them all, it appears lazy when that's all they hide and they're all over one area. Plus, finding nothing but micros over and over again gets boring! 

-I feel excitement and happiness and anticipation when I find a normal sized geocache. I feel nothing when I find a microcache. "Well, there it is." You could probably analyze that further but generally speaking I just have no fun finding them anymore. 

 

That's the problem.  Cache owners usually don't take the time to make their micro hides memorable. 

If your ever in New England look me up.   I'll show you some micro hides that will blow your mind.