Micros,, sheeeeeesh!

[+Mudfrog]

We're planning on heading up for an Event tomorrow so I decided to run a query for caches around that area. The query pretty much covers rural countryside with a couple of small towns thrown in. To my surprise (well not really), almost every cache was micro in size. Out of the first one hundred, 20 were listed as being small and 1 was listed as being regular in size. Upon reading some of the descriptions, it turns out that all but 3 of the listed smalls are actually micros (hints say bison, magnetic, tube, etc,,). The 1 showing as regular does state that it is an ammocan. 

 

The overabundance of park and grab type microcaches are one of the reasons my Family has slowed so much with our hobby. Except for number's hounds, I know there are others that feel this same way. If so, then why have so many park and grab type micros been placed? Yeah, I know they are cheap, they're good for numbers, and there are places that only they will fit. Even so, I would think that if people did prefer larger, then they themselves would, at least sometimes, place larger. So why don't they? For now, these goofy little things are overwhelming to say the least, and imo, are one of the reasons geocaching has slowed.

 

Hmmm, think I'll see about placing an honest to goodness life sized regular size geocache this week so that the few people visiting it can experience one up close. 

 

 

[+thebruce0]

Did you check to see how many were placed with the intent to take people to an actually very interesting location so it's not just about the container size?

 

(there's a bit of snark there, but I'm sure a majority are still guaranteed to be run-of-the-mill mundane micros in fairly typical locations :P)

[+niraD]

46 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Even so, I would think that if people did prefer larger, then they themselves would, at least sometimes, place larger. So why don't they?

Aye, there's the rub. Do people really prefer larger containers?

 

I'm one of the few who still seems to trade, and I trade only for personal signature items left by other geocachers (and those have become few and far between).

 

That leaves trackables (speaking of "few and far between") as a reason to prefer larger containers. And I know COs who have decided deliberately to hide smaller containers because they've gotten grief about the trackables that may or may not be in their larger caches.

[+L0ne.R]

18 minutes ago, niraD said:

Aye, there's the rub. Do people really prefer larger containers?

 

And the other rub is that those who prefer the larger cache experience (and aren't content with accepting the micro experience) don't play much (or at all) anymore.

 

 

 

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Did you check to see how many were placed with the intent to take people to an actually very interesting location so it's not just about the container size?

 

That's how I've been thinking of it lately...    

Our favorite hider, whose areas are nearly all awesome views or unique spots,  uses large pill bottles as their "small" containers.

I've teased them a few times, but you know what ?  

 -  If it wasn't for them, this area would be pretty-much caches only placed because "there's a spot left...".    

Edited October 11, 2019 by cerberus1

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

The overabundance of park and grab type microcaches are one of the reasons my Family has slowed so much with our hobby.

Except for number's hounds, I know there are others that feel this same way. If so, then why have so many park and grab type micros been placed? Yeah, I know they are cheap, they're good for numbers, and there are places that only they will fit.

Even so, I would think that if people did prefer larger, then they themselves would, at least sometimes, place larger. So why don't they?

For now, these goofy little things are overwhelming to say the least, and imo, are one of the reasons geocaching has slowed.

 

I sorta agree, park and grabs ruined the hobby (for us), but that has little to do with container size here.   

We have small and even some regular cache n dash, P&G  (or whatever your area calls 'em hides).

For us, it's not the containers, but the nondescript "put one here because I can..." spots they're placed.

 

We know of a few who've been burned so many times with containers , that they'll only put out what (for this area) just barely survives a couple seasons now.  

Lose enough ammo cans and lock n locks and eventually you go cheap.  That "fool me once..." thing I guess... 

 We're kinda surprised some COs haven't given up entirely with some of the carp they went through with power cachers traveling through, newbs given temp pm , and the "I got mine" all-about-me thinking of many today (for a couple examples).

[+spacemule]

Personally, I like the challenge of finding well hidden containers.  Whether it's micro or not doesn't matter to me. If you prefer a certain type of cache, wouldn't it be easy to just use the filters on your search settings?  If you don't want to find generic hides, how about sorting by number of favorites received?  I'm not saying the annoyances you speak of aren't annoyances, but I don't understand how they affect your enjoyment of the hobby since it is *so* easy to tailor the types of caches you find.  *shrugs*

[+Mudfrog]

4 hours ago, spacemule said:

Personally, I like the challenge of finding well hidden containers.  Whether it's micro or not doesn't matter to me. If you prefer a certain type of cache, wouldn't it be easy to just use the filters on your search settings?  If you don't want to find generic hides, how about sorting by number of favorites received?  I'm not saying the annoyances you speak of aren't annoyances, but I don't understand how they affect your enjoyment of the hobby since it is *so* easy to tailor the types of caches you find.  *shrugs*

 

I too like challenging hides. A good camouflaged micro hidden in a way that makes me scratch my head is great. Yes, I might be surprised but I'm fairly certain none of the caches in my query fall into that category  Most are placed along side county roads where you hop out of your vehicle, sign the tiny logscroll, drive on to the next, and repeat. They were placed to up find count. There are a few in cemeteries which are sometimes interesting, otherwise it's pretty much humdrum city.

 

As far as finding caches I like, sure I filter. Unfortunately, not many results come up when I do. The query I just ran is a good example. I'd have gotten one result if I had filtered for regular sized caches.    

[+Goldenwattle]

47 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

To my surprise (well not really), almost every cache was micro in size. Out of the first one hundred, 20 were listed as being small and 1 was listed as being regular in size. Upon reading some of the descriptions, it turns out that all but 3 of the listed smalls are actually micros (hints say bison, magnetic, tube, etc,,). The 1 showing as regular does state that it is an ammocan.

It appears many geocachers (usually newer ones) appear not capable of reading what the sizes actually mean. They appear to think, 'Okay, like, that tiny nano is a micro, therefore bison tubes, mintie tins and similar are bigger than a nano, and as the nano is a micro, naturally bison tubes, mintie tins, etc are, like obviously smalls. And if they are smalls, sistemas and similar are then naturally regular, and anything bigger gotta be a large sized."

 

The missing rating for nanos, is what I believe has led to many cache sizes being wrongly rated.

[+lee737]

I don't mind micros, as long as they aren't 3mL tubes poked in the side of a stump or under a non-descript rock somewhere in the scrub where you could hide a minibus, and as long as the log is dry and maintained.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

As far as finding caches I like, sure I filter. Unfortunately, not many results come up when I do. The query I just ran is a good example. I'd have gotten one result if I had filtered for regular sized caches.

 

Micros are almost a rarity around here. Within 16km of home these are the latest numbers of enabled caches (excluding events, virtuals and ECs):

 

Micro - 55

Small - 155

Regular - 90

Large - 7

Other - 9

 

Edit to add: Of the new caches published this year within that same radius, there were:

 

Micro - 2

Small - 5

Regular -7

Large - 0

Other - 0

 

So if anything, the caches here are getting bigger!

Edited October 12, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+coachstahly]

I would posit the notion that micros are more prolific because more first time hiders don't want to invest the money in larger containers because they're not certain they'll actually be around long enough to keep things going.  I would also venture to guess that many of the first time hiders find mostly micro caches to begin with so they are under the assumption that this is the way to go.

 

I also think that many of the better spots that could hold a larger container are already taken.  In the country roads in Indiana, it's mostly farm fields with little tree cover or any other type of cover that would allow a larger container to be placed so micros seem to be the default type hidden.

 

I'm typically not a swag guy so I don't trade out much so the noted increase of micro caches doesn't really annoy me that much but I do try to hide caches able to hold swag, when feasible.  I've only had to downsize one of my regular caches to a small when the natural cover began to disappear due to a variety of factors. I don't think I've ever up-sized a cache, other than one I adopted.  It was originally an ammo can but was replaced with a small.  When I adopted it, I put out an ammo can.

 

Are the caches in your PQ mostly owned by the same CO or are they owned by a variety of COs?  If the same CO, that can certainly get expensive if they hide larger sized containers.

[+dprovan]

11 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

I too like challenging hides.

I appreciate the art of challenging hides. And when I have time to look, I like them better than trivial hides. I like hiking. I like views. I like large caches but I also like small containers. I like lots of things, including finding caches. All those other things I like about some caches only add to my pleasure. A simple find under a lamp post cover is still fun for me, just not always as much fun.

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

I would posit the notion that micros are more prolific because...

Lots of theories here about why micros are becoming so common, but the actual reason is obvious: most people like them. It's not a hider vs. seeker thing. Yes, hiding them is easier and offers more flexibility, but it also immediately adds to the challenge which we're all agreeing we like. People here in the forums often complain about caches being too easy to get to, but most geocachers like plenty of easy to get to caches. Newbies, casual seekers, hardcore and long time geocachers, in my experience, all of them tend to like caches first, then, second, like caches better that have the qualities they most appreciate.

 

I appreciate reading these regular complaints from the people that see geocaching as nothing but an adjunct to hiking as it was originally. It reminds us of the other possibilities which, I do admit, are becoming dimmer and dimmer in the modern geocaching society. But every time it comes up, I can't help but notice that the caches they're complaining about have nothing to do with how many caches are planted of the type they'd want. Even if no one hid micros, we still wouldn't see any more ammo cans hidden in the back country at great views. And, in fact, the constant "there are so many bad caches" griping over the last few years has led to procedures that, ironically, are making it harder and harder for people to plant those back country caches, driving more COs that might do that towards hiding micros in parking lots.

 

I guess what I'm saying to the OP is that it might be more effective to encourage qualities you like instead of dissing what you think are opposing qualities.

[+Mudfrog]

18 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Micros are almost a rarity around here. Within 16km of home these are the latest numbers of enabled caches (excluding events, virtuals and ECs):

 

Micro - 55

Small - 155

Regular - 90

Large - 7

Other - 9

 

Edit to add: Of the new caches published this year within that same radius, there were:

 

Micro - 2

Small - 5

Regular -7

Large - 0

Other - 0

 

So if anything, the caches here are getting bigger!

 

I've read many of your posts and it's obvious you have some great caches in your area. You, and it sounds like others, really put some effort and thought into cache placements. I'd definitely loved to do some caching down your way. Yep, I'm envious for sure! 

[+Mudfrog]

13 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I would posit the notion that micros are more prolific because more first time hiders don't want to invest the money in larger containers because they're not certain they'll actually be around long enough to keep things going.  I would also venture to guess that many of the first time hiders find mostly micro caches to begin with so they are under the assumption that this is the way to go.

 

I also think that many of the better spots that could hold a larger container are already taken.  In the country roads in Indiana, it's mostly farm fields with little tree cover or any other type of cover that would allow a larger container to be placed so micros seem to be the default type hidden.

 

I'm typically not a swag guy so I don't trade out much so the noted increase of micro caches doesn't really annoy me that much but I do try to hide caches able to hold swag, when feasible.  I've only had to downsize one of my regular caches to a small when the natural cover began to disappear due to a variety of factors. I don't think I've ever up-sized a cache, other than one I adopted.  It was originally an ammo can but was replaced with a small.  When I adopted it, I put out an ammo can.

 

Are the caches in your PQ mostly owned by the same CO or are they owned by a variety of COs?  If the same CO, that can certainly get expensive if they hide larger sized containers.

 

I agree with you, especially what you mentioned in your first paragraph. I personally believe that the phone app is a main cause and if it is, don't think there's much that can be done to curb it at this point. As for my query, there were a few different hiders but the majority (76 out of the first 100) were hidden by one person. 

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

I've read many of your posts and it's obvious you have some great caches in your area. You, and it sounds like others, really put some effort and thought into cache placements. I'd definitely loved to do some caching down your way. Yep, I'm envious for sure! 

 

Thanks. There's a few factors happening here:

• a topography that's rich in rivers, lakes, creeks, sandstone ridges, gullies, caves and forests all offering wonderful cache-hiding opportunities. Why put a cache in a carpark when the landscape offers so many opportunities?
• the most commonly-used container here is the New Zealand made Sistema Klip-It range which survive well outdoors in our climate and are readily available at low cost in the local supermarkets. The smallest of these is 200ml so it's not surprising micros are relatively scarce.
• a tradition going back to 2001 of some really fantastic bushland hiders. Local legends like P3sKy_Geomonkey and Shifter Brains from the first decade and then Elev8!on [mrnoo17], seaeagles1997 and Wests Tigers Fan from the second have really set the standard here.

[+colleda]

Those Sistemas are working well for me. Getting 5-6+ years so far with no apparent UV breakdown. A couple have had the odd clip break and the gasket may need cleaning once or twice in that time. Similar to Lock'n'lock.

I'm also having good results from plastic vitamin and shake powder jars. This D1 T1.5 (500ml jar) has been going 6 years in a spot that is a little exposed, is covered by a broken lump of concrete, always gets wet when it rains but stays dry inside and is in a high muggle area, alongside a walking/cycling track.

GC4AXD4

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, colleda said:

Those Sistemas are working well for me. Getting 5-6+ years so far with no apparent UV breakdown. A couple have had the odd clip break and the gasket may need cleaning once or twice in that time. Similar to Lock'n'lock.

I'm also having good results from plastic vitamin and shake powder jars. This D1 T1.5 (500ml jar) has been going 6 years in a spot that is a little exposed, is covered by a broken lump of concrete, always gets wet when it rains but stays dry inside and is in a high muggle area, alongside a walking/cycling track.

GC4AXD4

I find those tablet containers work well too, being a good sized small (bigger than the most commonly seen sistema) with a wide lid. They last years too and don't appear to leak. Better to reuse them than buy one. The dark green coloured ones are the best.

[+colleda]

23 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I find those tablet containers work well too, being a good sized small (bigger than the most commonly seen sistema) with a wide lid. They last years too and don't appear to leak. Better to reuse them than buy one. The dark green coloured ones are the best.

Yes, the green ones are good, they don't need camo paint.

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, colleda said:

Yes, the green ones are good, they don't need camo paint.

Also dark colours deteriorate slower in the sun than pale colours. Another reason the green is better than the white containers.

[+Oxford Stone]

If I go caching abroad (usually on a business trip, see "Collecting Countries") or on the way to / form a football match, it'll probably be an urban cache and therefore a micro (though there is a massive ammo box, bigger than a suitcase, under a bridge in York...) and I'm not expecting much else. If it's an ingenious find then all the better. If it just gives me a smiley in a new city then that's fine (recently in Seville / Granada / Málaga, 16 forgettable caches one clever one - still a micro).

Size expectations go up when out in the countryside - mind you, one CO a county away still manages to make most of their hides micros in thorn bushes even when a mile from the nearest road...

[+Mudfrog]

3 hours ago, Oxford Stone said:

If I go caching abroad (usually on a business trip, see "Collecting Countries") or on the way to / form a football match, it'll probably be an urban cache and therefore a micro (though there is a massive ammo box, bigger than a suitcase, under a bridge in York...) and I'm not expecting much else. If it's an ingenious find then all the better. If it just gives me a smiley in a new city then that's fine (recently in Seville / Granada / Málaga, 16 forgettable caches one clever one - still a micro).

Size expectations go up when out in the countryside - mind you, one CO a county away still manages to make most of their hides micros in thorn bushes even when a mile from the nearest road...

 

My observations, and the reason I started the thread, is because of the overwhelming abundance of microcaches placed in silly locations these days. I don't expect every cache to be to my taste and I certainly don't expect every cache to be non micro in size. Microcaches do have their place. But it's easy to see that people will become bored, some quicker than others, if all they come across is the same ole teensy stuff over and over. Heck, I know a few once hardcore "number's hounds" that have given geocaching up completely after they figured out for themselves that those big numbers weren't doing a thing for them. 

 

The original premise to put thought and quality into a cache hide needs to be brought back. It's a shame that geocaching has become just another "game app" and that the focus on quantity has become the mainstay these days.. 

 

 

[+frostengel]

1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

My observations, and the reason I started the thread, is because of the overwhelming abundance of microcaches placed in silly locations these days.

 

Same here - but there are still many gems between those. I usually stick to multi caches (or high terrain caches) when planning a tour as with multi caches I usually see more than just the "silly location" of the final. ;-)

 

I usually grab those micro cache traditionals on my way while doing these multis. They are nice add-ons and they boost my statistics. ;-)

 

If I only found those I would have lost interest in the hobby for sure but I haven't had a geocaching day for a long time after which I thought that I had only found bad caches (or statistic caches) that day. It is not too hard to plan. :-)

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

My observations, and the reason I started the thread, is because of the overwhelming abundance of microcaches placed in silly locations these days.

 

Similar sorta I guess to frostengel, I'm usually heading further out, and stick with higher D/T. 

Though the downside is a few of the multis here,  I'm still waiting to see a couple stages fixed to finish.

 - Often they're eventually archived instead...

But I don't do the low D/T  "along the way"  to/from them for a stat boost, instead skipping right by them. 

I don't even look at my stats unless something's mentioned in these forums.    

Most of the caches I've found the last few years made a good day (for me) because I'm no longer even looking at those nondescript hides in search.

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

My observations, and the reason I started the thread, is because of the overwhelming abundance of microcaches placed in silly locations these days. <snip>

The original premise to put thought and quality into a cache hide needs to be brought back. 

 

And we (hubby and I) DO try to put thought and quality into our hides - and set an example for those who find ours.  We've found some really nice hides - well thought out, nicely constructed, definitely some effort put into the placement.  We've come across others that are just put there because there's an open spot and there was a container in the geobag that could be hidden there... I try to hide caches in a manner that I like to find them.  Thankfully I have a very talented husband when it comes to constructing gadgets and clever hiding containers and we make our hides interesting.  I enjoy doing write ups that are more than just a quick description of the pullout next to the guardrail.

Not everyone has the resources, the time, or the incliniation to put the effort in to create those kinds of hides.  We come across hides all the time that WE would have done differently.  And others likely think the same of ours - but that makes the game interesting; it takes all kinds!

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

The original premise to put thought and quality into a cache hide needs to be brought back. It's a shame that geocaching has become just another "game app" and that the focus on quantity has become the mainstay these days.. 

 

I'd kinda agree if many of our first finds weren't rusted cookie tins or metal coffee cans, wrapped in black trash bags,  placed by '01 to '03 hiders. 

It was only slightly better with moldy, science-project Tupperware.    

We started placing with Tupperware (it was on all the T-shirts...),  and switched to ammo cans after all the issues.

The areas were (I feel) better, maybe just because fewer similar spots are available today...

We noticed when our hobby slowly became a game.  Bugged us in the beginning, but now simply working around it. 

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Microcaches do have their place. But it's easy to see that people will become bored, some quicker than others, if all they come across is the same ole teensy stuff over and over.

Wouldn't they be even more bored if they didn't come across anything? A reduction in micros would just lead to correspondingly fewer caches. There's no reason to think people would suddenly start planting more big caches.

 

As has become so common, only the seekers' experiences are being considered. If the game turned away from micros, then COs would get bored, including the COs that sometimes plant those big caches in interesting locations.

[+Mudfrog]

9 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Wouldn't they be even more bored if they didn't come across anything? A reduction in micros would just lead to correspondingly fewer caches. There's no reason to think people would suddenly start planting more big caches.

 

As has become so common, only the seekers' experiences are being considered. If the game turned away from micros, then COs would get bored, including the COs that sometimes plant those big caches in interesting locations.

 

My point is that a lot of people are already getting bored enough to slow down and/or totally quit. These people are not going to come across anything because they've already stopped looking. I honestly believe it would help our hobby if there was a reduction in micros and other caches put out mainly for smiley count. I do believe that if people came across caches with more oomph to them, that some of those people would get the buzz and start coming up with good ideas for cache placements of their own.

[+cerberus1]

9 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

My point is that a lot of people are already getting bored enough to slow down and/or totally quit. These people are not going to come across anything because they've already stopped looking. I honestly believe it would help our hobby if there was a reduction in micros and other caches put out mainly for smiley count. I do believe that if people came across caches with more oomph to them, that some of those people would get the buzz and start coming up with good ideas for cache placements of their own.

 

We see the majority of new folks here leave within a short time.  Most we never hear from again to see why.

The other 2/3rds says  "bugs" and poison ivy was the reason for a few. She still plays online games with couple of them today.  

Only one, a basic member,  said it was because of "boring" hides.  That could have changed with membership...

A young couple said they were done at an event.   They played this "game" and going to another.   I feel that's why many leave. 

 - They liked folks, wanted to say goodbye, and left a few trackables they grabbed but didn't know what to do with while there too.

 

Many folks around a while  here are similar to me , picking the caches they'll do, but we see they're hitting those "on the way" hides now too. 

I'd really like to see it like before, most a walk (and not simply open your car door, take twenty steps...),  but I don't believe the removal of  " ... every 600' just because you can..."  will ever change back now.

[+coachstahly]

51 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

My point is that a lot of people are already getting bored enough to slow down and/or totally quit

 

That's rather typical for almost any hobby, when it comes right down to it.  You either stay dedicated or you slowly begin to lose the interest you initially showed. I started out my first 3 years with about 1000 finds each year but I've slowed down quite a bit but not lost my enjoyment.  It's not strictly because of micros; it's more because I'm not as fond as traditional caches as I used to be, preferring non-traditional caches.  My caching preferences changed so my caching changed as well.  I'll look for traditional caches that are placed on a hiking trail but I'll typically skip the ones that seem to be the ones that are placed for numbers or just because they can be placed.  Some of those are smalls and larger but they're certainly not the majority.  However, for some people, those are the types they prefer to find.  While I'd certainly love to see an uptick in the type of caches I prefer, I don't really want it to come at the expense of other cachers and what they prefer.

[+L0ne.R]

I"ve never heard finders say "I wish there were more micro caches."

[+barefootjeff]

31 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I"ve never heard finders say "I wish there were more micro caches."

 

These are the sum total of all the micros around here:

 

 

So yes, I wish there were more micros. Actually I wish there were some new caches of any size - I'm not fussy. Micros tend to be shorter-lived than their larger counterparts so as long as there's a stream of new ones at about the same rate as the old ones disappear, that would at least keep the game alive. The only new caches around here in recent months have been mine.

[+L0ne.R]

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

  14 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I"ve never heard finders say "I wish there were more micro caches."

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So yes, I wish there were more micros. Actually I wish there were some new caches of any size - I'm not fussy.

 

That's often the sentiment, 'I'd rather have micro caches as opposed to nothing.'

 

 

 

[+coachstahly]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

That's often the sentiment, 'I'd rather have micro caches as opposed to nothing.'

 

 

 

 

If you enjoy caching but your options are very limited, then does it matter what size caches are hidden for you to find?  You and I can probably sit back and look at all the caches we have available to us to find and have the luxury of saying that there are too many micros being hidden.  Jeff doesn't have that luxury.  I'm not sure what your point is here, unless it's to downplay the sentiment that micros are better than nothing.  In his case, that's a statement of fact for his situation, not a statement that applies to every place out there.

[+J Grouchy]

20 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

My point is that a lot of people are already getting bored enough to slow down and/or totally quit. These people are not going to come across anything because they've already stopped looking. I honestly believe it would help our hobby if there was a reduction in micros and other caches put out mainly for smiley count. I do believe that if people came across caches with more oomph to them, that some of those people would get the buzz and start coming up with good ideas for cache placements of their own.

 

Only reason I've slowed down is that I've found all the caches within easy reach.   Back when I started, I could stop on my way to/from work or go out on a lunch hour and easily grab one.  Now, though, I'd have to drive pretty far out of my way to get one.  

I don't care if it's a micro or a large, honestly.  To me, style of hide and GZ location is more interesting to me.  So yeah...I'd be happy with more of anything...big OR small.

[+Mudfrog]

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Only reason I've slowed down is that I've found all the caches within easy reach.   Back when I started, I could stop on my way to/from work or go out on a lunch hour and easily grab one.  Now, though, I'd have to drive pretty far out of my way to get one.  

I don't care if it's a micro or a large, honestly.  To me, style of hide and GZ location is more interesting to me.  So yeah...I'd be happy with more of anything...big OR small.

 

There was a time when we had some great cache hiders in our area and because most of their caches, of all sizes, were fun, my unfound list for 50 miles pretty much stayed below 10. Just checked and see that there are now 963 traditional caches that I haven't found within 50 miles of me. Out of those, 59 are listed as regular. From past experience, I'm sure many of these are actually small containers. Of the small listings, many are actually micro in size. Not sure why but this "fudging" in size has been happening more often the last several years. Of course the reason there are so many caches on my unfound list is because of my slow down with geocaching which I guess started about 3 or 4 years ago when I grew tired of seeing the same ole micro sized stuff being placed. 

 

Guess it's sounding like I just want to bash micros but that is far from the truth. I have found many excellently hidden micros in my travels. My concern here is that there has been too much of the same thing hidden over the years. Doing the math with the query I just ran, 5.6% of the caches are listed as regular in size. Imo, it's going to be hard keeping things interesting for the masses with a percentage that low. There is now an overabundance of micros out there that have no redeeming value, are placed in bad locations, with leaky containers, and hidden all the same, etc,,,. I'm sure this has caused people to ask themselves, am I still having fun? is this still worth my time and money?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+coachstahly]

3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

My concern here is that there has been too much of the same thing hidden over the years. Doing the math with the query I just ran, 5.6% of the caches are listed as regular in size. Imo, it's going to be hard keeping things interesting for the masses with a percentage that low. There is now an overabundance of micros out there that have no redeeming value, are placed in bad locations, with leaky containers, and hidden all the same, etc,,,. I'm sure this has caused people to ask themselves, am I still having fun? is this still worth my time and money?

 

When I started, that was close the to the ratio of regular sized containers in my home area.  It's still pretty close.  I honestly don't know if hiding more would create more interest or a renewed interest among older cachers.  There aren't a lot of swag cachers in my area either, which would be the impetus for hiding caches other than micros.  There is certainly an abundance of micros out there, many of which are exactly as what you describe but once again I point out the fact that many of the locations that are "worth" placing a cache as well as many of the locations that can conceal a larger sized cache are already taken, especially in my area.  Those micros you describe are what newer COs have access to when it comes to places to hide a cache.  Otherwise, they're heading out to further reaches and if they're new, they're unlikely to be willing to undertake maintenance on caches out in areas they don't normally traverse.

 

Even with my slowdown in my caching frequency, I still have fun but it takes some "work" on my part to filter out the wheat from the chaff in order to find those caches that I prefer to find.  I'm sure there are some who will slow down or even quit due to the proliferation of micros but I don't think it's an overwhelming consensus that micros are the sole reason many people quit or cache less frequently.  I think it's a nuanced variety of reasons, only one of which is that there are a lot of micros hidden.  For me, it's not so much the size as it is the type of hide.  I'll skip a small LPC and guardrail just as quickly as I'll skip a micro LPC and guardrail.

[+dprovan]

On 10/14/2019 at 1:42 PM, L0ne.R said:

I"ve never heard finders say "I wish there were more micro caches."

I don't hear finders say "I wish there were more regulars and larges", either. The ones that complain say "I wish there were fewer micros," implicitly assuming that if there were fewer micros, there's automatically be regulars and larges to take their place. The comments sometimes sound a lot like, "I'd rather have nothing instead of micro caches."

[+barefootjeff]

11 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

That's often the sentiment, 'I'd rather have micro caches as opposed to nothing.'

 

 

Yes, it's a bit hard to be a geocacher when there are no caches left to find. For what it's worth, these are my most recent ten finds:

 

  Date             Cache               Type                  Size            D/T       Direct Distance        Driving Distance

12 Oct        GC218HB      EarthCache               -                3/3                 25km                       90km

12 Oct        GC1YZ00       Traditional            Small          2/2.5               25km                       90km

 6 Oct         GC60P0J            Multi                 Small          2/1.5               76km                       94km

 6 Oct         GCN3HZ           Mystery            Regular        3/2.5               77km                       94km

 6 Oct         GC8DY1K           Event                    -                1/2                  76km                       94km

 6 Oct         GC6D6FE        Traditional         Regular       1.5/1.5             76km                       94km

 3 Oct         GC830T3        Traditional           Micro         1.5/1.5             29km                       89km

28 Sep       GC89225          Virtual                    -                1/1.5              158km                    204km

27 Sep       GC1NPEP       Traditional           Small          1.5/2               15km                       91km

24 Sep       GC8DA8F       Traditional          Regular        2.5/5                8km              43km + 3km paddle

 

So a good variety of types, sizes and D/T ratings, but the BIG common factor is driving distance. This is becoming an expensive pastime.

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+NYPaddleCacher]

22 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

If you enjoy caching but your options are very limited, then does it matter what size caches are hidden for you to find?

 

For me, yes.  I get a different amount of enjoyment from finding a cache based on various criteria.   If I get little or no satisfaction from finding a film pot with a soggy log then the only redeeming value might be the +1 on my find count.  I don't care about a +1 on my find count.  

[+IceColdUK]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

For me, yes.  I get a different amount of enjoyment from finding a cache based on various criteria.   If I get little or no satisfaction from finding a film pot with a soggy log then the only redeeming value might be the +1 on my find count.  I don't care about a +1 on my find count.  

Of course finding a film pot with a soggy log might be disappointing but there are plenty of other criteria that I’d consider ahead of size / condition.

 

For me, location still trumps all.  If a cache takes me to a great location that I might otherwise have missed, then I can forgive almost anything.

 

A trail of identical film pots with no redeeming features ... meh.

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If I get little or no satisfaction from finding a film pot with a soggy log then the only redeeming value might be the +1 on my find count.  I don't care about a +1 on my find count.  

 

Then you don't have to find micros which stand a relatively good chance of being a film pot with a soggy log.

There are many experiences I get little or no satisfaction from. I'm not being forced to do any of them. At least in geocaching. So I don't. If I choose not to. (but generally I still do because I get my enjoyment not directly from the container)

Edited October 16, 2019 by thebruce0

[+coachstahly]

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

For me, yes.  I get a different amount of enjoyment from finding a cache based on various criteria.   If I get little or no satisfaction from finding a film pot with a soggy log then the only redeeming value might be the +1 on my find count.  I don't care about a +1 on my find count.  

 

54 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

Of course finding a film pot with a soggy log might be disappointing but there are plenty of other criteria that I’d consider ahead of size / condition.

 

For me, location still trumps all.  If a cache takes me to a great location that I might otherwise have missed, then I can forgive almost anything.

 

A trail of identical film pots with no redeeming features ... meh.

 

54 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Then you don't have to find micros which stand a relatively good chance of being a film pot with a soggy log.

There are many experiences I get little or no satisfaction from. I'm not being forced to do any of them. At least in geocaching. So I don't. If I choose not to. (but generally I still do because I get my enjoyment not directly from the container)

 

All of you are somewhat missing the point I was attempting to make.  When you don't have anything BUT a film can to find because there aren't any more caches left to find due to a variety of factors, the biggest being that there's no one hiding new caches in your area, then I'd rather have a soggy film can vs. having nothing at all.  There's no choice available left to some cachers except to find what they can.  Jeff is getting to that point and while I'm certain he'd much prefer a wide ranging choice of size/type/difficulty, I think he'd be a bit more content having someone place some micros closer to his home location rather than continue having to drive farther and farther away to find caches.

 

Yes, I'd not like to find a film can with a soggy log.  It's not going to be a very good experience.   As ICUK has stated, the only possible redeeming quality might be if it's in one of those locations that geocaching has a surprising ability to bring you to.  However, it's not about the + 1 that I'm talking about.  If that's the ONLY option you have left available to you, then I'd rather have that option than no option at all.  It's not a choice we all have when it's the only type of cache we happen to have left to find that's within a reasonable distance from home, especially when it's a minimum drive of 50 miles or more to the nearest unfound cache.  We can all feel free to ignore the type of cache described by NYPC because it appears we all have lots of caches available to choose from.  

 

How many of you would choose to ignore this type of cache if it was one of a few left to you to find that wasn't too far a drive from your home area and the outlook for new caches in your area was bleak?

[+thebruce0]

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

How many of you would choose to ignore this type of cache if it was one of a few left to you to find that wasn't too far a drive from your home area and the outlook for new caches in your area was bleak?

 

I would seek to find ways to boost the hobby in my area rather than wish that fewer were placed. Even soggy film cans.

[+coachstahly]

7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

I would seek to find ways to boost the hobby in my area rather than wish that fewer were placed. Even soggy film cans.

 

I'd try to hold off as long as possible but I'd eventually cave and make the find.  I have the luxury of choosing when and where to go caching within 50 miles of my home location for the type of caches I prefer to find, even though there aren't as many as there used to be due to me finding them on previous trips.  There are lots of other caches I have very little interest in but if I absolutely needed or wanted to, I could go find them.  It's hard for me to comprehend not having this type of choice because it's all I've known but for Jeff, it's his reality.  

 

[+thebruce0]

8 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

It's hard for me to comprehend not having this type of choice because it's all I've known but for Jeff, it's his reality.  

 

Sure. I didn't say anything about assuming a choice of finding or not finding. I said in the case you presented of Jeff (and others') situation of finding only caches you don't enjoy, or none at all, my choice would be to find ways to improve the local community. That choice always exists.  Geocaching itself isn't to blame, it's just unfortunate if someone's local community is not active. Every region was that way at some point, and it grew because some magical formula of activity and people boosted the attraction to the hobby for the local community. So that would be my choice. Regardless of whether or not I "force" myself to find a cache I don't think I'd enjoy because that's all there is in some arbitrarily reasonable distance from my home.

 

And it'd be a lot of work if I took up that charge. Obviously "place caches you'd like to find" doesn't help if there are no finders. It would take more than merely placing more geocaches. It would take engaging with locals, events, meeting and proselytizing the hobby to people who might enjoy it and pick it up.

[+VAVAPAM]

41 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

How many of you would choose to ignore this type of cache if it was one of a few left to you to find that wasn't too far a drive from your home area and the outlook for new caches in your area was bleak?

 

New Year's Day 2018.  12° F. 

Last of my unfound LPCs in the area.  (There are 3.) 

Boy, was I glad it was there!

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

For me, yes.  I get a different amount of enjoyment from finding a cache based on various criteria.   If I get little or no satisfaction from finding a film pot with a soggy log then the only redeeming value might be the +1 on my find count.  I don't care about a +1 on my find count.  

 

This is going back a few years now (January 2014), but there was a new micro published on a jetty near here. Being king tides, I went over there with a muggle mate to look at a shipwreck that's only visible at extreme low water, then we headed around to have a go at the cache. We were soon joined by four other cachers and spent an hour or two in what became an enjoyable mini-event while scouring every nook and cranny of that jetty. It turned out the king high tide six hours earlier had swallowed the cache. So that one wasn't even a +1 to the find count, just a good DNF log to write, but it was still a fun outing, one that wouldn't have happened if that very soggy micro hadn't been published.

 

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And it'd be a lot of work if I took up that charge. Obviously "place caches you'd like to find" doesn't help if there are no finders. It would take more than merely placing more geocaches. It would take engaging with locals, events, meeting and proselytizing the hobby to people who might enjoy it and pick it up.

 

I've hosted events and regularly post on FB about my caching activities in the hope that some of my muggle mates might become interested. One of my former work colleagues, who'll soon be retiring too, has recently gotten into the game and is becoming active in his area, but he lives down on the far southern side of Sydney. A few years back I introduced caching to one of my friends at an amateur radio field day and he's still moderately active, mostly doing his caching when travelling, but hasn't hidden anything and in any case he also lives in Sydney.

 

There have never been huge numbers of cachers in my area and I guess I was fortunate to come into the game at a time when it was pretty much at its peak with some enthusiastic youngsters who really knew how to make fantastic bushland caches. They've now moved on to other things (university studies, work prospects, girlfriends, etc.) and others have either left the game or left the area so it's now just about at rock bottom. But who knows, maybe tomorrow some new youngsters or retirees might catch the bug and start filling the void. And even if their first caches are micros that get swallowed by the tide, I wouldn't want to discourage them as hiding caches, any caches, is always a learning experience.

Edited October 16, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

There have never been huge numbers of cachers in my area and I guess I was fortunate to come into the game at a time when it was pretty much at its peak with some enthusiastic youngsters who really knew how to make fantastic bushland caches. They've now moved on to other things (university studies, work prospects, girlfriends, etc.) and others have either left the game or left the area so it's now just about at rock bottom. But who knows, maybe tomorrow some new youngsters or retirees might catch the bug and start filling the void. And even if their first caches are micros that get swallowed by the tide, I wouldn't want to discourage them as hiding caches, any caches, is always a learning experience.

 

Have you considered styles of hides that would be obvious and attractive to muggles? Library caches are a great tool for that. And libraries are typically on board if it's a very family friendly idea. It could be a launching point into the greater hobby. Perhaps work with restaurants to host special events which they themselves could also promote with visible flyers or cards. Join/contact hiking groups and set up hiking events with a geocaching-themed activity... *shrug* I'm sure these ideas have all been bandied about before If nothing works, then that really is too bad.

[+barefootjeff]

33 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Have you considered styles of hides that would be obvious and attractive to muggles?

 

Sadly any cache that's even the slightest bit obvious and attractive to muggles wouldn't last long around here. On Tuesday I was out doing a post school holidays check on one of my puzzle caches (GC6PE5B). It had a physical waypoint at an out-of-the-way waterhole in the forest consisting of a plastic horse floating half-submerged in the water and tethered by a length of fishing line from an overhanging tree branch - the clue in the puzzle being you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drown. The underside of the base was clearly labelled as a geocaching waypoint, along with the coordinates for the final.

 

 

My heart sank when I saw the track out along the ridge had been recently cleared and marked with pink ribbons leading all the way right to the edge of the waterhole where my waypoint was, and of course it had gone, the fishing line snapped off the branch. That's the second time that one's been muggled so I'm currently rethinking it and might well just archive it now if I can't come up with a more invisible-to-muggles solution.