Only You Can Prevent Lame Caches

[+sbell111]

... Returning to the orginal post that started this thread, I gave him a standing O, and I stand by that, because he considered a standard (of his own creation) and decided not to put a cache where he was considering putting one for the sake of just putting one there. This is a model that will allow geocaching to survive.

Actually, he placed the cache, but didn't list it. Then, most everyone who responded to the initial post urged him to go ahead and list it.

 

Given that this was the attitude three years ago when this thread began, I think that it is safe to say that your doom-and-gloom prediction is unfounded. Clearly, the game is not 'headed for a demise of epic proportions'.

Whoa. Is it just me or do I need to grow a few layers of extra skin to post here? Okay, so it might be me coming from the land of aloha but I am not sure why you can't be a little more positive in your tone. ...

I can get pretty snarky, but this time, I think it is you.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Or... if there is even such a thing as a lame cache?

Imagine how boring this world would be if we were all the same.

 

Imagine how boring this game would be if all caches were the same?

[+Team GeoBlast]

... Returning to the orginal post that started this thread, I gave him a standing O, and I stand by that, because he considered a standard (of his own creation) and decided not to put a cache where he was considering putting one for the sake of just putting one there. This is a model that will allow geocaching to survive.

Actually, he placed the cache, but didn't list it. Then, most everyone who responded to the initial post urged him to go ahead and list it.

 

Given that this was the attitude three years ago when this thread began, I think that it is safe to say that your doom-and-gloom prediction is unfounded. Clearly, the game is not 'headed for a demise of epic proportions'.

Whoa. Is it just me or do I need to grow a few layers of extra skin to post here? Okay, so it might be me coming from the land of aloha but I am not sure why you can't be a little more positive in your tone. ...

I can get pretty snarky, but this time, I think it is you.

 

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

[+sbell111]

... And if you archive your cache that you feel is your worst, the quality of caches in your opinion will be better. And if everyone does it, the quality, in our collective opinion, has to go up. Sure there will still be diversity, but again in our collective opinion the quality has to get better.

I still find this amazing. Why in the world would we want to archive the cache we feel is our worst? For one thing...I can't for the life of me make that choice. All my caches are different, not one better than the other.

 

If we took this to the extreme, and all of us did this, say, once a year, eventually we would be getting rid of a lot of older historical caches. I like history.

 

There are just so many reasons why this suggestion is too general to be a true solution.

What this describes is self policing or quality control and I personally like this idea. Even if you can't create a checklist or solid criteria to follow. If you are constantly nipping the bottom end of the curve off, the median will rise.

 

As for not being able to decide which of your caches to archive, you might be different in that you practiced quality control on the front end. Or, perhaps, you are having trouble being objective about your own cache hides. Either way, if you can really say that all of your hides are quality hides, all the finders are raving about how they enjoyed finding them, and you have the energy and time to maintain them... leave them be.

I think you are in error.

 

Let's imagine a scenario:

 

Cacher A owns 5 caches, all LPMs. He archives one of them.

Cacher B owns two caches. Both long hikes to picturesque locations. He archives one of them.

Cacher C owns three caches. One is a guardrail micro, one is a fake rock in a sea of rocks, and one is a traditional cache covered by sticks in a local park. It happens to be the second oldest cache in the state. It doesn't get many visits anymore and everyone has seen the hide technique a million times. He archives the cache in the park.

 

Would caching, as you know it, be improved through the plan that everyone archive their lamest cache?

Edited December 7, 2006 by sbell111

[+Ambrosia]

... And if you archive your cache that you feel is your worst, the quality of caches in your opinion will be better. And if everyone does it, the quality, in our collective opinion, has to go up. Sure there will still be diversity, but again in our collective opinion the quality has to get better.

I still find this amazing. Why in the world would we want to archive the cache we feel is our worst? For one thing...I can't for the life of me make that choice. All my caches are different, not one better than the other.

 

If we took this to the extreme, and all of us did this, say, once a year, eventually we would be getting rid of a lot of older historical caches. I like history.

 

There are just so many reasons why this suggestion is too general to be a true solution.

What this describes is self policing or quality control and I personally like this idea. Even if you can't create a checklist or solid criteria to follow. If you are constantly nipping the bottom end of the curve off, the median will rise.

 

As for not being able to decide which of your caches to archive, you might be different in that you practiced quality control on the front end. Or, perhaps, you are having trouble being objective about your own cache hides. Either way, if you can really say that all of your hides are quality hides, all the finders are raving about how they enjoyed finding them, and you have the energy and time to maintain them... leave them be.

I think you are in error.

 

Let's imagine a scenario:

 

Cacher A owns 5 caches, all LPMs. He archives one of them.

Cacher B owns two caches. All long hikes to picturesque locations. He archives one of them.

Cacher C owns three caches. One is a guardrail micro, one is a fake rock in a sea of rocks, and one is a traditional cache covered by sticks in a local park. It happens to be the second oldest cache in the state. It doesn't get many visits anymore and everyone has seen the hide technique a million times. He archives the cache in the park.

 

Would caching, as you know it, improved through the plan that everyone archive their lamest cache?

Exactly. Thank you for saying it clearly.

[+boda]

I looked at my few caches and tried to determine which I would archive - if I was so inclined (and I'm not, but I understand and support the goal). I ran into a myriad of problems.

 

My most popular cache is a micro. As a result, it is filtered out by some and condemned, sight unseen, by others. Does it deserve to stay even though some will not seek it?

 

My worst cache is an ammo can with quite a bit of swag in it. This would be the one to go. I could move it further up the hill to a more scenic area, but fewer people would find it.

 

Both are in decent locations but they are not like the others which require a hike but have some great views. In addition, logs and verbal comments are favorable for both. Who should I make happy? Should I archive both, or neither?

[+Renegade Knight]

I've already archived most of my caches.

[Clan Riffster]

You responded by celebrating the fact that I wouldn't be debating you any further

I guess my celebration was a bit premature.

And I'm disappointed to see that you're uninterested in (or incapable of) defending your "any cache I declare as 'lame' is unworthy of existence" stance.

Golly Gee. What angst!

I don't remember having that stance. My position, which I've stated often enough for even you to figure out, does not need to be defended. My stance is my own personal opinion of what I believe to be lame caches, and the contempt I feel for those hides which are made without any thought at all. I call it GeoTourette's Syndrome. Assuming someone decides to hide a cache, they can either;

1. Plop out a container at a randomly selected location
   
2. Take the time to create an interesting hide, (by their definition), or
   
3. Fall somewhere in between the two
   

I am an advocate of the second choice. Obviously you are not. We're all old enough to peck at a keyboard, so the fact that some old fat guy from Florida disagrees with your principles shouldn't get you so upset. Take a deep breath..... Take several...... See? It's not that hard to relax.

 

It is my belief that each cache I place should stand as an emissary to geocaching. This belief leads me to take extra measures to ensure that nothing I hide would ever be considered "Lame", by my standards. If I knew what your standards were, (assuming you have standards), I could tailor my hides to avoid your definition of "Lame", but since mine are the only standards I can accurately measure, those are the ones I gotta follow. Savvy?

 

This debate reminds me of the minutes from an Orange County California School Board meeting, circa 1969. The School Board was debating the value of individual accountability, responsibility and merit, when a teacher stated, "But Johnny deserves an A. He tried his best". The handwringers on the School Board were unwilling to rebut that statement, so they lowered the standards for getting an "A". About every 5 years or so, our nation's educators lower the standards again, so that some other "Johnny" can get an "A". The end result is the quality of our educational system is plummeting steadily downward as compared to the rest of the world. This process is often referred to as "The dumbing down of America".

 

Keep hiding your soggy log film canisters behind dumpsters if that's what it takes to make you happy. I'll keep hunting the types of caches that I enjoy. That way we can both enjoy this wonderfully diverse game. There really is room in this world for differing viewpoints. You should try it sometime.

[+KBI]

Thanks for re-entering the debate, Clan Riffster. I’m glad you’re responding to the real me again.

 

My original crankiness was only in response to yours, but … whaddya say we take another stab at doing this more friendly-like? I enjoy the debate part, but the rocks we’ve both been guilty of throwing at each other don’t add anything of value to the discussion.

 

And I'm disappointed to see that you're uninterested in (or incapable of) defending your "any cache I declare as 'lame' is unworthy of existence" stance.

I don't remember having that stance.

In the spirit of détente I’ll grant you that one. I’m always happy to admit a mistake. My wording there was probably a little too strong to be an accurate description of your position. I’ve read back over all your posts in both recent threads where this has been discussed, and, though your opinion on ‘lameness’ does line up squarely with several other complainers, you yourself have not actually called for such hides to be archived as some others have.

 

You must admit, though, that your criticisms of your fellow hider’s perceived lack of creativity and inspiration have been pretty harsh ...

One of the most common misconceptions espoused by a vocal minority is that all caches have an equal value. BillyBobNosePicker's film canister tossed behind a dumpster at Burger King is somehow equal to an ammo can sitting at the top of Stone Mountain, other than differences in difficulty & terrain.

Those are suggestions for placing caches and were probably written with Jeremy's biases. They provide a good set of issues that you should consider when hiding caches. They don't rule out urban hides.

Jeremy probably recognized that this game would be embraced by all types, including those who rode the short bus to school. the, uh, shall we say, less inspired? As such, he didn't want to write a guideline prohibiting carpy film canister behind a dumpster hides, hide-a-key's slapped onto guardrails or the oh-so-clever lamp post skirt hide. When you run a business that supplies something to the general public, you often find yourself producing for the lowest common denominator.

I believe that the existence of what I would call "Lame" caches has an overall negative impact on the game.

 

... and that you sometimes come pretty close to sounding like you’re demanding that something be ‘done’ ...

Will whining about growth in the number of so-called lame caches cause owners of those caches to consider archiving them? Maybe.

Is doing nothing going to resolve what I perceive to be a growing problem? The U.N. certainly thinks so.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

My position, which I've stated often enough for even you to figure out, does not need to be defended. My stance is my own personal opinion of what I believe to be lame caches, and the contempt I feel for those hides which are made without any thought at all. I call it GeoTourette's Syndrome. Assuming someone decides to hide a cache, they can either;

1. Plop out a container at a randomly selected location
   
2. Take the time to create an interesting hide, (by their definition), or
   
3. Fall somewhere in between the two
   

I am an advocate of the second choice. Obviously you are not. We're all old enough to peck at a keyboard, so the fact that some old fat guy from Florida disagrees with your principles shouldn't get you so upset.

You haven’t upset me yet, and I doubt you can. No hard feelings here at all. Again, I’m just glad you’re responding to the real me again.

 

In your list above I believe you make an erroneous assumption in item number one. Has anyone ever actually told you that the location they selected for a cache hide was ‘random?’ I think it’s more likely that they thought it was a good location for some specific reason or another, and that the ‘random’ thing merely reflects your personal impression of those types of hides.

 

I am an advocate of the second choice. Obviously you are not.

Another bad assumption.

 

If you’ve been reading my posts you’ve seen me express that I myself am no fan of the types of hides that most people would call lame. I always prefer inspired, creative or entertaining hides to those that are not, just like you. Our differences are that I don’t complain about it when it doesn’t happen for me every time, and that the mere existence of the caches which I consider lame just doesn’t bother me. I prefer the WOW caches, but I'd always prefer to have an uninspired cache to find than no cache at all.

[FlagFinder]

when cachers hate one of my caches they say "BOO HISS!" its a little annoying because my sister says the same thing

[+KBI]

It is my belief that each cache I place should stand as an emissary to geocaching. This belief leads me to take extra measures to ensure that nothing I hide would ever be considered "Lame", by my standards.

Very admirable. I do the same thing with my hides. I hope for both our sakes, however, that if the Lameness Police ever do get their purge cranked up, their arbitrary standards will be close enough to our arbitrary standards to allow all our cache hides, yours AND mine, to remain in play.

 

If I knew what your standards were, (assuming you have standards) ...

I do, and they’re just as arbitrary as yours. I’m no big fan of caches that require information that only locals are likely to know, for example, but I DO know how to skip over stuff I don’t like, so the mere existence of such hides doesn’t bother me in the least.

 

... I could tailor my hides to avoid your definition of "Lame", but since mine are the only standards I can accurately measure, those are the ones I gotta follow. Savvy?

As it should be. I don’t want anybody feeling they have to please me or anybody else when they hide a geocache, only themselves. I don’t want anyone telling me how to hide caches, and I certainly don’t want to think that my arbitrary opinions are holding any sway over your, or anyone else’s, hides.

 

This debate reminds me of the minutes from an Orange County California School Board meeting, circa 1969. The School Board was debating the value of individual accountability, responsibility and merit, when a teacher stated, "But Johnny deserves an A. He tried his best". The handwringers on the School Board were unwilling to rebut that statement, so they lowered the standards for getting an "A". About every 5 years or so, our nation's educators lower the standards again, so that some other "Johnny" can get an "A". The end result is the quality of our educational system is plummeting steadily downward as compared to the rest of the world. This process is often referred to as "The dumbing down of America".

Very accurate, but not relevant.

 

Academic standards of professional, public education vs. creativity standards of amateur, private entertainment are two entirely different things. This is just a hobby, nothing more. The quality of Johnny’s education affects us all, but there is nothing critical riding on whether or not Johnny can wow you with his geocache hide. If his diploma turns out to be worthless, that’s a problem. If his lamppost hide makes you roll your eyes, who cares?

 

Keep hiding your soggy log film canisters behind dumpsters if that's what it takes to make you happy. I'll keep hunting the types of caches that I enjoy. That way we can both enjoy this wonderfully diverse game. There really is room in this world for differing viewpoints. You should try it sometime.

Just keep in mind that respecting diversity of opinion means more than just boorishly shouting down folks with YOUR opinion and calling them names (as some have done) when they disagree.

 

Sometimes those soggy dumpster hides DO make me happy. I don’t hide them myself, but there are many times when I’m sure glad to have SOME kind of GPS-related entertainment within convenient reach. Just because those hides don’t entertain you is no reason to publicly kvetch at the hiders and the finders who are enjoying them.

 

Here’s a great analogy: Christmas Carolers! Caroling pretty much amounts to being a hobby – its providers work for fun, not pay – therefore Christmas carolers are volunteers and amateurs, just like cache hiders. I love when carolers come to my door! Sure, I’d rather be wowed by world class tenors and ballerinas with accompanying orchestra, or at least that they all sing on key, but sometimes it’s just an impromptu group of friends or family who don’t even know all the words, roaming the neighborhood with their tin ears and their big smiles. What do YOU do when that doorbell rings? Most folks will stand at the door and enjoy, some will chose to avoid what they perceive as an annoying chore by pretending not to be home ... but who would ever think to follow them around the neighborhood while loudly criticizing their lack of talent? "You guys are BAD for caroling! Please STOP IT!!!"

 

I prefer angel-voiced carolers over dissonant ones, but I’ll take ANY carolers over none at all. How about you?

 

 

When it comes to geocaches, "lame" is in the eye of the beholder. If you don’t like lame caches, simply stop 'beholding' them, but leave the hiders alone!

 

Just my opinion.

Edited December 8, 2006 by KBI

[+Sagefox]

I've already archived most of my caches.

 

Me too. But that is because we will be moving out of state. But we will leave four caches in place that should be able to survive above the "lame cache" threshold which means that they will have a lower find rate than the easy ones in town. (To ward off unnecessary posts, we will be able to maintain the remainders even though the move is 664 miles away. Business will bring me back frequently.)

[Clan Riffster]

Some great counter points. Perhaps I was mistaken when I tried to define where our ideals diverge. It seems we pretty much like the same kinda stuff, and we probably have remarkably similar personal definitions of "Lame". Let me try a different track:

 

When Senator WhatsHerName tried banning Geocaching in South Carolina, many cachers rose to the occasion, challenging her attempt. In reading the various posts made by those who fought the good fight, a commonly recurring theme was that they fought because they perceived a direct threat to the game they love so much. Was the threat valid? Probably. Had the community opted for the U.N. solution, I believe the future of Geocaching in South Carolina would have been very grim indeed.

 

It is my belief that the rapid, (or should I say "rabid"?), increase of lame caches across the country will have a detrimental effect on Geocaching. I'm not proposing that others embrace this belief, I'm simply stating that it is mine. Because I perceive the threat to be real, I do my best to fight the onslaught. I can't claim that my methods are politically correct, but then I've never been particularly PC myself. I do agree with your thoughts this this should never be personal, which is why I keep my snarky comments generalized, rather than targeting individuals. I recognize that these negative comments might hurt the feelings of someone, somewhere who knowingly places uninspired caches, but in my eyes, those same people are hurting this game. If those folks are unwittingly placing uninspired hides, then I ask that they apply at least a bit of cogent effort to their attempts. Effort = Reward. Again, just my $0.02. I don't expect anybody else to join me in this fray, as I am not so fragile as to require the validation of my beliefs. If I were to sound a "Call To Arms", it would be to ask that those folks who feel uninspired caches are a detriment to our game, express those beliefs. Nothing more. Peer pressure is a great motivator. If the Geocaching Gods were to grant me the power to ban lame caches, I would not do so. I think the problem that I perceive to exist would be better fought through education than through legislation. By teaching others the benefits of non-lame cache hiding, I think we can all increase the overall quality of caches across the globe.

 

On a side note, I do feel my School Board comparison was valid. Those educators came from an era when personal accountability was the standard, yet they did nothing when a threat arose to the system they professed to defend. They placed self esteem over merit, and turned our "gubment" schools into the laughing stock of the free world. The SDOEL are likewise placing self esteem over merit, in my opinion, and in doing so are encouraging behavior that I believe is harmful to the game. Again, just my beliefs.

 

I also disagree with your use of the term "Amateur" across the board. While my 500 finds certainly don't entitle me to the title of professional, I certainly feel I'm several degrees above amateur. I can't say that there is some magic number which makes someone a pro, but performing a particular task repeatedly, over an extended period of time, should eventually take away a person's rookie status. Just because we aren't paid to perform this task, doesn't take away from our particular levels of expertise.

 

Still, I would consider it an honor and a privilege to join you some day hunting ammo cans. Georgia ain't that far away.

 

Shalom, Brother!

[Clan Riffster]

When it comes to geocaches, "lame" is in the eye of the beholder.

BTW, you really should stop holding bees. They sting!

[+KBI]

Let me try a different track:

 

When Senator WhatsHerName tried banning Geocaching in South Carolina, many cachers rose to the occasion, challenging her attempt. In reading the various posts made by those who fought the good fight, a commonly recurring theme was that they fought because they perceived a direct threat to the game they love so much. Was the threat valid? Probably. Had the community opted for the U.N. solution, I believe the future of Geocaching in South Carolina would have been very grim indeed.

I don't think that's the same thing at all. The rampaging senator represents an external, and very real, threat to the entire game (at least in her state). So-called "lame" caches are only a perceived threat to individual cache seekers who don't have the patience to either tolerate or avoid hides that don't live up to their arbitrary requirements for entertainment.

 

No one has convinced me that "lameness" constitutes any true threat to the long-term health or enjoyability of this hobby, or in any way affects one's enjoyment while hunting the types of caches one prefers.

 

I think the problem that I perceive to exist would be better fought through education than through legislation.

Amen!

 

By teaching others the benefits of non-lame cache hiding, I think we can all increase the overall quality of caches across the globe.

A noble plan, but that brings you right back to this insurmountable problem:

 

Preventing (or even limiting) the existence of lame caches is impossible. It is impossible for the simple reason that there is no consensus definition of the word "lame" as it applies to geocache hides, and there never will be.

 

On a side note, I do feel my School Board comparison was valid. Those educators came from an era when personal accountability was the standard, yet they did nothing when a threat arose to the system they professed to defend. They placed self esteem over merit, and turned our "gubment" schools into the laughing stock of the free world. The SDOEL are likewise placing self esteem over merit, in my opinion, and in doing so are encouraging behavior that I believe is harmful to the game. Again, just my beliefs.

My defense of lame hides has nothing to do with 'self esteem.' My point is that while YOU think BillyBobNosePicker's cache is lame, BillyBobNosePicker may well think YOUR cache is just as lame. You've got your criteria, he's got his. Your personal opinion is no more or less valid than his, so ... who's right? Who's cache is "lame?" Neither? Both?

 

And, as I said before, academic standards of professional, public education vs. creativity standards of amateur, private entertainment are two entirely different things. This is just a hobby, nothing more.

 

I also disagree with your use of the term "Amateur" across the board. While my 500 finds certainly don't entitle me to the title of professional, I certainly feel I'm several degrees above amateur. I can't say that there is some magic number which makes someone a pro, but performing a particular task repeatedly, over an extended period of time, should eventually take away a person's rookie status. Just because we aren't paid to perform this task, doesn't take away from our particular levels of expertise.

Although amateur normally means "unpaid" and professional normally means "paid" (neither word indicating any particular level of experience), I won't argue semantics or definitions. I'm the first to claim that language is dynamic, and that you're free to use any word to mean anything you like. It sounds like you now understand my intended point, however, and that's what matters. Thank you. That's SO much nicer than the misquoted strawmen previous ugliness that I promised not to bring up again!

 

Still, I would consider it an honor and a privilege to join you some day hunting ammo cans. Georgia ain't that far away.

Neither is Florida. My job takes me everywhere, and I'm sure I'll be in your town someday. If you've got wheels, I'll buy lunch!

 

[EDIT: More typey typey! (Added first segment)]

Edited December 8, 2006 by KBI

[+KBI]

When it comes to geocaches, "lame" is in the eye of the beholder.

BTW, you really should stop holding bees. They sting!

Thanks for your concern -- I'll bee careful.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't think that's the same thing at all. The rampaging senator represents an external, and very real, threat to the entire game (at least in her state). So-called "lame" caches are only a perceived threat to individual cache seekers who don't have the patience to either tolerate or avoid hides that don't live up to their arbitrary requirements for entertainment.

Threats, by their very nature, are always a matter of perception. Neither of us are omniscient, therefor there is no way we can accurately state that anything other than smoke would've come from the SC situation. You & I both believe the threat was valid, but that is, by definition, a matter of opinion, not fact.

 

If someone armed with a knife comes charging down an alley toward you, screaming, is that a threat? If the alley is 100' long, is he a threat at that distance, or does he need to get closer to you to be a threat? Would your ability to defend yourself through some form of martial training or being armed with a handgun and trained in it's use change your threat assessment? When you sit in front of a Grand Jury explaining why you utilized physical force against the knife wielder, you'll have 12 people with 12 different beliefs regarding what you thought of as a threat.

 

Because I believe lame caches to be a threat to the game, that threat is as real, to me, as the SC situation and the hypothetical knife toting screamer. One threat was external, one is internal. Both are real, according to my viewpoint.

 

Preventing (or even limiting) the existence of lame caches is impossible.

I understand the semantics of where you're coming from, but I disagree with your evaluation. I believe we don't need a 100% consensus of what constitutes "Lame", to effectively reduce it. We just need a majority. If everybody posted what they considered to be lame, I would bet we would end up with a large percentage of things like film canisters dropped in the bushes of fast food restaurants, and hide-a-keys stuck on guard rails along roads with no aesthetic value or historical significance, and a very low percentage of things like well stocked ammo cans hidden at scenic locations. If this list did nothing more than cause the readers to apply a bit of introspection to their potential hide, we've won.

[+Ambrosia]

Did I ween?

[+sbell111]

... If everybody posted what they considered to be lame, I would bet we would end up with a large percentage of things like film canisters dropped in the bushes of fast food restaurants, and hide-a-keys stuck on guard rails along roads with no aesthetic value or historical significance, and a very low percentage of things like well stocked ammo cans hidden at scenic locations. If this list did nothing more than cause the readers to apply a bit of introspection to their potential hide, we've won.

Great. I'll start. I think that when people try to bully others into only hiding caches they enjoy, it's lame.

 

Who's next?

 

BTW, I've found a few caches over the brief time that I've been playing this game and I've been lucky enough to cache in many different areas, worldwide. I have never seen the soggy film can tossed behind the dumpster that continues to be brought up in this thread. I assume that this is a special cache type that only exists in Central Florida.

 

Wait a minute. I've cached in central Florida and I know several cachers there since I used to live in Winter Park. I don't remember any soggy dumpster film cans there, either. Perhaps, the soggy dumpster film cans aren't really taking over the game but are merely a straw man thrown out to misrepresent an issue that has been shown (through lovely graphs in one of the other lame threads) to be not a real problem after all.

[+sbell111]

... It is my belief that each cache I place should stand as an emissary to geocaching. This belief leads me to take extra measures to ensure that nothing I hide would ever be considered "Lame", by my standards. If I knew what your standards were, (assuming you have standards), I could tailor my hides to avoid your definition of "Lame", but since mine are the only standards I can accurately measure, those are the ones I gotta follow. Savvy? ...

I'm willing to bet that 99.95% of all caches were put out by cachers who complete follow your approach. That doesn't stop threads like this one.

[+Team GeoBlast]

It was said somewhere:

 

"Preventing (or even limiting) the existence of lame caches is impossible. It is impossible for the simple reason that there is no consensus definition of the word "lame" as it applies to geocache hides, and there never will be."

 

It's impossible because you can't define what you are trying to regulate. However, it is possible to regulate across the board the number and or frequency of hides.

 

What if GC.com limited cache placements a hider can make based on a ratio of hides vs finds or even using an Ebay type system where hiders are rewarded for their positive feedback by earning the privledge of hiding more caches? The upside to this is that all tastes will be considered in the feedback. If there's cachers in an area that are just clammoring for more Walmart lampost hides, the feedback would reflect that.

 

At some point something like this is going to be needed in dense urban areas. I think using some web magic there's would be a way to check cache density per zip code. Perhaps something like this could be used in areas that are approaching saturation? I'm going to wager that this is where most of the lame hides crop up anyway.

 

If all of this is too complicated, then my vote would be for a simple rule that you need 50 finds to hide a cache.

[+sbell111]

... What if GC.com limited cache placements a hider can make based on a ratio of hides vs finds or even using an Ebay type system where hiders are rewarded for their positive feedback by earning the privledge of hiding more caches? The upside to this is that all tastes will be considered in the feedback. If there's cachers in an area that are just clammoring for more Walmart lampost hides, the feedback would reflect that.

 

At some point something like this is going to be needed in dense urban areas. I think using some web magic there's would be a way to check cache density per zip code. Perhaps something like this could be used in areas that are approaching saturation? I'm going to wager that this is where most of the lame hides crop up anyway.

 

If all of this is too complicated, then my vote would be for a simple rule that you need 50 finds to hide a cache.

I'll take a pass on all three of those ideas for the reasons expressed in the threads suggesting them.

 

Also, I remain unconvinced that this will ever be necessary in any location, rural or urban.

[+KBI]

If someone armed with a knife comes charging down an alley toward you, screaming, is that a threat? If the alley is 100' long, is he a threat at that distance, or does he need to get closer to you to be a threat? Would your ability to defend yourself through some form of martial training or being armed with a handgun and trained in it's use change your threat assessment?

As it stands right now, you have the power to completely avoid any cache that you think gives off even the slightest hint of lameness before you set out to hunt it. Every other geocacher in the world wields this same power of avoidance. You also choose whether to exercise the power of patience -- as soon as you realize that some description's misleading wording or friend's faulty recommendation has put a [whatever you consider lame] cache into your hands, you're free, just like the rest of us, to do like CoyoteRed describes and just put it right back where you found it without signing the log, and move on down the road while shaking your head and making a note to add it to your Ignore List.

 

Now, in order to apply your "hypothetical knife toting screamer" analogy, please explain to me exactly how you see the threat of "lame" hides developing into something that ruins one’s enjoyment of the types of caches one prefer to hunt?

 

Example: You've only got time for one cache this afternoon, and there are only two to choose from. According to available information (maps, logs, your knowledge of the area, etc.) one appears to be a soggy, rusted Altoids tin shoved under the grease bin behind a Burger Biggie just off the freeway exit; the other, a couple miles away, is apparently a very cleverly disguised box of rare Beanie Babies hidden under a secret waterfall near the historical marker at a high scenic overlook on a mountain road. For the purpose of my point I don't even need to presume a risky guess which one you'd prefer. My question is this: Once you've made your choice and begun your hunt, how does the mere existence of that other cache spoil your enjoyment? How does it become a hypothetical knife toting screamer 100’ down the alley of your otherwise enjoyable afternoon of caching?

 

Because I believe lame caches to be a threat to the game, that threat is as real, to me, as the SC situation and the hypothetical knife toting screamer.

Why??

 

Preventing (or even limiting) the existence of lame caches is impossible.

I understand the semantics of where you're coming from, but I disagree with your evaluation. I believe we don't need a 100% consensus of what constitutes "Lame", to effectively reduce it. We just need a majority.

We do?

 

So now, as I understand it, instead of celebrating diversity of opinion on what constitutes an enjoyable cache, you’re endorsing Mob Rule. Pure democracy! Four wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for lunch.

 

Those kids playing sandlot “baseball” in that empty lot over there – they just THINK they’re having fun. We’ve got the REAL game over here in our Little League Park! Our game has uniforms, marked fields, umpires, schedules ... who the hell do they think they are playing lame-o ball over there with a stick for a bat? That’s a threat to our way of playing over here, and it needs to be stopped. There’s no room for both. I know, let’s call for a county-wide vote! Otherwise who knows what might happen – new kids might see how much fun those kids are having over there, and decide not to join our league at all!

 

Sure, a majority consensus might result in a definition of “lame” that satisfies 50%-plus-one of all cachers. The fallacy lies in your premise that there’s any need to choose one type of cache over the other in the first place.

 

If everybody posted what they considered to be lame, I would bet we would end up with a large percentage of things like film canisters dropped in the bushes of fast food restaurants, and hide-a-keys stuck on guard rails along roads with no aesthetic value or historical significance, and a very low percentage of things like well stocked ammo cans hidden at scenic locations. If this list did nothing more than cause the readers to apply a bit of introspection to their potential hide, we've won.

No, Riffster, not WE'VE won. YOU’VE won. What about this poor guy?

 

Aesthetic value and historical significance are nice, but for some people a lack of those things just isn't a problem. Why must they be 'motivated' to leave the game just because you don’t like to hunt their caches?

 

Please read that quote of yours again and tell me you’re NOT trying to dictate to others how the game should be played. Those so-called lame caches exist because someone wanted them there. NOW who’s trying to silence dissent?

 

I have to agree with sbell111: There are MANY things one might characterize as “lame,” including:

• Telling ALL cachers that they should play the game the way the MAJORITY prefers to play
  
• Getting upset when one's time has been "wasted" on a hide that doesn't satisfy one's demand for minimum entertainment value
  
• Whining about non-preferred hides instead of simply ignoring them
  
• Publicly criticizing a fellow game participant's lack of creativity
  
• Spending all of one's free time debating in the forums instead of hunting caches (whoops ... that one would be me )
  

[+Team GeoBlast]

... What if GC.com limited cache placements a hider can make based on a ratio of hides vs finds or even using an Ebay type system where hiders are rewarded for their positive feedback by earning the privledge of hiding more caches? The upside to this is that all tastes will be considered in the feedback. If there's cachers in an area that are just clammoring for more Walmart lampost hides, the feedback would reflect that.

 

At some point something like this is going to be needed in dense urban areas. I think using some web magic there's would be a way to check cache density per zip code. Perhaps something like this could be used in areas that are approaching saturation? I'm going to wager that this is where most of the lame hides crop up anyway.

 

If all of this is too complicated, then my vote would be for a simple rule that you need 50 finds to hide a cache.

I'll take a pass on all three of those ideas for the reasons expressed in the threads suggesting them.

 

Also, I remain unconvinced that this will ever be necessary in any location, rural or urban.

 

I'd interested to see what cachers that do alot of traveling to urban areas think about this.

[+KBI]

... it is possible to regulate across the board the number and or frequency of hides.

 

...

 

What if GC.com limited cache placements a hider can make based on a ratio of hides vs finds or even using an Ebay type system where hiders are rewarded for their positive feedback by earning the privledge of hiding more caches?

 

...

 

If all of this is too complicated, then my vote would be for a simple rule that you need 50 finds to hide a cache.

That's it! What we really need are lots and lots of ever-more restrictive rules. So what if the Lame-Os aren't hurting anybody? If they won't voluntarily toe the line of Proper Geocaching Behavior, we'll legislate them into Proper Geocaching Behavior!

[+sbell111]

... What if GC.com limited cache placements a hider can make based on a ratio of hides vs finds or even using an Ebay type system where hiders are rewarded for their positive feedback by earning the privledge of hiding more caches? The upside to this is that all tastes will be considered in the feedback. If there's cachers in an area that are just clammoring for more Walmart lampost hides, the feedback would reflect that.

 

At some point something like this is going to be needed in dense urban areas. I think using some web magic there's would be a way to check cache density per zip code. Perhaps something like this could be used in areas that are approaching saturation? I'm going to wager that this is where most of the lame hides crop up anyway.

 

If all of this is too complicated, then my vote would be for a simple rule that you need 50 finds to hide a cache.

I'll take a pass on all three of those ideas for the reasons expressed in the threads suggesting them.

 

Also, I remain unconvinced that this will ever be necessary in any location, rural or urban.

I'd interested to see what cachers that do alot of traveling to urban areas think about this.

All you have to do is give a read to all the threads that proposed those ideas. You will find plenty of opinions.

 

BTW, I've done alot of traveling to urban areas and you already have my opinion.

Edited December 8, 2006 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

... it is possible to regulate across the board the number and or frequency of hides.

 

...

 

What if GC.com limited cache placements a hider can make based on a ratio of hides vs finds or even using an Ebay type system where hiders are rewarded for their positive feedback by earning the privledge of hiding more caches?

 

...

 

If all of this is too complicated, then my vote would be for a simple rule that you need 50 finds to hide a cache.

That's it! What we really need are lots and lots of ever-more restrictive rules. So what if the Lame-Os aren't hurting anybody? If they won't voluntarily toe the line of Proper Geocaching Behavior, we'll legislate them into Proper Geocaching Behavior!

Let's not mention the fact that the proposed new rules would not have the affect that he desires.

[+CaptRussell]

... What if GC.com limited cache placements a hider can make based on a ratio of hides vs finds or even using an Ebay type system where hiders are rewarded for their positive feedback by earning the privledge of hiding more caches? The upside to this is that all tastes will be considered in the feedback. If there's cachers in an area that are just clammoring for more Walmart lampost hides, the feedback would reflect that.

 

At some point something like this is going to be needed in dense urban areas. I think using some web magic there's would be a way to check cache density per zip code. Perhaps something like this could be used in areas that are approaching saturation? I'm going to wager that this is where most of the lame hides crop up anyway.

 

If all of this is too complicated, then my vote would be for a simple rule that you need 50 finds to hide a cache.

I'll take a pass on all three of those ideas for the reasons expressed in the threads suggesting them.

 

Also, I remain unconvinced that this will ever be necessary in any location, rural or urban.

I'd interested to see what cachers that do alot of traveling to urban areas think about this.

I do pretty much ALL of my caching in urban areas, and you can read exactly what I think about it by clicking here.

[+tozainamboku]

Because I believe lame caches to be a threat to the game, that threat is as real, to me, as the SC situation and the hypothetical knife toting screamer. One threat was external, one is internal. Both are real, according to my viewpoint.

I've yet to be convinced that geocaching is threatened by what Clan Riffster considers lame caches. The two most common assertions are

1. potential new cachers will be turned-off by all the boring lame caches
   
2. lame caches are generally placed without permission and will eventually lead to a backlash against geocaching in general
   

I don't see new cachers getting turn-off. In fact, the so called lame caches may have the opposite effect. People would would never consider geocaching as something they would want to do because it requires too much time or effort to find a cache, now find that there are caches behind the convenience store down the street and get excited that you can be a geocacher without having to be an endurance athlete. Those that prefer a hike or at least being taken to an interesting place, will discover that you can generally tell if a cache is worth doing by reading the logs of previous finders.

 

Caches placed without permission have the potential to cause damage whether they are in a Wal*Mart parking lot or in a National Park. The problem per se has nothing to do with lameness. However, Geocaching.com has guideline requiring adequate permission. When caches are placed without permission and GC.com finds out, the caches are archived. Perhaps, by assuming that a hider has adequate permission when a reviewer see a parking lot, means that more parking lot caches without permission get through the review process. I suspect that if we were to see an increase in bad press due to caches placed without permission, reviewers would begin to tighten up requirements when the map shows the cache in a parking lot or by a dumpster.

 

I believe we don't need a 100% consensus of what constitutes "Lame", to effectively reduce it. We just need a majority. If everybody posted what they considered to be lame, I would bet we would end up with a large percentage of things like film canisters dropped in the bushes of fast food restaurants, and hide-a-keys stuck on guard rails along roads with no aesthetic value or historical significance, and a very low percentage of things like well stocked ammo cans hidden at scenic locations. If this list did nothing more than cause the readers to apply a bit of introspection to their potential hide, we've won.

Caches in lamppost are obviously not lame because people keep hiding and finding them. If everyone thought they were lame, you wouldn't see so many and the ones that are there wouldn't be found so often. The caches that are lame are the really tough puzzle caches. I have a couple of these an very few people find them. Any cache that takes more than 7 minutes to find is lame. There are actually people who like to find a cache when they have a few minutes of free time on their lunch hour. They don't care if it's in the McDonald's parking lot. In fact, that's better because they can buy lunch while they are there. The assumption that because you prefer caches in places with aesthetic value or historic significance, everyone else does too, is invalid. Even if the majority prefer these, do we eliminate the caches that the minority likes. Not every cache needs to be execellent. There will always be caches that you find lame and others you find exceptional. Perhaps you should go caching in Lake Wobegon.

[+TrailGators]

Caches in lamppost are obviously not lame because people keep hiding and finding them. If everyone thought they were lame, you wouldn't see so many and the ones that are there wouldn't be found so often.

Just because everyone finds lamp post caches doesn't get them off the hook for being lame. Lots of people smoke cigarettes and everyone knows that smoking is lame. The bottom line is that many people will do anything to get another smiley for their count. Like smoking, caching for numbers can be an addiction. The good news is that it won't kill you.

[+sbell111]

Caches in lamppost are obviously not lame because people keep hiding and finding them. If everyone thought they were lame, you wouldn't see so many and the ones that are there wouldn't be found so often.

Just because everyone finds lamp post caches doesn't get them off the hook for being lame. Lots of people smoke cigarettes and everyone knows that smoking is lame. The bottom line is that many people will do anything to get another smiley for their count. Like smoking, caching for numbers can be an addiction. The good news is that it won't kill you.

Good analogy. It is especially so since a person can go to practically any high school or college and find people who firmly believe that smoking is cool.

[+tozainamboku]

Caches in lamppost are obviously not lame because people keep hiding and finding them. If everyone thought they were lame, you wouldn't see so many and the ones that are there wouldn't be found so often.

Just because everyone finds lamp post caches doesn't get them off the hook for being lame. Lots of people smoke cigarettes and everyone knows that smoking is lame. The bottom line is that many people will do anything to get another smiley for their count. Like smoking, caching for numbers can be an addiction. The good news is that it won't kill you.

Except when you're in an alley looking by a dumpster and "someone armed with a knife comes charging down an alley toward you, screaming"

Edited December 8, 2006 by tozainamboku

[Mr.Yuck]

Because I believe lame caches to be a threat to the game, that threat is as real, to me, as the SC situation and the hypothetical knife toting screamer. One threat was external, one is internal. Both are real, according to my viewpoint.

I've yet to be convinced that geocaching is threatened by what Clan Riffster considers lame caches. The two most common assertions are

1. potential new cachers will be turned-off by all the boring lame caches
   
2. lame caches are generally placed without permission and will eventually lead to a backlash against geocaching in general
   

I don't see new cachers getting turn-off. In fact, the so called lame caches may have the opposite effect. People would would never consider geocaching as something they would want to do because it requires too much time or effort to find a cache, now find that there are caches behind the convenience store down the street and get excited that you can be a geocacher without having to be an endurance athlete. Those that prefer a hike or at least being taken to an interesting place, will discover that you can generally tell if a cache is worth doing by reading the logs of previous finders.

 

This is not an urban legend about potential newbies getting turned off! Once I went to an out of State military picnic. Of course it was really an excuse for me to cache my brains out on the way there. I had my GPSr on my belt, and an attendee struck up a conversation. He was a GPS owner, used mainly when he was out riding his ATV in the wild. I explained Geocaching, and he had heard all a about it, and had checked out the website. But he "wasn't interested" because all the caches near his house were "in parking lots". He was from somewhere in Connecticut.

 

But more likely, Mr. T's scenario is correct. Personally, I think it's a tragedy that newbies would have their first geo-experience by finding out "theres a cache at the convenience store down the street", but thats just my opinion.

 

Caches placed without permission have the potential to cause damage whether they are in a Wal*Mart parking lot or in a National Park. The problem per se has nothing to do with lameness. However, Geocaching.com has guideline requiring adequate permission. When caches are placed without permission and GC.com finds out, the caches are archived. Perhaps, by assuming that a hider has adequate permission when a reviewer see a parking lot, means that more parking lot caches without permission get through the review process. I suspect that if we were to see an increase in bad press due to caches placed without permission, reviewers would begin to tighten up requirements when the map shows the cache in a parking lot or by a dumpster.

 

Now I'm one of the very few people who subscribe to theory No. 2. But it's obvious most people don't see it as a problem. All I have to say is, if it happened to cemetery caches, it can happen to parking lot micros.

[+KBI]

The bottom line is that many people will do anything to get another smiley for their count.

HEY YOU KIDS!! Get off that empty lot with your so-called "baseball!!!"

 

Our parents over here in the Little League Park know that keeping score is wrong. That's why we have no scoreboard! Some of our players keep up with runs in their head, which we can't control, but we make sure they think about it properly: It's only our team's runs that matter, and besides, some runs are harder to score than others, so it's a meaningless count anyway.

 

Those lame-o kids playing sandlot ball, on the other hand, all they'e trying to do is run up their score. Some of them actually like to compete! Or at least they think they do. So sad. What're we gonna do about it? How can we possibly do our thing over there when they're doing it differently over there?

 

GET OUT OF THERE, YOU BRATS! GO HOME!!!

[+TrailGators]

The bottom line is that many people will do anything to get another smiley for their count.

GET OUT OF THERE, YOU BRATS! GO HOME!!!

I never said anything about stopping anyone. It's a free country! Everyone is free to visit every lamp post in the country. They are also free to have competitions and celebrations to honor whoever can lift up the most lamp post covers. I'm just not going to do it because I think it is lame.

[+sbell111]

Now I'm one of the very few people who subscribe to theory No. 2. But it's obvious most people don't see it as a problem. All I have to say is, if it happened to cemetery caches, it can happen to parking lot micros.

Except parking lots are generally private property and not controlled by the government.

 

(edited to make comment less wishy and more washy.)

Edited December 8, 2006 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

I think that when people try to bully others into only hiding caches they enjoy, it's lame.

Suggesting that we can possibly improve the overall quality of this game through introspection doesn't constitute bullying.

 

Wait a minute. I've cached in central Florida and I know several cachers there since I used to live in Winter Park. I don't remember any soggy dumpster film cans there, either.

I take it you've been away for a while? Seriously though, you are at least partially right. The dreaded Soggy Log Film Canister Dumpster Hide is a compilation. I could've just as easily used the Film Canister In The Burger King Bushes Hide as my official example, but the first one sounded so much snarkier. (Snarkier? Is that even a word?)

 

Caches in lamppost are obviously not lame because people keep hiding and finding them.

The caches that are lame are the really tough puzzle caches.

Any cache that takes more than 7 minutes to find is lame.

Brother, I can respect your personal preferences, but I don't think I'll share them.

(Yes, KBI, I know I took those quotes out of context. I'm just poking fun. I'll get back to reality)

 

Even if the majority prefer these, do we eliminate the caches that the minority likes.

I don't think anyone is calling for an elimination of anything.

Not every cache needs to be execellent.

I don't think anybody's asking for uniform excellence, either.

What I am asking for is that folks apply a bit of thought to their hides. Perhaps creativity really is a bad thing.

 

Personally, I think it's a tragedy that newbies would have their first geo-experience by finding out "theres a cache at the convenience store down the street", but thats just my opinion.

Exactly.

 

HEY YOU KIDS!! Get off that empty lot with your so-called "baseball!!!" GET OUT OF THERE, YOU BRATS! GO HOME!!!

Although not quite as insulting as your earlier exaggeration regarding screaming in the faces of kindergärtners, that was still one heck of a stretch. You seem to be following a mantra that "We", (those folks who see lameness as a bad thing), are telling others how they should play. That's simply not true. What I am asking is, before you hide a cache, think about it. How can this be a bad thing?

 

Four wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for lunch.

Sux to be the sheep!

Edited December 8, 2006 by Clan Riffster

[+sbell111]

Caches in lamppost are obviously not lame because people keep hiding and finding them. ...

Brother, I can respect your personal preferences, but I don't think I'll share them.

Several holiday seasons past, I hid a small cache in an area of green stuck between the rear of a grocery store and a defunct putt putt course. The location really didn't have much going for it except the fact that it was about a block from the mall. I figured that it might give some cachers a brief break from their holiday shopping.

 

I'm sure that many in this thread would call that cache lame, but I rather liked it and certainly put some thought into it. It was a cache that I would have liked to find if I were in the area and felt like looking for a cache.

 

My point is, just about every cache that is placed was placed after some consideration and is the type of cache that it's owner would enjoy finding. How can caches that fit those qualifications be judged as lame just because you wouldn't enjoy them?

Edited December 8, 2006 by sbell111

[+Renegade Knight]

...This is not an urban legend about potential newbies getting turned off! Once I went to an out of State military picnic. Of course it was really an excuse for me to cache my brains out on the way there. I had my GPSr on my belt, and an attendee struck up a conversation. He was a GPS owner, used mainly when he was out riding his ATV in the wild. I explained Geocaching, and he had heard all a about it, and had checked out the website. But he "wasn't interested" because all the caches near his house were "in parking lots". He was from somewhere in Connecticut. ...

 

Strange. I picked my first cache, not because it was close to my house (which it was), but because I knew the spot which happned to be the intiial point for the survey system used in Idaho which in turn is on top of a dormant cinder cone. Before I even left my house to get skunked on this cache I knew it wasn't in a parking lot.

 

If people can't exercise some judgment or even show some map IQ so they can find something intersting I am not sure that I'll miss them in this activity.

 

As for my last cache of the day, the one in the wal mart parking lot is the equivilent of the 18th hole in golf being right next to the 19th, and brother after a long hard day of caching, I'm going to hit that 19th cache.

Edited December 8, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+tozainamboku]

Perhaps the onus of preventing lame caches should be on the finders and not the hiders.

 

The suggestion that we can improve the game by educating hiders as to what is "lame" or even what makes a good cache, is what I have a problem with. Whose game does it improve? I definitely know of cachers who think the more 1/1 caches in an area the better. If that means some are in less desirable locations or use inferior contains or some boring hiding technique, so be it. They won't be as good as some other cache but it is better than no cache. People are going to hide what they are going to hide and will respond to any attempt to "educate" them with indignation. "Who are you to tell me what kind of cache I can hide?"

 

If you want to avoid lame caches the responsibility is yours as the finder. First of all, use the cache D/T ratings to find caches that have the difficulty or terrain you like. Use the geocaching maps to find caches in areas you want to cache in and to avoid other areas. If you are a premium member, use PQs to filter caches. Rely on others adding caches to their favorites list. Create your own favorites list to share with others. Read the cache pages and the logs. You won't eliminate every lame cache from your hunt but you will increase the chance of finding something you like. Will you miss some great caches? Possibly, but probably not that many. Petition Geocaching.com for new attributes that people can put on their cache page that may help you find the cache you like and avoid the ones you don't. Work on getting some kind of finder feedback in place. (Simple cache ratings won't work since everyone is looking for something different. But a system that ranks on several different attributes might. And a system that automatically combines favorites lists may provide recommendations that could be combined with reading the page to help you find one or two caches you have time for when visiting another city.) Finally, adjust your attitude. Don't expect every cache to be the kind you like. Accept the fact that in urban areas there will be a lot of caches that seem to be placed just for numbers. If you choose to do a cache hunt in these areas, you won't be disappointed if you lower your expectations and anything you do find out of the ordinary will stand out that much more.

[+PeoriaBill]

Seems to me that its about your perspective. When I was a new cacher, anything I could find was fun. Now with a little more experience, I can choose caches with more difficulty at will. What is lame to one cacher is plain gold to another. I think handicapped cachers might find this cache within their physical ability as well as very young cachers. I like the diversity and would hate to see all 3 and 4 level caches, puzzles, etc. Peoria Bill :>)

[+KBI]

Four wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for lunch.

Sux to be the sheep!

My point exactly. Majority Rule can be a dangerously oppressive thing.

 

I think that when people try to bully others into only hiding caches they enjoy, it's lame.

Suggesting that we can possibly improve the overall quality of this game through introspection doesn't constitute bullying.

Oh, I don't know that. That made-up example you keep using (soggy dumpster film can) comes pretty dang close to describing a couple of my caches. When someone is telling me that my caches need to be changed because they're lame and lacking in quality, I suppose I have the right to characterize such pushy criticism as I see it.

 

If it looks like a bully, and it walks like a bully, and it talks like a bully ...

 

Even if the majority prefer these, do we eliminate the caches that the minority likes.

I don't think anyone is calling for an elimination of anything.

No, you just want a large number of cache owners to substantially modify their hides in specific ways so as to be more pleasing to you. Eliminating ... completely altering ... what's the difference? Either way the owner's original hide concept is gone.

 

Clan Riffster: "You don't have to archive your hide -- you just need to totally overhaul you design so that it satisfies my list of anti-lameness criteria."

 

Owner of formally lame cache: "So, now that it's really YOUR cache, and it no longer resembles my original design ... I still get to maintain it for you? Gee, thanks a pantload."

[+KBI]

Not every cache needs to be execellent.

I don't think anybody's asking for uniform excellence, either.

What I am asking for is that folks apply a bit of thought to their hides.

Bad premise. How in the heck do you know how much thought was applied the first time around?

 

Personally, I think it's a tragedy that newbies would have their first geo-experience by finding out "theres a cache at the convenience store down the street", but thats just my opinion.

Exactly.

If the newbie fails to read beyond the first item on the menu before selecting his meal, who's fault is that?

 

Even the briefest first browse of Geocaching.com is enough to give any interested newbie an accurate sense of the wide variety of experiences which await. Hey, I'm not the brightest knife or the sharpest bulb, but if I can manage to locate the cool caches, anybody can.

 

HEY YOU KIDS!! Get off that empty lot with your so-called "baseball!!!" GET OUT OF THERE, YOU BRATS! GO HOME!!!

Although not quite as insulting as your earlier exaggeration regarding screaming in the faces of kindergärtners, that was still one heck of a stretch. You seem to be following a mantra that "We", (those folks who see lameness as a bad thing), are telling others how they should play. That's simply not true. What I am asking is, before you hide a cache, think about it. How can this be a bad thing?

That's all you're asking? Alrighty then: Suppose this hider you're lecturing about his lack of inspiration agrees to "think about it," yet he then proceeds to produce whatever it is that bundles your boxers anyway. Would you be happy then? He did what you asked, right? You're not really interested in anyone changing their behavior just to please you, right?

 

 

 

One question I've asked you many times but you've never answered, Clan Riffster: How does the mere existence of caches you DON'T like spoil your enjoyment of those you DO like? Why can't BOTH types coexist?

[+Markwell]

Hey, I'm not the brightest knife or the sharpest bulb, but if I can manage to locate the cool caches, anybody can.

 

There are no cool caches.

[Mr.Yuck]

Hey, I'm not the brightest knife or the sharpest bulb, but if I can manage to locate the cool caches, anybody can.

 

There are no cool caches.

 

Oh crud, I thought Markwell was going to close the thread. OK here, I've been watching Clan Riffster and KBI go at it for what seems like forever. And it will go on forever, unless KBI makes the basic concession that there are in fact things out there that are lame. Want me to define it? Here you go. A keyholder or film canister under a lamp skirt in a parking lot, that has a 5 word cache description: "Another Park and grab, BYOP" That is if we can consider "BYOP" a word. I ask you; lame or not?

[+Markwell]

I'm not a mod in this forum - only the Getting Started.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm not a mod in this forum - only the Getting Started.

 

You could make a recommendation, you know.

[+Ambrosia]

It seems to me that everyone here is discussing things in a civil manner. Unless I've missed something, the only person who should be able to ask for the thread to be shut down is the owner.

[+TrailGators]

It seems to me that everyone here is discussing things in a civil manner. Unless I've missed something, the only person who should be able to ask for the thread to be shut down is the owner.

Yea! By the way, anytime you find a cache that isn't lame, you should do this dance:

[+KBI]

OK here, I've been watching Clan Riffster and KBI go at it for what seems like forever. And it will go on forever, unless KBI makes the basic concession ...

Nice to see you're not biased.

 

... unless KBI makes the basic concession that there are in fact things out there that are lame.

I DID make that concession. In fact, "concession" really isn’t the right word because I accepted the existence of that opinion as a premise from the very beginning. I’ve seen dozens and dozens of caches that I would immediately describe as lame. I thoroughly understand why other players refer to certain caches as lame. "Lame," of course, is in the eye of the beholder – it’s different from one person to the next – but no reader of these forums can deny that caches get called lame all the time, and usually for very good reason.

 

Which thread have you been reading?

 

Want me to define it? Here you go. A keyholder or film canister under a lamp skirt in a parking lot, that has a 5 word cache description: "Another Park and grab, BYOP" That is if we can consider "BYOP" a word. I ask you; lame or not?

Very lame. I agree with you 100%. Assuming there is nothing else to it, then I, personally, would characterize that cache you just described as uninteresting, common, ordinary, tedious, boring, overdone, uninspired, corny, lackluster, clichéd and unoriginal. If I were only allowed to use one word, then yes, “lame” would express it perfectly for me.

 

Just out of curiosity, what's your point?