Crappy Caches

1.8k · March 17, 2004

In my own head it works something like "The law of diminishing returns." Cacher "A" hides a tough cache. Cacher "B" finds it, but doesn't want to be considered as sadistic as Cacher "A" so he hides one just a little less tough. By the time Cacher "F" comes along he's up to his elbows in Altoid strip containers.

Odd. It works the other way here. Cacher A hides a tough cache. To get back at Cacher A, Cacher B hides a more devious cache. Subsequently, an incensed Cacher C hides a doozy specifically intended to stump Cachers A and B.

March 17, 2004

in my eyes, the problem is not with the caches it is with the cachers. The peaple who are in it only for the numbers, drag down the quality of the caches.I have 4 multis out, and do you know the frustration that you feel when,after being out for three months, and with all the time and work that is put in. You only get 2 hits on it? And the travel bug is still there? People who don't want to put in the time to find a well placed cache, because in that time they could find 5 minis, are the problem. They take away the incentive to place a quality cache.

March 17, 2004

People who don't want to put in the time to find a well placed cache, because in that time they could find 5 minis, are the problem. They take away the incentive to place a quality cache.

Why does this take away the incentive to place a quality cache? A long multi or a cache that takes a long hike to get to is always going to have less hits than an easy urban micro. More than likely the two finders that did find your caches are the type of cachers that you wanted to attract to your cache in the first place. Some people are in it for the numbers. But that's the way they have decided to play this game. I enjoy both types. There are going to be some cachers that prefer the urban micro's. I have talked about caching to people that have said that they would never go into the woods to find a metal box, but when I tell them that they can find caches right in town that don't require a long walk they become interested in the game. Another cacher is born. We all play the game differently. I just went to the nearest city and found 8 micro's and enjoyed every one of them but I also can't wait until the snow melts a little so that I can try the level four Thousand Steps cache. To each his own but I like a little variety.

38.2k · March 17, 2004

The peaple who are in it only for the numbers, drag down the quality of the caches.I have 4 multis out, and do you know the frustration that you feel when,after being out for three months, and with all the time and work that is put in. You only get 2 hits on it? And the travel bug is still there? People who don't want to put in the time to find a well placed cache, because in that time they could find 5 minis, are the problem. They take away the incentive to place a quality cache.

It is an issue. Many of my caches take a little (and I mean a little) work to get to and after a handful of the usual suspects find them, they will often go months between finds.

Yet my lame, quickie caches get frequent hits. I don't want to say this takes away the incentive to place quality caches, at least for me, but sometimes it does feel like you threw a nice party and nobody came.

1.6k · March 17, 2004

in my eyes, the problem is not with the caches it is with the cachers. The peaple who are in it only for the numbers, drag down the quality of the caches.I have 4 multis out, and do you know the frustration that you feel when,after being out for three months, and with all the time and work that is put in. You only get 2 hits on it? And the travel bug is still there? People who don't want to put in the time to find a well placed cache, because in that time they could find 5 minis, are the problem. They take away the incentive to place a quality cache.

The one variable in your argument that is not controlled is the nature of the caches. I don't like solving math problems to find a cache. I have discussed my reasons before, so I won't bore you here. I would skip right past yours. Not that I like 1/1 caches all that much, but I hate multis.

March 17, 2004

This attitude is unfortunate, but probably not exclusively his.

Interesting.

To throw an event where people have a good time is in part what event caches are about. Having fun while placing some caches is in part what this hobby is about. Having a thick enough skin to deal with topics like "crappy caches" isn't what this hobby is about but it is what you need to deal with. Therefore I can't give people who bitch nearly as much creedance as those who say thanks and those who at least give out a great idea while 'bitching'.

I dont really mean to reply exclusively to you, Renegade Knight, but it seems that you have either not read the thread, or did not grasp it's intent. Perhaps I have not grasped your intent! :lol:

The attitude I was refering to was the lack of concern for the finders experience.

Throwing an event cache is great! Good for you! Thank you! But I draw an analogy to water pistols... its really mostly fun for the people doing the squirting. You, my friend, appear to be planning an army of water pistol bearing folks to soak the world. Asking to remain completely dry is whining, because a little water does not hurt. (water=micro in Walmart parking lot in this analogy) Asking to not get soaked is not whining.

Please see what ideas I gave out while I was bitching.

My complaining is useless without offering suggestions on how it could be done better, so I offer this to hiders of micros in parking lots. Give ample, immediately obvious warning of what is to come for the finder. "Nothing great about this spot excpept for the dastardly, tricky hide" would be a nice warning, or "Just a quick park&grab at the rest stop!", or "This is a micro devilishly hidden in the WalMart parking lot. You are going to have to work for this one"

For the most part, this people in this thread are doing great about respectfully sharing thier views, without flaming. If enough people read this thread, then hopefully someone out there will pause before placing a "crappy cache", and say to themselves, "I think I can make this better!".

Thanks for posting!

Ian5281

Edited March 17, 2004 by ian5281

March 17, 2004

Ian, Ian , Ian. I knew you didn't like urban caches but I didn't think they bothered you so much. Personally, I love to look for any caches. You hide one near my area and I'm going to try to find it. I'm only being honest when I admit that I love to go "for the numbers" but I also like to go for the adventure.

This Sunday I headed down to Ian's town and found a bunch of newly placed urban micros. Some were light pole caches but not the typical hides under a cover. These were in plain sight but required some special means to reach them. Of course I went prepared. Some were just tricky hides. One was at a spot with some large flowers made out of traffic signs that I always wanted to stop and check out anyway. Another tricky one took me 3 stops before I finally spotted it. All of them were fun.

Then Monday I headed back down to Ian's town to start a long cache trip at his own cache in a local cemetery there. These caches ranged from about a quarter mile hike to over 2 miles (which I did on bike) and were almost all regular size containers in woods or parks. These caches were also a lot of fun.

Both caches, urban and the "ammo-box-in-the-woods", have their place in the GeoCache world. I love to look for all of them. Bring 'em on! :lol:

24.7k · March 17, 2004

To borrow your anology. If I pelted you with lame a** crappy micros while you were busy hunting a cool cache that met your standards, yes you would be correct.

However if you see a sign that says "squirtgun battle ahead" (aka Lame Urban Micro) and sally forth hoping to find adventure of a different sort than getting wet you wil get what was promised and not what you wanted because the expectation was off.

The squirt gun battle was't broken, and your desire to not get wet wasn't misplaced. However hoping to not get wet when you knew the battle was raging wasn't something that was really reasonable. Same with hunting crappy caches (most urban caches seem to meet the definition of crappy). With your experience you can read the writing on the wall and avoid them because you will find what you know you are going to find.

The bottom line is that your expectation that people won't place crappy caches out of enthusiasm, or because they think they have a great idea, or any of a thousand reasons beyond your control is not reasonable. The only thing you have control over is your own attitude about caches and your ability to read the signs that point towards your own personal idea of a crappy cache. Quite frankly even if I wanted to accomodate you and every other person who had an idea of what a crappy cache is I'd find as many variations as there are people who think their idea is a good one. It's just not possible and unless you are a close personal friend or a local cacher I know and respect I'm not going to do anything other than have fun placing caches and places caches that meet my own personal standards of amuse ment. Those standards include caches that run the gamut of cool to crappy.

March 17, 2004

Ok, I'm guilty of putting out micros. Like one of my latest lightpole micros. It's a magnetic holder on the lightpole in front of the windows of a local radio station that I listen to. The DJ sits 10 feet away looking right at it. Try to get that one without me hearing about it on the radio. Hehehehe

38.2k · March 17, 2004

Ok, I'm guilty of putting out micros

Yeah, but you put out GOOD micros. There is a big difference between what you are doing and what the OP was complaining about.

9.1k · March 17, 2004

There is a big difference between what you are doing and what the OP was complaining about.

How can that be, when the original poster, T-Prints and Goldsnoop are all speaking about the SAME microcaches? Goldsnoop hid a bunch of new ones north of me, and close to where Ian lives. The next day, this topic is started. Coincidence?

I think I've only found one of Goldsnoop's caches and it was -- get this -- a well-done rest stop micro. I'm sure he has others that are even better, as well as some that I won't find to be memorable. Big deal. I'll find 'em because I'll find just about anything, or I'll skip them. I don't like webcams or puzzle caches so I let them sit on my list, or I exclude them from my pocket queries. I don't like micros in commercial parking lots, yet I've hidden one to bring people to a spot they might not otherwise visit, and where I could not find a better hiding place that was safe and legal.

It is just a few clicks to exclude so-called "lame micros" from your pocket queries. A few more clicks, like a PayPal link, if you can't get pocket queries.

I would hope that ALL caches, of any size or type, are well thought-out and are placed with a purpose. Many micros fail this test. So do many tupperware containers that are dumped off 50 feet from the parking lot in a nice park.

38.2k · March 17, 2004

How can that be, when the original poster, T-Prints and Goldsnoop are all speaking about the SAME microcaches? Goldsnoop hid a bunch of new ones north of me, and close to where Ian lives. The next day, this topic is started. Coincidence?

I don't know about that, but I found one Goldsnoop cache and it was a tough one and DNFed another. I met several locals at the former who were praising his caches. It seemed, by listening to them, that he had a pretty good rep in the area.

March 17, 2004

Ok, I'm guilty of putting out micros

Yeah, but you put out GOOD micros. There is a big difference between what you are doing and what the OP was complaining about.

Howdy Brian. This is just too weird... believe it or not but I'm sure the micros Ian is complaining about are mainly by Goldsnoop. He's been putting a lot of them out all over NW PA. This past weekend he put a few in Meadville where Ian lives. I enjoyed them but as I said earlier, I go for all caches.

I've put out a few micros recently too but mine are all in the Erie area. Btw, snoops new caches aren't as difficult as that Train one you had fun with awhile back. You should check out his Train micro in Greensville, Pa. for another sneaky hide.

March 17, 2004

I was just in Erie Monday and found 3 of Goldsnoops micros and DNF'd on 3 of them. Enjoyed them all. :lol:

March 18, 2004

I am squarely in the camp of the original poster and I feel compelled to defend his position because he did not name names per the guidelines of these forums while some others who should know better have called him out.

I think that he stated clearly a message that some are just not getting: It happens sometimes that those cachers who are motivated primarily by the numbers will hide more caches rather than better ones. The mindset here is that any cache is a good cache if it offers an opportunity for a point in the game. It probably happened that a large number of these caches appeared overnight in his search listing because a dedicated member of the cache-bagging crowd hid several of them in one day. It may be guessed that many of these will be lame in the eyes of other geocachers (the majority?) and especially the newbies who do not play for the score. I would automatically assume (rightly or wrongly) that these caches were lame based on the fact that they are micros and that so many of them were hidden so quickly (and carelessly?). It takes some of us weeks or months of planning and at least a whole day to hide a cache. Should the caches we hide be lost in the list of "crappy caches" preferred by numbers obsessed? I have all of the tools and filters but still it is getting harder and harder to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is a lot more chaff in geocaching these days. I agree that there is room in the game for everybody, including the cache-bagging crowd, but I do not think that it should be necessary that the caches preferred by this minority of geocachers should ever dominate the game by their shear numbers. It just isn't good for the game! I have observed that it often happens that the most prolific hiders hide junk and the best caches are hidden by persons who have just a few hides. It may be that my education in the dismal science of economics that leads me to the belief that there is a trade-off between quantity and quality but I do have to think that it applies to geocaching. One has only enough time to hide and maintain a small number of quality caches relative to the number of parking lot micros that one could carelessly set out. I prefer that there should be better caches rather than more of them but I will allow that this preference is unique to everyone relative to their geography and degree of numbers-obsession.

I wholeheartedly agree with BigRedMed

The "if you don't like them, don't hunt them" argument is an old saw and like most old saws, it just doesn't cut as well as it used to.

I offer as a solution that there should be a limit on the number of hides that any one person can put out. It is easily enforceable and makes perfect sense considering that there are already maintainable distance guidelines. I just cannot fathom that there are some people who can effectively maintain hundreds of caches. I believe that it is these persons are directly responsible for the vast majority of "crappy" caches that people like me object to.

I also think that it is high time for there to be some kind of ratings system. We didn't need it in the olden days when caches were few and far between but we often need it now to find a few good caches in a sea of parking lot micros.

38.2k · March 18, 2004

I offer as a solution that there should be a limit on the number of hides that any one person can put out. It is easily enforceable and makes perfect sense considering that there are already maintainable distance guidelines. I just cannot fathom that there are some people who can effectively maintain hundreds of caches. I

I don't agree with this. Who's to say how many caches someone can maintain? A retired couple, who enjoys placing and maintaining caches can easily take care of 100, or more caches. On the other end of the spectrum, I've encountered many geocachers who are unable to maintain 2-3 caches.

I do think that if someone has a rep for scattering caches around like grass seed, then refusing to take care of them (and we all know of people like that), that the admins should step in and say "no more". But as long as a person takes care of his caches, I don't care if he has 30 or 300.

Edited March 18, 2004 by briansnat

March 18, 2004

It was not my intention to make any judgement about how many caches one person CAN maintain and I certainly wouldn't want to put a number on it. It would depend on too many factors. I was suggesting that there should be a limit on the number of caches that any one person should hide for a different reason.

I just don't think it's good for the game for anyone, including me, to dominate the game with their particular brand of geocaching by the shear number of hides that they put out. I respect your reputation for good hides but too many briansnat caches would probably not be a good thing even if you do hide some variety. If I would hide hundreds of caches like the ones I usually hide (and prefer to find), there would be way, way, way too many caches stuck up in the mountains where many people would not want or be able to get to them. LAME is what that would be. Besides, even the best hiders are doomed to run out of good ideas eventually.

March 18, 2004

I am squarely in the camp of the original poster and I feel compelled to defend his position because he did not name names per the guidelines of these forums while some others who should know better have called him out.

Oh give me a break. The only reason the names were used is that Briansnat didn't realize that Snoop was the hider that was being talked about. When Snoop jumped into the conversation here by mentioning that he was guilty of hiding micros recently, Briansnat responded by saying "Yeah, but you put out GOOD micros. There is a big difference between what you are doing and what the OP was complaining about."

If you can't see the humor here in that Snoop actually WAS the one being complained about and that Briansnat was praising his caches, oh well.

Btw, both Snoop and Ian are friends of mine. I'm a little surprised that Ian would vent about this but I'm not surprised at you since snoop and you have gone at it on your own Tri-Go message board already. Why some cachers have to put down caches many others enjoy but they don't like, I'll never understand. Just search for what you prefer and let us search for what we want. For me, I'll look for anything from urban micros to multi's that may take days to find.

March 18, 2004

Perhaps MY position would be more clear if I repost this:

Members of my family went to a family function out of state a while back. There were some geocachers among them, and they took family members new to caching out to find the local caches. The area was new to all but my elderly grandparents. All they found were disappointing micros in poor locations, thoughtlessly hidden. The cachers among them were not the most computer savvy, and were not familiar with all the research options available to them, nor did they have the time to use them at the time. The point is, that it was really difficult for them to persuade the folks for whom this was their first caching experience, that the whole game was not really really lame.

My complaining is useless without offering suggestions on how it could be done better, so I offer this to hiders of micros in parking lots. Give ample, immediately obvious warning of what is to come for the finder. "Nothing great about this spot excpept for the dastardly, tricky hide" would be a nice warning, or "Just a quick park&grab at the rest stop!", or "This is a micro devilishly hidden in the WalMart parking lot. You are going to have to work for this one"

March 18, 2004

Hmmm, well, I have sat back silently wishing this one would peacefully resolve itself. However, it doesn't seem like thats gonna happen. I see more of my "idols" getting involved, and in some cases, they seem to be getting irritated.

Good points and arguments are being made, but this is kinda personal to me since the questioned caches are in my town. SO, for what its worth, I'm going to spout my worthless drivel.

First, a little history. I began caching because of reading Mike Chim's story in the Erie Tribune. Mike had/has some of the legendary caches from the early days, the most prevalent probably being The Fellowship of the Rings multi. After reading his story, I purchased a GPS, found a couple caches, and placed the first cache in the Meadville area; Round Top Stop.

Until one month ago, there has been only 3 other caches placed in our area in 2 YEARS by anyone other than CHAOSS team. Now, in the last month, Ian has placed 1 other full size cache. There have been 6 new micros placed in the last week. That brings our caches to the following "saturation" level:

full size caches 8

micros 7

I too would like to see more full size, but sorry, this winter has been less than conducive to cache placement. My own micro was placed in lousy weather so people would have something to hunt. DIDN'T DO ME ANY GOOD, until these new ones within the last month. I'm glad to have the micros, till the weather straightens up.

And as far as the fact that some are in parking lots ? Sorry, they aren't keeping any full sized caches from being placed. Not 1 is within .1 of a mile of a decent hiding place. If they don't prevent a cache from going in, and you don't like its style, sorry, we've all heard it: DONT DO IT.

Ian, I respect ya even though I haven't met you yet. I've read the comments about your "Umbrella Cache", can't wait to do it. I love the Cemetary Run Cache. Your conduct in the forums despite some of the comments is impeccable.

Can't wait to meet you, and hope to see more of your caches. Sorry you and your children were dissappointed by the micros. You did bring up the good point that a little better description of what was in store for the searcher would be appreciated.

Final note to further mire myself, and then I'll slink off my soapbox: I have read numerous logs on my caches; " guess I should have read the description."

Yep, thats why I put them there. Slid down that HUGE hill to get into the ravine ? I told you where the parking lot with the park and access road were. I did that for a reason. Nobody in that upscale neighborhood will get their panties in a twist because of "outsiders" in their neighborhood.

Read the cache page please. Don't just download the co-ords and rush out the door.

Thanks all, hope you find the hunt that makes you happy.

Peace in the midst of CHAOSS.

March 18, 2004

I think that ian explained his position very well and did so without resorting to any hint of a personal attack. I happen to agree with his position and his exemplary conduct in this discussion. I shall not be baited into any flame war which would ultimately be counterproductive to his goal of improving the quality of hides and the geocaching experience for the majority of persons who will not enjoy finding a cache for the sole purpose of scoring a point in the game.

There are precious few in the numbers-crazed cache-bagging camp and even fewer that will admit to it.

March 18, 2004

And as far as the fact that some are in parking lots ? Sorry, they aren't keeping any full sized caches from being placed. Not 1 is within .1 of a mile of a decent hiding place. If they don't prevent a cache from going in, and you don't like its style, sorry, we've all heard it: DONT DO IT.

I'm with you Cap.

Btw, did you ever construct that special "tool" to get that Cloud Cache yet? You can send me an private email which will bypass this CHAOSS! <_<

24.7k · March 18, 2004

Strange. My best caches were placed with about 30 seconds of inspiration which has nothing to do with careful tediouse planning.

Some ideas never come to fruition. Some simmer until the inspiration hits. Sometimes I just want to place a cache because I have the urge. No matter how I look at it I can't see that placing a cache is a bad thing. Some caches can be better but look in the mirror most of us are not in dating shape and you just have to face reality.

LAME CRAPPY CACHES ARE HERE TO STAY BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO THINK IN THOSE TERMS WHEN THEY GO TO FIND THEM. GIVEN THOSE WORKING CONDITIONS THE CACHE OWNER IS POWERLESS TO STOP PEOPLE FROM HAVING CRAPPY CACHE HUNTS.

Ok I feel better now. Time for me to bail on this thread.

1.3k · March 18, 2004

Currently my wife is upset over a local micro that she wanted to place a full size ammo can at.

Hopefully, she'll talk to the cache owner and adopt the cache from them and replace it with an ammo can.

That seems to be the simplest solution. And as an added bonus, the original hider might even be able to log a find off it it from the new hiding spot.

1.3k · March 18, 2004

Some ideas never come to fruition. Some simmer until the inspiration hits. Sometimes I just want to place a cache because I have the urge. No matter how I look at it I can't see that placing a cache is a bad thing. Some caches can be better but look in the mirror most of us are not in dating shape and you just have to face reality.

I agree. All except for the not being in dating shape. <_<

Hopefully, she'll talk to the cache owner and adopt the cache from them and replace it with an ammo can.

See if they will archive it as a favor to you. A local cacher friend of mine had a cache placed in a very small park. The cache was nothing special. Just a simple mini cache. The other hider contacted him and asked him if he would archive his cache as a favor to him, because his new cache took a lot of prep work, and was very well crafted.

My friend archived his without hesitation, and the new cache is indeed very cool, and very creative. Maybe they'll be nice about it...

March 18, 2004

talk about a crappy cache, i just found one in an out house !

March 18, 2004

The crappiest cache I've found so far was an old CoolWhip container (broken) with construction paper glued to it, and a cache name written on it in felt-tip marker, where they spelled the name of the cache wrong. Filled with pieces of McToys. That's right, not actual McToys, just pieces of them.

To be fair, the cache was placed by kids. But it wasn't well hidden, wasn't in a neat area, and wasn't (for me) fun to find. I suggested in the log they replace the container, but otherwise said nothing, as I did appreciate the effort, as minimal as it was.

6.4k · March 19, 2004

One of the crappiest caches I ever found was a POS deli container with some junk in it, I think I was 2nd to find it, and it was already cracked and needing repair. The contents were junk, and the log was some scraps of paper. Crappy.

One of the coolest caches I ever found was one that was hid in a devious spot. Standing at ground zero, it was impossible to spot. The only way to see it was if you were about 70ft away, and looking very carefully. Thing is, 70ft away was on the other side of a stream, and thru a thick patch of thorny brush. I don't know how many times me (and most other finders) had to go back and forth before spotting the cache. Once you actually find it, you realize you need a tool to retrieve it! For most people, this requires a second visit, or at least a trip back to the car (again having to cross the stream and wade thru the sticker bushes). The only thing better then doing this cache was going back a second time and watching Geo Ho figure it out. :blink:

Oh, I forgot, both examples are the same cache.

There's a moral or 2 in there somewhere.

March 22, 2004

I totally agree that there are way too many caches placed just to have a cache. I cache to find interesting and unusal places. For me it is not about numbers. I have trashed out my weight (and I'm no lightweight) in wal-mart bags and coke bottles from lame caches in urban areas. I don't think it's just the micros that are lame, some of them are great. It is just that people are not willing to travel to interesting places to put a cache and instead place one in their backyard and in the shopping center parking lot. There is a nice small nature park near my home that had two caches until recently and now there are 12. This is an example of a place being cached-out. There was a reason to go for the two caches, but placing 12 in a small park means that most are placed just because they can be .1 mi apart in a clump of trees or bushes, or in one case in a drainage ditch that washed the cache away after the first rain. I have commented on the lameness of a cache and had my log deleted because I criticized the owner for placing it in a trash pile in the middle of thorns and rats. Let's get back to placing caches in cool spots or make a note that the cache is just like the other 20 in that area.

March 22, 2004

I don't think my micro is crappy, but it is in a small park in a very small town. It's a new series of Micros in semi-ghost towns. I want to have geocachers to visit a town they would never visit without geocaching. The cache or the park isn't very interesting, but it's cool to go to towns that you would never go to otherwise.

Michigan's Lost Towns: Pompeii

Is this a bad idea since the park is nothing special?

3.1k · March 22, 2004

Is this a bad idea since the park is nothing special?

No it's not a bad idea. My hometown has a park that isn't anything special. Sometimes that's what makes it special. Seeing how others live can be special in itself.

Since we can have threads with the word crappy in them I'm assuming I can have a cache with the word crappy in it. If so I'm going to place a crappy cache soon

March 22, 2004

I also think that it is high time for there to be some kind of ratings system. We didn't need it in the olden days when caches were few and far between but we often need it now to find a few good caches in a sea of parking lot micros.

Keenpeople.com Has a counter that you can put on your cache page. This cache has one- GCH7YN It is a counter that counts how many times your pages gets viewed and you can click on it to rate the cache.

Crappy Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation