Dear Mr Irish..

[+Monkeybrad]

You state that a traditional cache hidden in the woods is lame in your opinion and that at least the light pole and guard rail caches waste less of your time.

Just to clarify, I stated that a nondescript piece of tupperware, sitting behind a nondescript tree is a lame cache. My point was that just because a cache is on a trail, or requires a long walk, it is not necessarliy a good cache. We have all walked down trails that had as much to offer interest wise as a Wal-Mart parking lot. I meant to emphasize that a cache can be lame regardless of where you place it.

 

I will admit that my favorite type of cache is very rare, I like caches that depart from the norm, whether it is a very clever container or camo job. The ones where you have put your hand on it three times and still have not found it. That said I do not get mad the every cache is not a "Geo-Mojo" or an "Army & Navy" or Runner One's excellent "Monty Python" series, I just log the smiley and go on.

 

To cover my allusion to darwinism, trust me it works. In every aspect of your life you have to deal with the mediocrity of mass appeal. Joseph Campbell's works on comparative mythology sit on the shelf unread, while millions read Harry Potter books which deal with many of the same subjects. Citizen Kane could probably not get made in today's climate, but big budget shoot-em-ups have people lined around the block. Symphonies are holding bake sales, while no talent overproduced children have multi-platinum albums. It is just the way the world works, the majority of the population does not have the time or energy to develop an appreciation for the finer things in life.

 

It is obvious that easy caches "get more business" than difficult ones. More people listen to Britney than Ry Cooder, such is life. I still think that the answer lies in placing better caches ourselves, rather than in complaining about what other people are doing.

 

This discussion thread is part of the process of thinning the herd, darwinism is inescapable. The problem is in our definiton of a good cache. The cache which shows us something wonderful but is so hard to acces that it is only found once every six months, or the lightpole cache that is found three times a week. Which one shares more? It may be said that the incredi-cache shares more with the two people who will find it this year, but how does that balance with the 156 people who enjoyed the lightpole.

 

I would like to close with one last point. I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but in Nashville many of our easier caches are placed by older folks or those with mobility issues. They have the same right to participate in and enjoy this game as the rest of you. They hide caches the way that they like to find them, and their opinion is as valid as anyone else's on this point. Everytime this is mentioned it just gets blown off. Well, it is true, let me break both of your legs and watch you try to access some of your more worthy caches, you might find that the guard rail cache is challenging enough under these circumstances. There are people in this sport who are doing the best they can, it may not be up to your high standards, but it is up to theirs. What right do you have to tell them, "No". These same people have been the subject of hurtful comment in their logs and on these forums, to the point that some of them have quit altogether and others are just "taking a break". It may seem like no loss to you, but to our caching community it is a great loss to see the older crowd give up on trying to fit in to some preconceived notion of what this game ought to be.

 

It is kind of like saving the environment, to be effective you have to start with your own backyard.

[+4agers]

Almost all these new categories are already covered by the current ratings, if hiders and finders would take 15 seconds to look.

That is true, but not everyone is aware of this. By breaking it out further you allow people to sort, filter and research more conveniently.

 

A good example would be the number of people who have asked for a wheelchair accessible checkbox in the forums. I know that a 1/1 is supposed to be wheel accessible but how many cachers and hiders know that? To paraphrase old Albert... "Sometimes a checkbox is just a checkbox".

 

Again, I don't think this discourages hiders or tries to put a quality control system in place. It is only provides more detailed information to a cacher. It can be argued whether that detail is needed or not… but what does it hurt?

[+drat19]

Have to give Drat19 a big, ditto, on his post. As I had mentioned in an early post I think there are Geocachers out there who would appreciate the creation of a "micro" icon. Just like there are icons for traditonals, virtuals, multis, ect. Given the proliferation of micros in some areas it would help if we had a way to identifiy when pulling up an entire page of caches without having to read each page.

I appreciate that Magellan315, but I would also qualify your post to suggest that providing filters (or selection criteria) for JUST micros would be too broad, IMNSHO (that's "In my not so humble opinion" ). True, some folks dislike ALL micros, but others of us think micros are just fine WHEN EXECUTED WELL, whether the hide or location or both. I'd be looking for filters on categories such as "Historical", "Scenic", "Interesting local point of interest", "Quick Stat Grab", "Mobility-impaired-accessible", etc.

 

-Dave R.

Edited April 29, 2004 by drat19

[+Mopar]

Almost all these new categories are already covered by the current ratings, if hiders and finders would take 15 seconds to look.

That is true, but not everyone is aware of this. By breaking it out further you allow people to sort, filter and research more conveniently.

 

A good example would be the number of people who have asked for a wheelchair accessible checkbox in the forums. I know that a 1/1 is supposed to be wheel accessible but how many cachers and hiders know that? To paraphrase old Albert... "Sometimes a checkbox is just a checkbox".

 

Again, I don't think this discourages hiders or tries to put a quality control system in place. It is only provides more detailed information to a cacher. It can be argued whether that detail is needed or not… but what does it hurt?

Breaking it out futher does not increase awareness. There are 2 links to the rating system on the cache submission page now. If people can't be bothered to use it now, why would they bother with a more complicated setup? There used to be like 6 links on a cache submission page to the guidelines for hiding a cache. People couldn't figure it out. You still need to read past at least one to get to the link to submit a new cache, but before you can submit it, you need to check off that you have read those guidelines and there is another link. Simple as can be, one would think. Yet it seems every day someone is in here asking why their new cache full of knives and fireworks buried on the railroad tracks in a National Park didn't get approved. If people now can't follow simple rules and perform simple tasks like reading, how is making more rules and more options going to help?

Edited April 29, 2004 by Mopar

[Pto]

If people now can't follow simple rules and perform simple tasks like reading, how is making more rules and more options going to help?

 

The options would be for the people who Do pay attention - the ones that see this as a need. They are the ones who would benefit from the ability to read these extras, or use them to better describe thier own page.

 

Its not the idiots who are asking for these features, its the users trying to refine the methods available. The idiots will still come here and post (in the wrong section for sure) topics asking those same stupid questions. Stupid IS as stupid does........

[+sbell111]

...

Well, it is true, let me break both of your legs and watch you try to access some of your more worthy caches, you might find that the guard rail cache is challenging enough under these circumstances.

...

HUH?

 

You seem to have missed the point of my previous post. As previously stated by a number of posters in this thread, the answer is not to ban 'lightpole' caches, but to implement some sort of mechanism to allow all cachers to build a search that will give them caches they would like to find.

[+Salvelinus]

If you don't want to flame - then don't do it! Subtlety doesn't excuse the motive.

 

I know SBUX - she is a very intelligent, thoughtful, and sweet person. Starbucks is her signature place - literally and figuratively. SBUX = NYSE ticker symbol for Starbucks. Her micros at Starbucks are something I hope to find when I am out and about. It reminds me of my good friend to find one. As for her ability to maintain the caches, she travels far and wide and in cases where she may not be back for a while I am sure she has a local geocacher friend who takes care of maintenance if needed. I like the idea of "serial" caches. Here in Florida, Overrover started placing micros in a certain spot near Cracker Barrel restaurants. Others have followed her lead and continued the series. It's fun! Isn't that the point? Was there a point to your post other than to put SBUX under scrutiny? If so, I missed it. If you merely wanted comments, you got mine.

 

Jim

Regardless of who places them and for whatever reason, IMO these types of caches are commercial. They are placed at or near the commercial business and the theme IS the business.

 

Seems like a good way to drum up some business. Get a free account at geocaching.com and start placing keyholders with a scrap of paper on a light pole in your parking lot. Maybe a coupon or two rolled up inside for the FTF prize? You could save a ton of $$$ on your advertising budget!

 

And you get another to boot!

 

Salvelinus

 

BTW Maintenance was recommended on this One a month ago and there still is no aknowledgement that it has been done. I guess with triple digit hides, its tough to do timely maintenance.

Edited April 29, 2004 by Salvelinus

[+Monkeybrad]

Sorry, Steve I was not referring to you. For the record, I have no desire whatsoever to harm you in any way. I was just trying to make an analogy that everyone could understand. I guess I should have said, "Imagine that i have broken your legs", or maybe just "Pretend that both of your legs are broken." The day that I get mad enough about geocaching to hurt someone, is the day I hang up my GPS.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

I am all for being able to break out information, but we already have that. Run your PQ's through GPSBabel or some other sorting program and then you can remove all of the micros or cache placed by "X". It just takes a little more time, but the technology and the information is already there. The problem I see with any other system is abuse. Very few people actively put out caches that they think are sub-par. I will use one of my own as an example, "Angelflye's Retreat" is a lame cache, I own it so I can say so. It is in the end of a guard rail on a nondescript country road. However, the first time Angelflye and i ever really sat and talked was on that guard rail. Not interesting to anyone else, but certainly a part of my personal history. Why couldn't I mark the "Historical" checkbox on this cache? Are we going to ask the approvers to verify whether or not the cache has any true historical signifigance? I really am not trying to argue with anyone, but I see no answer better than what we already have. I guess people just want it to be easier to work the information, because most of what has been asked for is already there, you just have to learn how to use it.

[+sept1c_tank]

There's one thing I've noticed about geeks (excuse the expression, but after all, we each have some geek in us). We're obsessed with getting all the information immediately.

 

I never used computers or the internet before I started caching. In just about a year, I've developed the same obsession; here and now.

 

If I understand correctly, this thread is about how to find (or isolate) quality caches of one type or another. I vote for read the logs. Think about it. We're searching for caches. The search actually begins when you look at a list of nearby caches in your planned vicinity.

 

For me, reading the logs is essential in determining the potential quality of any cache. And even if, in the future some failsafe, computerized method of identifying these types of caches is initiated, I will probably still read the logs (or at least some portion of them).

 

If it's about the hunt, start hunting before you get there. If it's about cultural/historical value, start at home. A little research on what you're about to see can make your hunt more enjoyable. If it's about the numbers, just start at the top of the list.

[+drat19]

I would like to close with one last point.  I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but in Nashville many of our easier caches are placed by older folks or those with mobility issues.  They have the same right to participate in and enjoy this game as the rest of you.

(Edit: I was posting this reply same time as you were posting yours above)

 

Brad:

No one here (that I've seen) has said one thing suggesting that the mobility-impaired should not play our game. Furthermore, no one has said they don't want easy caches. Remember your trip to Biloxi? You found plenty of my caches that were easy hides, and I'm sure you might also recall that I took you to many locations of local or scenic interest, which was the point.

 

The discussion here (and if you want to call it "slamming", so be it, I'll accept that I've been doing that in this case) has been that MAYBE, just MAYBE, these hiders could be hiding caches that are just as easy and just as mobility-impaired-accessible in locations that are more desirable to visit than the WalMart parking lot or guardrail next to the dumpster that YOU KNOW these hiders are selecting. OR: If they insist on making this their hide location of choice, maybe not ONE HUNDRED of them!

 

Whether intentionally or not, these hiders are making these hides "the standard" by which new cachers will base their own hides...that's how the issue propagates to the level it has. And while it is unfortunate for you (seriously, not patronizing), as a leading cacher in your area who DOES care about cache quality, that Nashville is a "poster child" for this sort of thing, it is also true that the issue has become much more widespread than just Nashville...just look at the responses on this thread.

 

Since you and the other leading cachers in your area have elected to "leave well enough alone" and not offer (or maybe you HAVE offered and they have chosen not to accept or act on it) friendly, constructive counseling to these folks that maybe the "saturation bombing" of this hide technique and choice of locations MIGHT be taking our sport in a direction that A GOOD MANY cachers don't want to see it go, and since it probably wouldn't be fair to simply "outlaw" the hide/location technique due to its subjectivity, then understand what many of us are looking for here: A way to filter out these types of caches (through a subjective categorization, I must admit that) so that those of us planning caching outings can make the most enjoyable use of our VALUABLE TIME that we are investing in our sport - and similarly, so that cachers such as those dominant hiders in your area can filter IN caches that THEY would prefer to spend their VALUABLE TIME on.

 

-Dave R.

Edited April 29, 2004 by drat19

[+sbell111]

In my opinion, the current search methods don't get the job done. For instance, I might try to sort out all micros, but then I miss out on really great ones like Monkeybrad's 'Pack a Lunch'. One might read this thread and come to the conclusion that MB's are lame because he said that 'Angleflye's Retreat' was lame. If you filter all of MB's caches out, you miss the great ones again. Also, if you are planning a road trip, you probably don't know who places good or bad caches in an area. Certainly, reading the logs is not a solution. You might have to read logs on hundreds of caches. No thanks.

 

I do agree that adding checkboxes for historical, 'walk-in-the-woods' or handicap accesible will not necessarily completely elliminate the chance of searching for an unsatisfying cache. I do think it would help, however.

[MOCKBA]

If I understand correctly, this thread is about how to find (or isolate) quality caches of one type or another. I vote for read the logs.

Exactly. Reading the logs is the most discriminating way to find caches which you'd love to hunt. And the root cause of our problem lies precisely here:

the more caches are placed in an area, the more difficult it is to read them all

At some point it's just defeating the whole purpose of caching. I'd like to be out and enjoying the places, not reading tons of info about the places I don't care. What we need is a crude filter first, and of course studying the logs next.

 

And no, MB, unselecting caches hidden by some geocacher is not doing the trick, especially in an unfamiliar, out-of-state area.

[CoyoteRed]

What we need is a check box that says, "Show me only the caches that I like." Problem solved.

 

Actually, I don't know what the big deal is about. Whenever we've gone into an area we read the cache description to see if we're going to enjoy it. Sometimes the maps and descriptions seems fine but we end up in a garbage dump anyway. If we don't like it, we move on.

 

I'd say that, by far, most of all urban caches you can tell what the feel is going to be before you even get out of the car.

 

You've got to the read the description anyway. What's the big deal?

 

The solution I'm seeing batted around here will not produce a better list of caches unless you can get everyone on board. They have to know about the new scheme, understand it, and then accurately implement it. So, knowing that there is already a problem with mis-categorized caches and confusion with ratings, do you really thing you'll get everyone onboard in an effective way? Hardly.

 

Your effort would be better served by changing yourself to deal with the situation.

Edited April 29, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+sbell111]

'The solution is difficult, so lets keep it broken.' Interesting theory, but it's not how I chose to live my life.

 

The fact is, cache attributes have been discussed in the past. It is my understanding (or misunderstanding) that the idea has not been dismissed and will, one day, be implemented. This implementation, along with a change in PQs to search by the attributes, would go a long way to solve this issue to everyone's satisfaction.

 

As far as reading the cache page goes, the description may not give an indication as to whether the cache is one's cup of tea. The logs may or may not. It should also be stated that many cachers avoid reading the logs so as to not come across a spoiler.

 

Also, reading the cache pages is not efficient when planning a trip. I am currently planning a trip from my home in Tennessee (never thought I'd say that ) through Virginia, and Pennsylvania, finally ending in New York. Reading the hundreds of cache pages involved is not on the menu.

Edited April 29, 2004 by sbell111

[+Doc-Dean]

Does this mean we are not going to get to see someone's legs get broken?!?

Dang, I just got the popcorn warmed up too!

 

Guess I'll have to go give someone a shot then!

[+Doc-Dean]

What we need is a check box that says, "Show me only the caches that I like." Problem solved.

BINGO! Who's gonna propose it to Jeremy?

[CoyoteRed]

'The solution is difficult, so lets keep it broken.'

No, not necessarily. Just being realistic.

 

Besides, it's all academic, anyway. Even the best solution would be a long time in coming the way the rest of the site gets updated. Heck, I suggested that there be a check box in the PQs for only caches that have changed in any way in the past 7 days*. Irish even said it was a good idea. Still not implemented.

 

*Right now you can get just the caches that have a description change or a Found It log, but not the one's with any other log type. The DNFs are as important as the FIs

[robertlipe]

You can argue that the placers need more tools (that they won't use) , but this thread has made it apparent the seekers don't use the tools they have, either. The search begins with your web browser.

 

If urban, unimaginative caches just really aren't your gig, don't plan your caching days around smileys per square mile/hour. Of course downtown of any metro area is going to have fewer 8 mile hikes in the woods than places that actually have 8 miles of woods. If "easy" to you is boring, set your pocket queries to not have them; that's why you have a selectable difficulty field. If you categorically detest micros and never want to see another, set your PQ to not include them; that's why we should be glad the namesake of this thread finally added container as a selectable field.

 

I just set up a PQ of Nashville for 2/2's and higher within 50 miles. I didn't exclude micros as we have some Truly Memorable (horrifying!) micros here. This gets Nashville down to a "mere" 172 caches, but having found most of those - some nearly 2 1/2 years ago - I'll offer that I remember something about each one of them. They don't just blend into the blur of a day of speed caching. I'll guarantee that closing out that list of 172 will overflow the weekend of even the most masochistic cacher out there. Additional knob-tweaking could return more - or less - focused results.

 

If you're planning to spend a day caching, a little up-front planning isn't out of the question. Every cache isn't for everybody. Your TV has a channel button and your PQ's (and tools like GSAK, Spinner, Watcher, etc.) have lots of options to change the channel. You don't need more knobs, you need to use the ones you already have.

[+Monkeybrad]

What we need is a check box that says, "Show me only the caches that I like." Problem solved.

 

Actually, I don't know what the big deal is about. Whenever we've gone into an area we read the cache description to see if we're going to enjoy it. Sometimes the maps and descriptions seems fine but we end up in a garbage dump anyway. If we don't like it, we move on.

 

I'd say that, by far, most of all urban caches you can tell what the feel is going to be before you even get out of the car.

 

You've got to the read the description anyway. What's the big deal?

 

The solution I'm seeing batted around here will not produce a better list of caches unless you can get everyone on board. They have to know about the new scheme, understand it, and then accurately implement it. So, knowing that there is already a problem with mis-categorized caches and confusion with ratings, do you really thing you'll get everyone onboard in an effective way? Hardly.

 

Your effort would be better served by changing yourself to deal with the situation.

I never thought I would say this, but I agree wholeheartedly with this post by Coyote Red. He has said it far more eloquently in a short post than I have been able to in three long posts.

 

"Your effort would be better served by changing yourself to deal with the situation."

 

Well Said Coyote Red!

[MOCKBA]

What we need is a check box that says, "Show me only the caches that I like."  Problem solved.

BINGO! Who's gonna propose it to Jeremy?

Oh, I have no doubt that Jeremy is thinking about it now. More precisely, how to implement it, and in addition to

- saddle people with new placement, cache type, or page layout restrictions

- make uploads and dowloads less compatible

- open floodgates for archiving of caches which aren't on TPTB fav lists

- well, it's hard to be creative about some new ways to annoy people with upgrade feature-bug hybrids, but I know TPTB can do it

[+sbell111]

The answer isn't in excluding cache sizes as there are great caches of all sizes. Nor is the solution to exclude by difficulty as the problem as explained was not difficulty-based.

 

Implementing reasonable cache attributes and allowing searched on same would, however, go a long was to a solution. It would also solve other issues such as the 'caching with pets' requests.

 

As a side note, I don't understand how this thread became a place to bash TPTB. I think those issues should be left to the appropriate thread.

Edited April 29, 2004 by sbell111

[+geospotter]

What we need is a check box that says, "Show me only the caches that I like." Problem solved.

 

Actually it would be extremely easy to do.

 

Add 10-15 OPTIONAL checkboxes on the submission page with "Categories that best describe your new cache (check all that apply)". Notice, it's OPTIONAL. If you don't want to fill it in then don't. It won't be selected on my lists.

 

On my profile give me the ability to designate which categories I prefer.

 

On listings/PQs provide a checkbox that reads "Show me only the caches that I like."

 

Done deal.

[+Monkeybrad]

Dave, as always I appreciate your opinion even when I do not agree with it. In this case all I am trying to say is, none of our "opinions" of how caches are supposed to be placed or what makes a good cache are any more valid than the opinions of those who place the so-called lame caches. I do not particularly enjoy doing yet another guard rail cache, but it is not my cache and it was not placed especially for me, so who am i to pass judgement on it. I have talked with most of the hiders in my area and they all have their own reasons for hiding them where they do. Sometimes that is beside a dumpster behind a Wal-Mart, that site may also be the approximate location of the house they grew up in. See things change and when you go there you say why did they bring me here, when i go there i think to myself how sad it is that the old farmhouse is gone and all we have to show for it is another Wal-Mart. Whether, I think it was a valid reason for a less than desirable cacheplacement is a moot point, they had their reasons. Believe it or not a great many of Nashville's "lame caches" were placed where they are for a reason. Not being a local there is no way for you to know that. Thhe caches were placed for the locals, not for numbers blasters, who probably have no idea why they are named the way they are. I am concerned about the quality of caches in middle Tennessee, but I am not going to tell my friends that they should quit hiding in the fashion that they like to. I am just going to continue to hide them the way I think they should be hidden. Hopefully, some will follow my example and some will step up and surpass me.

[+sbell111]

Again, the bulk of the posters to this thread are not trying to do away with any caches. They are merely trying to come up with a solution that allows them to bypass those caches that they find underwhelming.

[+wimseyguy]

Nope simply creating the micro icon does NOT address the OP's request. As another member of Team CHB who just traveled with PF I'll ditto the sentiment that we saw many quality micros. I linked to some waaay back in the early days of this thread.

 

This thread has obviously generated some passionate replies which is great. That is part of what the forums are for. Since MB replied before I could even post I'll just

<SNIP>Sometimes that is beside a dumpster behind a Wal-Mart, that site may also be the approximate location of the house they grew up in. See things change and when you go there you say why did they bring me here, when i go there i think to myself how sad it is that the old farmhouse is gone and all we have to show for it is another Wal-Mart. <SNIP>

 

Correct sir. But if that was the motivation for hiding it here then please share that nugget with us in the cache page. The repetitous lame hides also have lame cache pages. No more effort went into them than the hides themselves.

drat19 has used the word 'thoughtful' in most of his posts. Maybe I'm reaching-but isn't that what lil' otter was asking for? A way to identify the thoughtful hides.

Now since Team CHB agreed before setting out on our trek that this trip was about the numbers I'm not complaining nor whining that I saw so many. I'll be back to Nashville soon,hopefully with the full team for GW2, and with my best manners. This trip I plan to avoid those types of hides. What is the best way to do so in your opinion?

 

edited for clarity (I hope)

Edited April 29, 2004 by wimseyguy

[+4agers]

Breaking it out futher does not increase awareness. There are 2 links to the rating system on the cache submission page now. If people can't be bothered to use it now, why would they bother with a more complicated setup? There used to be like 6 links on a cache submission page to the guidelines for hiding a cache. People couldn't figure it out. You still need to read past at least one to get to the link to submit a new cache, but before you can submit it, you need to check off that you have read those guidelines and there is another link. Simple as can be, one would think. Yet it seems every day someone is in here asking why their new cache full of knives and fireworks buried on the railroad tracks in a National Park didn't get approved. If people now can't follow simple rules and perform simple tasks like reading, how is making more rules and more options going to help?

If "People" couldn't figure it out??? What people? I would hate to eliminate features and improvements based on people who can't find a link. I would think this thread has had a lot of people that would use and appreciate these types of features. Certainly the topic starter and I would. Myself being the most important (Comment added for Levity)

 

So, I guess I have a question for everyone.

 

If additional categories were implemented, what would you do?

a - Stop caching because you don't agree with the categories? (I hope not)

b - Use and enjoy the features?

c - Who cares... keep caching the way I do now?

[+sbell111]

I'll choose 'B'. I don't believe that anyone will choose 'A'. Those that choose C will not be affected by the change, in my opinion.

[+The SuzyQs]

I'd say the problem is The Otter's sense of direction and obsession with cities. She said something about it not being about the numbers (pretty obvious with 2400+ finds). 

Do you even know me to label me so? I doubt that you even looked at my find locations.. I have no close caches to my home.. I've always had to travel to cache.. If I had an obsession with cities.. then why isn't Mpls/St. Paul which is ONLY 4 hrs from me still left untouched? I've always geocached for a reason.. and I don't feel like stating it here to be torn apart or hashed over or judged.

 

I am not judging the people of these cities I spoke about.. ALL I've said is because I've been there 1 year before I can state clearly of the MAJOR change in the placements. PERIOD.. I've seen this thread morph from my request for a way to find Historical/Special Interests to everyone's peeves.

 

Why can't anyone understand that I looked forward to my yearly trip down to Florida to geocache.. and that all those good memories I had fed into what I expected to yet be there. If all cities are going to become heavily loaded with these types of placements with no scenic/historical/cool etc placement area.. PLEASE then save those that want to travel for the experiences/learning by using geocaching as the driving force and guiding route. I just wished/requested for a way to filter some out..

 

And if I was into the numbers.. most that know me KNOW I could have ALOT more.. if I'm into the numbers.. why then am I requesting a filtering system to remove 98% of the very easy driveup lampost type hides?? Please do not do anymore personal attacks/judgements upon me..

 

~The Lil Otter

Well, If YOU don't like the way it is going, then YOU should have kept your mouth shut. I can not believe that you have trashed Jacksonville caches like you have. If those are your true feelings about caches in Jacksonville, then, PLEASE pass us by next time. we have a great group of cachers here and we don't need an outsider telling us that our caches are lame. We have done some lame caches while traveling, but never stated in the forums that they are lame or that we should do away with them. They are a cache and you have to take the good with the bad. I still can not believe that you bad mouthed a local cache right in front of the owner and he didn't punch you out. His Fiancee had to hold him back. You have stepped on the wrong toes speaking of Jacksonville as you have.

[+Snoogans]

I predict this thread will become a flame fest.

 

My favorite parting shot of late:

 

"Everyone plays their own game. There is no sense in trying to police another's mindset as long as it falls within the general parameters of the game." Me (quoting myself from the poll that I posted on 10/23/03.)

 

Sn gans

AND here we go...... Onward rode the 600......

 

Time to lock this thread......................

[+sbell111]

SuzyQs-

 

The issue is bigger than any individual cache or city. It has been agreed that one person's lame cache is another's awesome find. What is desired by many is a way to create a search that allows individuals to bypass those caches that they will not like.

 

I assume you were taking some artistic license in suggesting that it would ever be proper for a man to 'punch out' a woman.

 

edited for clarity and politeness.

Edited April 30, 2004 by sbell111

[+Snoogans]

"Failure is a hard pill to swallow until you realize the only failure you can really have in this sport is the failure to enjoy yourself." TotemLake 4/26/04

I like that so much; I think I'll post it again.

[+Snoogans]

I'll choose 'B'. I don't believe that anyone will choose 'A'. Those that choose C will not be affected by the change, in my opinion.

You speak as if it's a done deal. Please don't take this the wrong way, but you're apt to pass out if you decide to hold your breath for it.

 

These forums represent the vocal minority. The posters to this thread are a minority within the minority. If I hadn't been first to post on this thread, I wouldn't have given it a second look. I detest complaint/whiner/geo-reform threads.

[+4agers]

AND here we go...... Onward rode the 600......

 

Time to lock this thread......................

Bummer too... I was just commenting that we hit 4 pages of a real debate/discussion.

[Dinoprophet]

Since it's come up several times, here is the main thread discussing cache attributes, from December 2002.

 

Whatever happened to MartyFouts and Rubbertoe anyway?

 

Edit: 2002, not 2003

Edited April 30, 2004 by Dinoprophet

[+sbell111]

...

You speak as if it's a done deal.

...

If I hadn't been first to post on this thread, I wouldn't have given it a second look. I detest complaint/whiner/geo-reform threads.

You are correct, of course. I should have typed 'Those that choose C would not be affected ...'

 

Personally, I don't see this thread as a 'complaint/whiner/geo-reform thread'. I see it as a way to come up with improvements to the site. Certainly, this type of improvement would be in everyone's best interest (without generating new rules).

[+paintfiction]

BTW  Maintenance was recommended on this One a month ago and there still is no aknowledgement that it has been done.  I guess with triple digit hides, its tough to do timely maintenance.

hmmm.... what I read was ONE cacher 20 days ago who said the contents were soggy (with no request for maintenance) and then 2 finders since then with no complaints. Doesn't look like a problem to me.

[+Cool Librarian]

I know that this thread started off being about micros, but I have to agree with the people who have said "read the logs" and better yet, THE CACHE PAGE. On another thread from a while ago, it was staed by a few people that they did NOT read the cache page (decriptions) or the logs. They simply downloaded coords and off they went.

 

If that works for you, then great - but you can't complain if the cache didn't meet your "expectations." I'm not saying this applies to anyone here, just that it was said by a few in the past.

 

I have several hides, ranging from an easy "park and grab" to a more difficult "puzzle" cache (which has only been found by a few due to the research involved and the lack of posted hints). And, if you read my cache pages, you will see that the type of cache you are finding is pretty clearly stated - not only is the "park and grab" NAMED that, it also states on the page that it IS NOT A SCENIC cache, simply an easy one to pick up on your way in or out of town. It's a cool, but easy hide, and people seem to like it even though it's not a scenic walk or a brain buster.

 

Personally, I have found caches that were fabulous for one reason or another, very lame ones (IMHO), and everything in between. And in the end, I got out of the house, in some cases got to team up with friends, got a bit of exercise, and logged a smile - it's all good.

[+Snoogans]

...

You speak as if it's a done deal.

...

If I hadn't been first to post on this thread, I wouldn't have given it a second look. I detest complaint/whiner/geo-reform threads.

You are correct, of course. I should have typed 'Those that choose C would not be affected ...'

 

Personally, I don't see this thread as a 'complaint/whiner/geo-reform thread'. I see it as a way to come up with improvements to the site. Certainly, this type of improvement would be in everyone's best interest (without generating new rules).

I have agreed with a few things posted here.

 

My point is that, by actual numbers in favor of the change, in this and previous threads, hardly equal one vote by volume of people already happily hunting as is.

 

TPTB already have Ultimate Veto Power. I don't see much chance for it even if I agreed that a change is needed.

 

The whole idea smacks of elitism and snobbery to me.

 

A cache is a personal thing. It's not a product. Who cares why it was placed?

 

I don't understand it when people forget to have fun.

[+JMBella]

I don't really see the point in all of this.  The sport is fine. There's something for everyone.

No it is not fine. There are too many caches to look through all of their descriptions and logs and to decide which ones I wanna hunt, if any. Even in my home area.

I end up not hunting any urban or easy caches even though some of them may be very interesting, either unique spots or unique hides.

And on trips away from home, I pretty much avoid caching. At most, I study a half-dozen caches in the immediate vicinity of the places we stop, just to make it into a before-breakfast jog or a rest-area leg stretcher. To take a list of the regional waypoints and to convert into the trip plan, or into a list of desirable locations to visit, would be counterproductive at best.

But as Otter says, there might be a way to make the mess more searchable, at the very least to highlight the WOW cache locations.

Yes it is fine. If someone can figure out a way to rate a cache based on WOW factor, or at the very least designate that a cache is a light post rather than a cache with a nice view then great, I'm all for it. I think there are way to many variables once you start getting into that. It's ridiculous to say there's something wrong with the sport because some people don't like to find micros in a lamp post. Don't get me wrong, I think an area being inundated with them is just plain silly, but that's all it is, silly. I especially hate the ones people hide in specific store parking lots, but you know what, you know what they are by looking at the page. So you have to do a little extra research to avoid specific types of caches, big deal. I don't like every type of cache but I deal with it. IT'S PART OF THE GAME. Come to think of it this whole thread is silly. Silly I tell ya. You're all very Silly.

[+sbell111]

...

My point is that, by actual numbers in favor of the change, in this and previous threads, hardly equal one vote by volume of people already happily hunting as is.

 

TPTB already have Ultimate Veto Power. I don't see much chance for it even if I agreed that a change is needed.

 

The whole idea smacks of elitism and snobbery to me.

...

I don't understand it when people forget to have fun.

Just because the majority of cachers do not participate in the forums does not mean that ideas presented in the forums do not have merit.

 

TPTB may or may not implement any changes based on this thread. However, they may implement changes based on the thread if they believe that the change would improve the site and would not be cost prohibitive.

 

I don't see how any search-based changes could be called elitist. What is wrong with allowing people to search for caches they will enjoy. This includes caches for boaters, hikers, dog owners, etc.

 

It's not about 'forgetting to have fun'. It's about maximizing one's enjoyment.

[+sbell111]

I know that this thread started off being about micros, but I have to agree with the people who have said "read the logs" and better yet, THE CACHE PAGE. On another thread from a while ago, it was staed by a few people that they did NOT read the cache page (decriptions) or the logs. They simply downloaded coords and off they went.

 

If that works for you, then great - but you can't complain if the cache didn't meet your "expectations." ...

Reading the cache page works to some extent when you are looking for a local cache to hunt. However, it doesn't work when planning a trip.

 

One of the great things about this site is that it allows members to run PQs. These queries allow a member to easily download a ton of caches, filter and convert them, and dump them into a GPSr and a PDA. PQs have allowed many of us to gp paperless and greatly reduce the time it takes to plan a road trip. I don't think many people would spend hours and hours reading each cache page when planning an extended road trip if there was a better option. This thread is about that option.

 

Also, I'd like to add that most cachers that I've spoken to avoid reading the logs until they have already searched for a cache. They do not wish to read any spoilers.

[+Mopar]

I'm going to be caching in an area full of lame virtuals and micros. It's also got just as many challenging caches. I've got 700 unfound caches loaded in the GPS and the PDA. They range from 1/1 virtuals, to 4.5/4.5 caches. I plan on spending a nice weekend with some friends, looking for some of lamest, as well as some of the hardest caches the area has to offer.

I suspect most of them will be fun caches, be it a virtual, micro or an ammo box.

[+Cool Librarian]

Well, I guess it doesn't surprise me that I might do things "backwards!" I always read the cache pages and many of the logs before going out - just part of my routine I guess. Probably because I am not paperless (I do not have the money or desire for a PDA), and I do not (yet) look at 100's of caches at a time. But, even if I am planning a trip outside of my "normal" hunting area, I read the pages. For me, it's part of the fun of this sport - I cannot imagine not reading the page concerning what it is that I am looking for.

 

But, certainly, to each his own

[+OurWoods]

I just cached my way down to Jacksonville (from Rochester) at the beginning of April. Prior to going to Jacksonville I had approx 130 finds, and approx 100 of those were ammo cans hidden in stumps or fallen logs (and I enjoyed all of them), 2 or 3 were micros under a bench (I had fun on those too). I found 70 caches in about 2 weeks down in Jacksonville. Most were micros. The ones that weren't micros were hidden under inches of pine needles, palmettos, or other things we don't have up here. It was great expierencing such a different terrain and way of caching.

 

Jacksonville caches were not the same as NY caches. Alot were micros, some in very public places, or off to the side of shopping centres. Was I extremely dissapointed? Heck no! I had a ball. I DNF'd alot of caches the first few days, and the local cachers emailed me inspiration and tips. I conversed via email with several people. The caching community is great! I learned lots of new and interesting places, ways, and camo to hide caches in and with. Not every cache can provide you with history, a great view, or an amazing adventure. Every cache can provide you with fun. Even the ones hidden behind dumpsters (cat food comes to mind here).

 

Since getting back to Rochester I have hidden about 8 or so caches, and 5 were micros! I got some great ideas down there that haven't been seen up here until now. I even "borrowed" their Cracker Barrel themed caches, and have had positive responses to it here.

 

I agree with what someone else here said, there is something for everyone in Geocaching. In my opinion we don't need more listing catergories, rules, regulations, or voting on which caches are "worthy." Most people who hunt caches probably don't know the circumstances or conditions the cache was hidden under. Why purposefully upset or hurt someone when you can simply abstain from comment and move on to the next?

[+The SuzyQs]

I just cached my way down to Jacksonville (from Rochester) at the beginning of April. Prior to going to Jacksonville I had approx 130 finds, and approx 100 of those were ammo cans hidden in stumps or fallen logs (and I enjoyed all of them), 2 or 3 were micros under a bench (I had fun on those too). I found 70 caches in about 2 weeks down in Jacksonville. Most were micros. The ones that weren't micros were hidden under inches of pine needles, palmettos, or other things we don't have up here. It was great expierencing such a different terrain and way of caching.

 

Jacksonville caches were not the same as NY caches. Alot were micros, some in very public places, or off to the side of shopping centres. Was I extremely dissapointed? Heck no! I had a ball. I DNF'd alot of caches the first few days, and the local cachers emailed me inspiration and tips. I conversed via email with several people. The caching community is great! I learned lots of new and interesting places, ways, and camo to hide caches in and with. Not every cache can provide you with history, a great view, or an amazing adventure. Every cache can provide you with fun. Even the ones hidden behind dumpsters (cat food comes to mind here).

 

Since getting back to Rochester I have hidden about 8 or so caches, and 5 were micros! I got some great ideas down there that haven't been seen up here until now. I even "borrowed" their Cracker Barrel themed caches, and have had positive responses to it here.

 

I agree with what someone else here said, there is something for everyone in Geocaching. In my opinion we don't need more listing catergories, rules, regulations, or voting on which caches are "worthy." Most people who hunt caches probably don't know the circumstances or conditions the cache was hidden under. Why purposefully upset or hurt someone when you can simply abstain from comment and move on to the next?

Well said. Thank you.

[+drat19]

Dave, as always I appreciate your opinion even when I do not agree with it. In this case all I am trying to say is, none of our "opinions" of how caches are supposed to be placed or what makes a good cache are any more valid than the opinions of those who place the so-called lame caches. I do not particularly enjoy doing yet another guard rail cache, but it is not my cache and it was not placed especially for me, so who am i to pass judgement on it. I have talked with most of the hiders in my area and they all have their own reasons for hiding them where they do. Sometimes that is beside a dumpster behind a Wal-Mart, that site may also be the approximate location of the house they grew up in. See things change and when you go there you say why did they bring me here, when i go there i think to myself how sad it is that the old farmhouse is gone and all we have to show for it is another Wal-Mart. Whether, I think it was a valid reason for a less than desirable cacheplacement is a moot point, they had their reasons. Believe it or not a great many of Nashville's "lame caches" were placed where they are for a reason. Not being a local there is no way for you to know that. Thhe caches were placed for the locals, not for numbers blasters, who probably have no idea why they are named the way they are. I am concerned about the quality of caches in middle Tennessee, but I am not going to tell my friends that they should quit hiding in the fashion that they like to. I am just going to continue to hide them the way I think they should be hidden. Hopefully, some will follow my example and some will step up and surpass me.

Fair enough counterpoint, Brad.

 

-Dave R.

[+paintfiction]

Well said. Thank you.

You literally took the words right out of my head! I was astounded to see my reply with your name on it. LOL!

 

Jim

[+Salvelinus]

BTW  Maintenance was recommended on this One a month ago and there still is no aknowledgement that it has been done.  I guess with triple digit hides, its tough to do timely maintenance.

hmmm.... what I read was ONE cacher 20 days ago who said the contents were soggy (with no request for maintenance) and then 2 finders since then with no complaints. Doesn't look like a problem to me.

Are you kidding me?

 

Here is a quote from April 9...13 days after maintenance was suggested on March 27th. 20 days? What calender are you using?

 

"Cache is there - but contents a little soggy. Tried to dry-out the standing water, signed the log and replaced it. Thanks for the hunt."

 

Standing water? I would of been there within hours!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Salvelinus

[+JMBella]

I just cached my way down to Jacksonville (from Rochester) at the beginning of April. Prior to going to Jacksonville I had approx 130 finds, and approx 100 of those were ammo cans hidden in stumps or fallen logs (and I enjoyed all of them), 2 or 3 were micros under a bench (I had fun on those too). I found 70 caches in about 2 weeks down in Jacksonville. Most were micros. The ones that weren't micros were hidden under inches of pine needles, palmettos, or other things we don't have up here. It was great experiencing such a different terrain and way of caching.

 

Jacksonville caches were not the same as NY caches. Alot were micros, some in very public places, or off to the side of shopping centers. Was I extremely disappointed? Heck no! I had a ball. I DNF'd a lot of caches the first few days, and the local cachers emailed me inspiration and tips. I conversed via email with several people. The caching community is great! I learned lots of new and interesting places, ways, and camo to hide caches in and with. Not every cache can provide you with history, a great view, or an amazing adventure. Every cache can provide you with fun. Even the ones hidden behind dumpsters (cat food comes to mind here).

 

Since getting back to Rochester I have hidden about 8 or so caches, and 5 were micros! I got some great ideas down there that haven't been seen up here until now. I even "borrowed" their Cracker Barrel themed caches, and have had positive responses to it here.

 

I agree with what someone else here said, there is something for everyone in Geocaching. In my opinion we don't need more listing categories, rules, regulations, or voting on which caches are "worthy." Most people who hunt caches probably don't know the circumstances or conditions the cache was hidden under. Why purposefully upset or hurt someone when you can simply abstain from comment and move on to the next?

Perfectly stated. And By the way, it was me that said there's something for everyone. Unless of course you're the type of person that refuses to let yourself have fun. Then there's nothing for you here. Please move along.

[+The Lil Otter]

I still can not believe that you bad mouthed a local cache right in front of the owner and he didn't punch you out. His Fiancee had to hold him back. You have stepped on the wrong toes speaking of Jacksonville as you have.

I'm a bit confused on whom you are referring to.. I made reference to only a few caches at the CITO event.. one was about the cute gators that the Marine Biologist's hid.. and the other was to the LazyCachers on why I was so surprised to read about their biking trail cache and then I found the cache 50' away from the parking lot.. Once explained that there was another cache (wasn't in myGPS) located on the biking trail ended the conversation. If there are hard feelings from this event I'm am the last to know.. no one tried to take a swing at me.. granted, I felt like an outsider but did enjoy myself.

 

~The Lil Otter

 

I needed to edit this post after I tried to take this personal attack on me over to the NE'ern Florida website.. there I noticed an error about my talking to another cacher there about his Rings cache.. one that I totally admired but got stumped on and I offered the suggestion of him perhaps securing those discs he spent alot of time and effort on with tiny finishing nails.. at no time did I ever think that he thought I was running down his cache.. it had it all.. a beautiful park.. multi.. very tough lil waypoints to find.. and a very nice hike.. After reading more over on that board I realized that you cachers deserved your privacy and there you could continue to vent your anger at me without my interference.

Edited April 30, 2004 by The Lil Otter