Jump to content

Bored With Caching


travisl
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

ishti oto-hadavar :smile:

tov, kshetagì'u laëzor shelànu, tihyu beqèsher!

 

( ;)  to the rest of you)

אשתי אותו-הדבר :ph34r:

טוב, כשתגיעו לאזור שלנו, תהיו בקשר

 

(just testing)

אשתי אותו-הדבר

æ... extended windows ascii 230

 

My buck is safe... right?

Link to comment
ishti oto-hadavar :smile:

tov, kshetagì'u laëzor shelànu, tihyu beqèsher!

 

( ;)  to the rest of you)

אשתי אותו-הדבר :ph34r:

טוב, כשתגיעו לאזור שלנו, תהיו בקשר

 

(just testing)

אשתי אותו-הדבר

æ... extended windows ascii 230

 

My buck is safe... right?

Your buck is safe.

 

It looks good in the part you quoted as well. I never thought it would work in this editor! Initially I copied the text from MS Word, but then I found I could have typed directly in here just as well. The only thing that doesn't work is punctuation, which ends up at the wrong end of the line. So I deleted the exclamation mark.

 

BTW, I apologize for hijacking this thread. I'll shut up now.

Link to comment

This was a fun thread to read, I have been in a cache funk since I got my old job back this April (after 14 months unemployed).

 

My favorite time to cache is 2-4 am, preferably hunting for a cache that hasn't been found yet. Since I wake up at 4:30 am to get ready for work, that's not easy now. (at least I don't think it is, I really haven't tried it).

 

Still, I left a bit early one day, my first month back at work, and spent an hour + on a FTF hunt. Didn't find it, so I came back after work to look for a couple more hours. Still no find. I knew it would be hard, as a couple of experienced cachers had no luck finding it before me. No Problem, I wrote my log to document my experience.

 

The coords were centered right on a "No Trespassing" sign, and it was mentioned in the logs previous to mine. I waited for a note from the hider before I tried it. It came, "the cache is still there" is what it said, no mention of rechecking coords. But I figured nobody would not recheck the coords after the 1st couple of logs said they were at a "No Trespassing" sign. I was wrong.

 

Turned out the coords were 176 feet off. When the hider figured that out, they mentioned the coords were a "LITTLE" bit off in a log entry. and deleted my polite, but not glowing, log entry (that did still thank them for the hunt, and mentioned I would try again).

 

That and a slew of other childish actions by that hider, kind of gave me a "screw this BS attitude", and I haven't cached since.

 

That last cache hunt wouldn't have stopped me from caching, if I could still hunt the way I like too (late night/early morning), but it did make me lose my cache appetite. It just came at the wrong time for me, and I haven't had any desire to cache since.

 

I try not to say anything discouraging, or mean in my logs, but I do try to be honest.

 

I spent a lot of time, wording that log, so that the flavor of my experience hunting that cache, would come across, without being negative.

 

Travisl is more diplomatic than I am, and I think most cache hiders take criticism well, but I bet his new found logging honesty/accuracy gets some feathers ruffled. Too bad, I like reading accurate cache logs, and if you hide a cache, you have to realize some people will thinks it's lame.

 

I don't know exactly why, but reading most of this thread has had a slight cathartic effect.

 

Hey It's late, I don't work tomorrow, any new caches???

 

edit: was 176 feet off not 270, as originally written.

Edited by martmann
Link to comment

I guess that since in a way I'm partially responsible for this topic, having mentioned TravisL's absence, I should probably chime in. From the beginning, as I've watched this thread progress, I've been highly impressed by the level of honesty and passion people have written with about their feelings for caching. As Travis said, cachers as a group are really some of the nicest, kindest, most selfless folks you'd ever meet. I have found this to be unfailingly true. I have yet to meet a fellow geocacher that wasn't friendly, outgoing, inquisitive and intelligent. I think that this sport attracts that kind of person. TravisL's logs frequently made me laugh at their humor, wit and creativity and would usually result in a "Hey honey, you've GOT to come read this!"

 

At some point, we all seem to share a common frustration about dealing with what personally frustrates us about the sport. I liken my frustrations, whether its with "lame" caches, bad coords or poorly planned caches, to an elementary school playground. You have your little 1st and 2nd graders, at their level of immaturity, playing the same game at the same time as the more mature (hopefully) and more experienced 5th and 6th graders. The less experienced don't know what makes a really good game, thinking their altoid tin in a lamp post is the most clever hide ever, while the more advanced want and expect a higher level of sophistication and quality in the game. The playground supervisor is smart enough not to make too many rules but knows that some rules are needed and everyone isn't always going to be happy. Some kids advance, some don't, some help the little kids and some take their ball and go home. It's OK.

 

Me, I figure I'm in around the 4th grade about now and I just like having fun. The little kids can be annoying but I remember being there. The big kids are a bit god-like yet and held in awe.

 

Like others, I started caching for a couple reasons. The technology is cool, I love the inherent adventure and it's an activity my whole family can be involved in, despite the age differences. Skiing got too expensive and my wife doesn't camp. And even though most of us are strangers to each other, we share a bond of commonality in the somewhat secretive game we play, and get to know each other through our logs and forum posts.

 

How have I kept from being bored? I think occasionally doing the really spectacular caches makes the more mundane ones tolerable. Caches that have outstanding locations, caches that are highly unique and caches that are very physically demanding. I did Criminal's now archived Tacoma Dead Drop at 10:00 pm the day after I got my GPS because I was too excited to wait 'til morning. I hope I never forget the exhileration of wading down a flooded Green River in waist deep water at 9:00 pm in February for over 1/2 mile with two other cachers that I hadn't met until that night during the Hot Potato game. Yet, we all agreed we wouldn't have missed it for anything. Or, in the cache that started all this, the adventure of taking my sons and a couple friends deep into a nasty swamp to find a "bloated festering head". Kfam's logs for that cache were so funny that they reminded me of TravisL's and the fact that I missed reading his. Next week we're taking a trip to do the Original Stash and The Pipeline, two we've wanted to do for a long time. It somehow makes being crammed into a minivan for a week seem worth it.

 

I guess it's kind of like bringing your wife flowers for no reason. Do something unexpectedly pleasant to shake up the ordinary. Caching shakes me out of my daily rut.

Link to comment
Turned out the coords were 270 feet off. When the hider figured that out, they mentioned the coords were a "LITTLE" bit off in a log entry. and deleted my polite, but not glowing, log entry (that did still thank them for the hunt, and mentioned I would try again).

 

That and a slew of other childish actions by that hider, kind of gave me a "screw this BS attitude", and I haven't cached since.

How I recognize that!

 

One thing about deletions that I particularly regret is that they are also deleted from our personal cache history page. If we loose the e-mailed deletion notification with the link to our deleted and archived log, there is no way we can find our own log back. Ever.

 

I would like to have a public place (I imagine it as an unsensored virtual cache) where we could all freely repost logs to, that were deleted from their original location by cache owners who didn't like them for any reason whatsoever. People who lost a smiley could get a replacement smiley here. Cachers who want to preserve a specific memory of their cache history and lost due to some action by a moody cache owner, could post it to that virtual. They could even upload the pictures, again, which would bring those back into our personal gallery. And people who wanted to post a critical comment in a note or a DNF log and had it deleted, could repost it on that virtual, and everyone who would have that virtual on their watch list would read it anyhow.

 

I have run this idea past an approver, but was told that this wouldn't be approved under GC guidelines. I still hope that someone with the power to approve will see the merits of such a cache, though.

Link to comment

I personally am not thrilled by the thought that cache worthiness is determined by some hierarchal measurement or elite cache-valuing group.

 

If you're going for a 1/1 cache, don't expect it to wow you. If you're underwhelmed by simple hides to the point that the act of finding them discourages you, then avoid low-difficulty hides. The difficulty/terrain ratings are a great asset to one's discriminating caching tastes.

 

Maybe the tenth altoids tin in a lamp post gets boring, but you don't know until you get there. It certainly doesn't help, though, if you've hit 50-100 caches in each of seven major cities and metro areas over the past two years and probably have run into at least one mint tin in a lamppost in each city. :smile:

 

Simply put... people aren't hiding caches necessarily to win anyone's seal of approval, they're hiding them because they got the notion that geocaching was fundamentally about hiding things and having other people find them. There's lots of additional reasons someone may place a cache -- great spot, great hide, challenging walk, challenging puzzle, etc.... but those are just auxilliary to the original purpose behind the hobby. No one can predict what sorts of places each person will like, and it certainly wouldn't be reasonable to expect cache hiders to try to please everyone.

 

I guess I would advocate that if you're going to be picky about the sorts of caches you want to find, then try to be picky when you're looking up the cache pages, and minimize the negative comments placed in logs of people who hide caches who weren't looking to impress you, but just to have fun.

Link to comment

For a hide I try to imagine what the hider was thinking. Some of the "lame" finds were set by a parent spending quality time with a youngster! These hides are no longer lame but some of the most valuable to our society!

 

Anybody willing to give (hide) should not be critically judged by those that take (find). Selection of your search is your choice and if you make a mistake and can't see the value in the hide; its your action to change. In most cases the hider is doing the best they can and their hides should be accepted as such!

 

If you are really bored, change your game but don't expect the game to match your desires! There are way more of us out there having fun with the current game.

 

Stepping down from soapbox and returning to lurking.

Edited by runhills
Link to comment
For a hide I try to imagine what the hider was thinking.  Some of the "lame" finds were set by a parent spending quality time with a youngster!  These hides are no longer lame but some of the most valuable to our society!

 

Anybody willing to give (hide) should not be critically judged by those that take (find).  Selection of your search is your choice and if you make a mistake and can't see the value in the hide; its your action to change.  In most cases the hider is doing the best they can and their hides should be accepted as such!

Well put.

 

This is why a well-maintained lame cache should not be criticized. It is, of course, very helpful when the cache description would say something about the reason for the hide, or the attraction of the place. This is often the case, but often it is not. Indeed, I'd argue for including an answer to the 'why' question on the cache page. This need only be a very brief phrase ('magnificent view', 'original hiding technique', 'placed with kids for other kids', 'community service to the number boosters', 'unknown landmark of interest', 'surprise!' etc.), and logs could keep the purpose of the cache in mind when giving their feedback.

 

However, an ill-maintained soggy mouldy cache is exactly the opposite, and deserves TLC if it's good, and an SBA if it's bad.

Edited by Shunra
Link to comment
However, an ill-maintained soggy mouldy cache is exactly the opposite, and deserves TLC if it's good, and an SBA if it's bad.

I agree with you but still feel that it is up to the finders to provide the TLC. In a lot of cases the owner set the cache with good intentions but has since moved on to other interests.

 

I think that a little more effort by the finders would keep good caches going. Why not take some positive action rather than just posting a SBA? Even bad caches can be revived if the finders are willing to put forth some effort rather than trying to get the owner to meet the finders needs.

Link to comment
However, an ill-maintained soggy mouldy cache is exactly the opposite, and deserves TLC if it's good, and an SBA if it's bad.

I agree with you but still feel that it is up to the finders to provide the TLC. In a lot of cases the owner set the cache with good intentions but has since moved on to other interests.

 

I think that a little more effort by the finders would keep good caches going. Why not take some positive action rather than just posting a SBA? Even bad caches can be revived if the finders are willing to put forth some effort rather than trying to get the owner to meet the finders needs.

I don't think finders "should".

 

Finders may, if THEY think the cache is worthwhile.

 

Your whole point (with which I agree) is that the quality of a cache stands and falls with the intent and effort (which is mandatorily continous) put into the cache by the hider.

 

If a cacher has moved on to other interests, there is no question that the cache should be either adopted (formalizing the voluntary TLC) or archived.

Link to comment

I agree with you but still feel that it is up to the finders to provide the TLC.  In a lot of cases the owner set the cache with good intentions but has since moved on to other interests.

I feel the cache placer should plan to be responsible for its maintenance, instead of relying on finders to do maintenance. A lot of finders have taken it upon themselves to fix up neglected caches, but that's hardly a reason to expect finders to do that.

 

If you move away, then I advocate getting your caches adopted by people in the cache area. Having caches adopted is a neat way to turn cache finders into cache stewards as a stepping stone to becoming cache placers. It also keeps good caches around longer.

Link to comment

Just to throw a little more info into the mix.

 

Whenever I do end up having a problem with a cache. I will send the cache owner a private e-mail detailing what the problem was. Yes, I may smoke um a touch on the cache page but the follow up or preceding e-mail explains the why's and what for's.

 

As for the different levels of caching, Red and I have found a box full in several different states and it is always nice to see new methods and styles. But, even with that said, I still have a problem with dozens of micros hidden in lamp post in the same town. Yes, the cache hidder thinks it is a cool thing to do and yes they might just be starting and yes they might be out with the kids and yes they might be wanting to make some easy caches for friends to start with but enough is enough already. Think of something different and with your own little twist. It might just be the next stash fad.

 

And as for the comment about sex after a find. That would make Cache Machines a lot more interesting. "Its my turn to find one" would be heard at the start of the event. "NO, NO, You can't make me find anymore." later in the day. But I would sure bet that no 70 or 80 cache would be found in a day either!

 

Red and I talked it over today while we where out and about and we decided that we would try and look for something positive to be gained from the hunt. And that the positive need not be from the cache or it's location but from the whole experince and the shared time together.

 

It's late and I am a rambling.

 

later, logscaler.

 

(PS; Yes, some caches really do suck. We call it the "WHY?" cache style)

Link to comment

But those are right up front with that information. Yes, I have found both of them and they live up to the names and style. I have no problem with these.

 

Oh, and that Worlds Worst Cache? It isn't. Not by a long ways. The cache contents are supposed to suck - and they did when we where there - but the location is alright and the area is nice. Beats the lamp post at WalMart anyday.

Or the lame micros under the cattle guard, in the boreholes of street signs, in the guardrail...... :huh:

 

As noted in a couple other postings and even threads, misleading coordinates are the main thing that will spoil me on a cache. And if you really want smoke, just leave the bad numbers on the cache page after a dozen people have given better numbers.

 

logscaler (has left the building.)

Edited by logscaler
Link to comment
As noted in a couple other postings and even threads, misleading coordinates are the main thing that will spoil me on a cache. And if you really want smoke, just leave the bad numbers on the cache page after a dozen people have giving better numbers.

Good point. FWIW, perhaps finders could more often post *their* Reading, rather than just complaining that the coords were a bit off. It would increase the chance that I'd find the right coords among the 4 most recent logs.

I'll try to make a point of doing that myself.

Link to comment
As noted in a couple other postings and even threads, misleading coordinates are the main thing that will spoil me on a cache. And if you really want smoke, just leave the bad numbers on the cache page after a dozen people have given better numbers.

...

(PS; Yes, some caches really do suck. We call it the "WHY?" cache style)

To misleading coordinates I would add misleading description or hints, hasty placement and poor maintenance. Too many caches in a row with some or all of these problems can make geocaching a lot less fun. I've found that a good description can make up for bad coordinates, but a bad description can cause me to not believe good coordinates.

 

I don't think it is a coincidence that "WHY?" caches have increased at the same time micros became popular. Micros are cheap, easy to hide and have little to maintain, so people tend to be careless with them. Some owners will go out and drop several in one area because they can. They do not even put much effort into the cache pages which are often a cryptic description that makes me wonder why I should bother. But people still do. Sadly, number of hits seems to be more related to convenience than quality. However, the game's staying power may have more to do with quality.

Link to comment

Wonderful thread - we needed something like that. I am not one of the big cachers around here, and probably will never be because I am not that excited about many aspects of this hobby.

 

It seems like there is an unstoppable proliferation of totally uninspired caches. E.g. box somewhere in the woods. Worse yet, micro in the woods. Dr Ufo Koska had some great ones, -=(GEO)=- also, there are others that provide good hides. But the vast majority are run of the mill caches. At some point I started viewing most caches as litter, especially big ones in parks.

 

I wish we had a rating system for caches, kind of like the Amazon star rating. That would definitely attract me to the better caches in the area, plus it lets us know which ones are good candidates for archiving. It's also a great way to plan what to go after if you are traveling somewhere unknown.

 

Also, I wish caches would expire automatically after a certain period of time unless they are popular (N finds in last M months). Now something more controversial: I wish there were a physical removal mechanism, e.g. archived caches are free for anyone to remove or recycle, or perhaps have a small group of people do that... Again, that goes with my thinking that most caches are not prime time and probably pollute the environment more than they increase our enjoyment of this hobby.

 

This is a wholesome flame-worthy elitist post, I realize that. Flame away.

 

P.S. In all honesty, probably my job keeps me from caching more often. And lately I prefer hiking to caching on most weekends. However, caching has been invaluable in getting me started on the GPS upgrade treadmill :(

Link to comment
This is a wholesome flame-worthy elitist post, I realize that. Flame away.

Would would do that? :(

 

Your ideas have been suggested many times. There are good reasons why there is no official rating system for quality, including the problem that we can't agree on what makes a good cache! All you can really do is read logs when possible and use your caching instincts. There is a rating link you can stick on your own cache pages but, again, the people who use it may have vastly different tastes.

 

As for a removal program for "unpopular" caches, why pick on the difficult, remote or unusual? To me, the problem is cache proliferation--particularly micros--that tend to get a lot of hits. Maintenance is another major problem and other than bugging the owner or maintaining other people's caches for them, there's no easy solution.

 

It will be interesting to see how much the overall drop in cache quality seen in the past year or so will look a year from now.

Link to comment
I wish we had a rating system for caches, kind of like the Amazon star rating. That would definitely attract me to the better caches in the area, plus it lets us know which ones are good candidates for archiving. It's also a great way to plan what to go after if you are traveling somewhere unknown.

 

The problem is what you like and what others will like are entirely subjective, thus not quantifiable like the way the Amazon.com rating system is. The only good way to figure out if this might interest you is to read the on-line logs. Those caches that are inspiring usually rate something more than TNLNSLTFTH. Now if you see a lot of this uninspired type logging on a cache... you can bet your bottom dollar it's probably a yawn.

 

Also, I wish caches would expire automatically after a certain period of time unless they are popular (N finds in last M months). Now something more controversial: I wish there were a physical removal mechanism, e.g. archived caches are free for anyone to remove or recycle, or perhaps have a small group of people do that...

 

I'm with Bigeddy on this. You'll eliminate a lot of worthy caches that don't get a lot of hits just because they are challenging in some respect. That too will create a big yawn because with the system you suggest, the easy hit park and grab and dash hides will be the only ones left. That is pretty much what inspired this thread in the first place I think. Hmmmm... the cure seems worse than the bite. You sure you want to remove the splinter out of that finger by cutting the hand off?

 

Now something more controversial: I wish there were a physical removal mechanism, e.g. archived caches are free for anyone to remove or recycle, or perhaps have a small group of people do that...  Again, that goes with my thinking that most caches are not prime time and probably pollute the environment more than they increase our enjoyment of this hobby.

 

Yah... I don't think that'll work either. You're not going to get too many people to voluntarily remove caches just because you think that way. Most of us don't see it as polluting the environment as most caches are routinely maintained by the owners and the finders.

 

Typically archived caches are removed... either by muggle, by owner or sometimes by volunteer when the owner doesn't respond to maintenance issues; but not until transference of ownership is attempted when and where possible.

Link to comment
Also, I wish caches would expire automatically after a certain period of time unless they are popular (N finds in last M months).

Quite the contrary: automatically archive the popular ones that have already been found by everyone, and free up the space for new caches, and leave the challenging ones alone :(

Now something more controversial: I wish there were a physical removal mechanism, e.g. archived caches are free for anyone to remove or recycle, or perhaps have a small group of people do that... Again, that goes with my thinking that most caches are not prime time and probably pollute the environment more than they increase our enjoyment of this hobby.

Nah, I'm with TL on this. Besides: such a system already exists, except that it is not after archival, but just before archival, when an approver asks whoever gets there next to remove the cache and file an SBA, so it can be archived wihout creating geolitter.

Link to comment
Dipping in the Wynoochee on a hot day may make you want to skim down to your skivvies and do just that.  Ring of Fire definitely is.

I just hit these two on Friday and Saturday, respectively. Wow.

 

It's a good thing all caches aren't this cool, or we'd really be spoiled.

I just read your logs. Sounds like fun was had by all. I have to agree with being spoiled though. Mt. Townsend is one of those type caches.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...