Jump to content

Another Thread Whining About Micros…


Bob Blaylock
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

  There's been a number of threads started by persons complaining about the proliferation of micro caches instead of larger ones.

 

  I haven't commented on this subject before, but I am somewhat in agreement that micro caches are less interesting, and less fun, than larger caches.  It seems to me to be, in many instances, a case of laziness on the part of the hider.  It's very easy to find somewhere to hide a micro, while larger caches present something more of a challenge to the hider.

 

  There are some places where only a micro can be hidden, and I have no complaint about that.  Better a micro than no cache at all.

 

  I know that among the guidlines regarding virtual caches is that one should not attempt a virtual cache in a location where hiding a micro is feasible.

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?”  Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

  Perhaps a similar principle ought to apply to microcaches with regard to larger caches.  Before placing a microcache, perhaps one ought to be obligated to consider why a larger cache couldn't be placed there, with larger caches being given prioerity over micros, just as physical caches have priority over virtuals.

 

  I'm not of the opinion that the micro vs. larger cache issue calls for as solid a policy as the virtual vs. physical cache issue, but I would very much like to see a policy that encourages larger-sized caches where they are feasible.  If you're going to hide a micro, at the very least, I'd prefer to see it hidden somewhere where it doesn't prevent a site that would easily accommodate a larger cache from being used that way.

Link to comment
   There's been a number of threads started by persons complaining about the proliferation of micro caches instead of larger ones.

 

  I haven't commented on this subject before, but I am somewhat in agreement that micro caches are less interesting, and less fun, than larger caches.  It seems to me to be, in many instances, a case of laziness on the part of the hider.  It's very easy to find somewhere to hide a micro, while larger caches present something more of a challenge to the hider.

 

  There are some places where only a micro can be hidden, and I have no complaint about that.  Better a micro than no cache at all.

 

  I know that among the guidlines regarding virtual caches is that one should not attempt a virtual cache in a location where hiding a micro is feasible.

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?”  Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

Perhaps a similar principle ought to apply to microcaches with regard to larger caches.  Before placing a microcache, perhaps one ought to be obligated to consider why a larger cache couldn't be placed there, with larger caches being given prioerity over micros, just as physical caches have priority over virtuals.

 

  I'm not of the opinion that the micro vs. larger cache issue calls for as solid a policy as the virtual vs. physical cache issue, but I would very much like to see a policy that encourages larger-sized caches where they are feasible.  If you're going to hide a micro, at the very least, I'd prefer to see it hidden somewhere where it doesn't prevent a site that would easily accommodate a larger cache from being used that way.

It seems to me to be, in many instances, a case of laziness on the part of the hider.

 

That seems a bit rude. I find it interesting that you seem to have the power to read minds.

 

As an example, just becasue you think its lazy does not make it that way nor does it give you the right to insult the people that place micros.

 

I have a location in mind that I'd like you to try to find a place to hide a micro that is easy.

 

I'm not of the opinion that the micro vs. larger cache issue calls for as solid a policy as the virtual vs. physical cache issue, but I would very much like to see a policy that encourages larger-sized caches where they are feasible.  If you're going to hide a micro, at the very least, I'd prefer to see it hidden somewhere where it doesn't prevent a site that would easily accommodate a larger cache from being used that way.

 

O goodie, more rules, Please sir, may I have another?

 

As an example. There are Many Many Many thread on this forum system that are only about the need for less guidelines not more. I am willing to bet they equal or exceed the number of "micros are bad threads"

 

Suggestion to go with the examples.

 

If you do not like micros do not do them. Perhaps you should not try to force your idea of what the site needs on everyone else.

 

 

[Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated. ]

Edited by Tiny dancer
Link to comment
What I enjoy about geocaching is that people who are familiar with the area could go to a park a hundred times and never find the cache. With a micro it could be in their parking lot and they might never know!

 

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

  The same would be true of any good cache, regardless of size.  The idea is to make it findable to someone who has the coordinates and instructions, while not being easily found by muggles.

 

  Hiding a micro in a large area is simply a very unsophisticated way of accomplishing this — very much like hiding a needle in a haystack.  Hiding a larger cache takes more effort and thought; and — in my opinion — is a much better use of any site that has room for a larger cache.

Link to comment
[Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated. ]

Don't forget to log back into your "CO Admin" account first next time, CO. ;)

 

/great, like father, like daughter :unsure:

Link to comment
[Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated. ]

Don't forget to log back into your "CO Admin" account first next time, CO. ;)

 

/great, like father, like daughter :unsure:

Nope, thats her not me.

 

She learned from most of the moderators but its her account, her ability to quote the guidelines and her ability to create a post her father couldn't mod her on because she followed the rules.

 

You try telling a 17 year old what to do sometime.

 

What she did there was quote the rules to explain her use of examples, and to keep dear old dad from yelling at her for flaming some one.

 

Got to admit the kid both makes a point and does it within the guidelines.

 

When I want to play I use my LaPaglia account. Not my daughters.

 

But she does know her guidelines. I must have done something right.

Link to comment
Hiding a larger cache takes more effort and thought...

Usually it just takes a tree with a bigger hole in it or more debris to cover it up.

 

Just because the container is bigger does not mean the hider was any more creative in the way it was hidden. Some of the coolest hides I've found have been micros. Some were micros in areas that could support a standard-sized cache, but they were very ingenious in the camo and/or hiding style. I would hate to think that cachers would be prohibited from hiding certain caches simply because the container they used wasn't big enough.

Link to comment
Please stop trying to take micros away just because you dont like them. Dont hunt for them, plain and simple. I think others should be allowed to play their way too.

I don't think anybody, including the OP is looking to take micros away. But a lot of people are concerned about the "micro explosion" in some areas. Its great to say "if you don't like micros, don't do them", but in some regions, if you don't like micros, you don't go geocaching, because there aren't any other options.

 

It seems to me to be, in many instances, a case of laziness on the part of the hider.

 

That seems a bit rude. I find it interesting that you seem to have the power to read minds.

 

The empirical evidence supports this. The vast majority of the really lame caches I've encountered lately were micros. It seems that micros tend to attract the lazy cache hiders. Get a film canister, tear a strip of paper (often they're too lazy to use scissors) out of a notbook and you have a cache. You don't have to select a good, waterproof container. You don't have to spend $20 on contents and you don't have to work to find a spot to hide it and you don't even have to look for a pencil to put inside.

 

While I've found excellent, well thought out micros and lame full sized caches, my experience has been that the excellent micros are rare - perhaps one out of every 10.

There are a lot of lame full sized cache too, but the ratio of quality hunts is far better than micros. When someone puts some thought into their container and contents and shells out the bucks for a logbook, pencil, ammo box, and trade items, they are more likely to put thought into the hide as well.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I seldom post on this issue but I thought what the hay(sorry for the play on words). I generally hold to the rule of place a sized cache that the hiding area will support ie big woods, large cache, but I had a thought this morning that I have never heard answered or really discussed. Since most people never trade items anyhow and only sign the log what is the problem with hiding a micro in the woods, isn't a full sized ammo can simply overkill for just a log sheet? or is it that it is EASIER to find? :unsure:

 

I am sure there is a legitmate reason and I can think of 2 or 3 already but I just would like to hear an argument for that one.

 

tnln ;)

Link to comment
   There's been a number of threads started by persons complaining about the proliferation of micro caches instead of larger ones.

 

  I haven't commented on this subject before, but I am somewhat in agreement that micro caches are less interesting, and less fun, than larger caches.  It seems to me to be, in many instances, a case of laziness on the part of the hider.  It's very easy to find somewhere to hide a micro, while larger caches present something more of a challenge to the hider.

 

  There are some places where only a micro can be hidden, and I have no complaint about that.  Better a micro than no cache at all.

 

  I know that among the guidlines regarding virtual caches is that one should not attempt a virtual cache in a location where hiding a micro is feasible.

 

Prior to considering a virtual cache, you must have given consideration to the question “why couldn’t a microcache or multi-cache be placed there?”  Physical caches have priority, so please consider adding a micro or making the location a step in an offset or multi-stage cache with the physical cache placed in an area that is appropriate.

Perhaps a similar principle ought to apply to microcaches with regard to larger caches.  Before placing a microcache, perhaps one ought to be obligated to consider why a larger cache couldn't be placed there, with larger caches being given prioerity over micros, just as physical caches have priority over virtuals.

 

  I'm not of the opinion that the micro vs. larger cache issue calls for as solid a policy as the virtual vs. physical cache issue, but I would very much like to see a policy that encourages larger-sized caches where they are feasible.  If you're going to hide a micro, at the very least, I'd prefer to see it hidden somewhere where it doesn't prevent a site that would easily accommodate a larger cache from being used that way.

It seems to me to be, in many instances, a case of laziness on the part of the hider.

 

That seems a bit rude. I find it interesting that you seem to have the power to read minds.

 

As an example, just becasue you think its lazy does not make it that way nor does it give you the right to insult the people that place micros.

 

I have a location in mind that I'd like you to try to find a place to hide a micro that is easy.

 

I'm not of the opinion that the micro vs. larger cache issue calls for as solid a policy as the virtual vs. physical cache issue, but I would very much like to see a policy that encourages larger-sized caches where they are feasible.  If you're going to hide a micro, at the very least, I'd prefer to see it hidden somewhere where it doesn't prevent a site that would easily accommodate a larger cache from being used that way.

 

O goodie, more rules, Please sir, may I have another?

 

As an example. There are Many Many Many thread on this forum system that are only about the need for less guidelines not more. I am willing to bet they equal or exceed the number of "micros are bad threads"

 

Suggestion to go with the examples.

 

If you do not like micros do not do them. Perhaps you should not try to force your idea of what the site needs on everyone else.

 

 

[Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated. ]

CO Admin will probably block me for this, but your flame post at the end of your flame-ridden post was quite ironic.

 

Don't like flames. I don't either. I am less and less interested in geocaching as a sport as we seem to be tolerating garbage caches just to get numbers up, and these forums seem to be occupied by a group of electronic thugs that react negatively to any post that suggests something could be improved.

 

While I agree with the anti-flame, you should have posted it instead of your flame toward the other poster.

Link to comment

Just my quick thought on the subject:

 

If you live in an area that is too rich in micros, hide some larger caches in a similar area as the micros. Thsi might be the shining example to the other cachers in your area that it can be done.

 

My thinking when placing caches is that I hide what I'd like to find. If you do hide a larger cache, and others don't hunt it or continue to place micros after they find it, apparently the majority in your area likes micros.

 

You may be surprises though. Maybe there is a proliferation of micros due to the "Monkey See, Monkey Do" principle, and if you start hiding some great caches of a different type others might too.

 

Shannon

Link to comment

Hi,

 

I've just finished hiding 3 huge sized caches in my area, does that mean I'm the least lazy geocacher in Northern New York? (I know that this isn't the case ;) )

 

I prefer to think that it means that there are now some huge cache in my area, where there weren't before. I have hidden some micro-sized caches for the same reason...to increase the cache diversity in my area.

 

I think that every type and size of cache I can imagine, and some that I can't, should be allowed and even encouraged in this game. The more the merrier. I could be bored if there was only one type of cache, but there is a fascinating variety of cache-types and sizes within 50 miles of me...not just ammo-cans.

 

Lame caches get placed, but I don't think that there has to be a correlation between how cool a cache is and how big it is...do you?

 

nfa

Link to comment
... Since most people never trade items anyhow and only sign the log what is the problem with hiding a micro in the woods, isn't a full sized ammo can simply overkill for just a log sheet? or is it that it is EASIER to find? ;)

 

I am sure there is a legitmate reason...

Trading is like your mail. Mostly it's bills and junk but I like checking it on the off canche I'm going to get something worthwhile.

 

Trading is the same. Most of the time I don't, but I like looking because every now and then there is something that interests me. All other things bieng equil, I'll take the option to trade over a dinky log book I can't sign legibly because it's too small...

Link to comment
... Since most people never trade items anyhow and only sign the log what is the problem with hiding a micro in the woods, isn't a full sized ammo can simply overkill for just a log sheet? or is it that it is EASIER to find? :P

 

I am sure there is a legitmate reason...

Trading is like your mail. Mostly it's bills and junk but I like checking it on the off canche I'm going to get something worthwhile.

 

Trading is the same. Most of the time I don't, but I like looking because every now and then there is something that interests me. All other things bieng equil, I'll take the option to trade over a dinky log book I can't sign legibly because it's too small...

Nicely put.

Link to comment

The lamest caches I've seen in my area are actually regular-sized caches. Sure there are more than a few boring micros, but I've seen many impressive micros hidden in such a way that you could NEVER hide a regular cache. And it doesn't cost any more to throw a coffee can full of coupons under a bush than it does to throw a mint tin under a lamp post.

 

For me, caching should be about the experience...I don't need to find a box of goodies at the end. Give me a great memory to take home, and I couldn't be happier.

 

Rather than spit on micros in general (I happen to like 'em just fine), I believe what we need to do as a community is to encourage the placement of creative, well-planned, worthwhile caches--regardless of the size.

Edited by Team PerkyPerks
Link to comment

Sorry R.K. just a little tongue in cheek humor about the trade item thing. I agree with the school of thought that the area should determine the size of the cache and it's characterisitcs for hiding. I also agree with leading by example when placing caches if you want to see more of a paticular type of cache hide it. I don't believe we need more guidelines or items that the Admins have to try and enforce. We have had this discussion in Florida and I believe the consensus was that by setting positive examples and giving good feedback through our logs "lame Caches" will be diminished over time. Both Large and small caches have a place and are appreciated by large segments of cachers the trick to it is to place quality caches whatever the size.

Link to comment
Sorry R.K. just a little tongue in cheek humor about the trade item thing. I agree with the school of thought that the area should determine the size of the cache and it's characterisitcs for hiding. I also agree with leading by example when placing caches if you want to see more of a paticular type of cache hide it. I don't believe we need more guidelines or items that the Admins have to try and enforce. We have had this discussion in Florida and I believe the consensus was that by setting positive examples and giving good feedback through our logs "lame Caches" will be diminished over time. Both Large and small caches have a place and are appreciated by large segments of cachers the trick to it is to place quality caches whatever the size.

I agree 100% with everything above!

 

Shannon

Link to comment

I actually like micros better than regular caches. I don't get a particular charge out of digging through geo junk but don't fault those who do. some of the toughest finds I've made were micros. Most of the time I just sign the log in a regular and TNLN.

 

If there's one type that gives me grief it's virtuals. I've had to send three or four e-mails before I got approvals. On a trip to Las Vegas, which is a virtual shangri-la, We waited for several months and finally just posted the finds and waited for the fallout.

 

There's room out there for all of us, live and let live.

Link to comment
If there's one type that gives me grief it's virtuals. I've had to send three or four e-mails before I got approvals. On a trip to Las Vegas, which is a virtual shangri-la, We waited for several months and finally just posted the finds and waited for the fallout.

 

There's room out there for all of us, live and let live.

Man, I hear ya! I don't mind virtuals, I'll hunt them if one is in a spot that I am already going, or on the way. I have discovered a few great locations I would have missed if it wasn't for virtuals. When it becomes next to impossible to log without answering a bunch of questions is when I get annoyed.

I just went to a site where a virt was at a few weekends ago. I was able to go through the entire area (native american ruins), but the visitors center is temporarily closed. Three (out of four) of the questions I couldn't answer without going in the visitors center. Oh well.

 

As far as the Vegas virtuals, I haven't done most of them. I don't go down near the strip often, and I won't just to log a virtual cache.

 

Shannon

Link to comment
Lame caches get placed, but I don't think that there has to be a correlation between how cool a cache is and how big it is...do you?

 

There doesn't have to be.

 

... Since most people never trade items anyhow and only sign the log what is the problem with hiding a micro in the woods, isn't a full sized ammo can simply overkill for just a log sheet? or is it that it is EASIER to find?

 

I am sure there is a legitmate reason...

 

The full sized ammo box could at least fit a full sized log book, which will allow people to leave logs that say a little more than "briansnat - 11/02/03", which is about all I can fit in most micro logbooks.

 

It's also very difficult to fit a travel bug into a film canister.

Link to comment

In my neck of the woods, the micros are way more challenging. I like to hid them because you have more options for placing a small container than you do a large one. Almost all ammo boxes are on the ground cover with rocks, sticks, or some piece of garbage. Although both size caches have their place. The part about being lazy ... goes both ways.

Link to comment

kinda like clearpath, the micros planted in my area are freakishly difficult. then to taunt you, they call it a 3.5 when really its a 6.918*10^6.

 

if i could make any suggestion about micros, i would make a separate listing for micros and URBAN micros... it helps to have that sort of thing when going to different cities to cache intown.

Link to comment

Since I don't want to specificly flame anyone, let's see if I can translate some of the more negative posts (oooooo and there are several choice ones too) into plain English:

 

Freedom of choice is baaaaaad.

 

My standards are superior to you hoy paloy. I must do everything in my power to set myself apart.

 

If *I* can't find a cache, it's the effin' hider's fault for dragging me off my couch. How dare they!

 

I shouldn't hafta read the cache page. Subjectivity/schmubjectivity: ALL caches MUST adhere to MY standards or they're trash. *I* know what's best for everyone else and if they can't wake up and realize it, they're stupid, or worse. (psst....I'll just go DNF a few and complain. That'll make me feel better. Effin' slackers.)

 

 

Ya know what I think?

 

Yay! Someone hid a cache. They are making an effort to contribute to the game.

 

"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

 

Sing the last line:

 

You're so vain, you prolly think this post is about you.....

Link to comment

everyone is taking this way to far. Plain and simple, micros are not the same as traditionals. Yes, the most ingenious hides are micros on a streetcorner that hundreds of people walk by, and some are fun, but what Snoogans is saying is that if a traditional can be placed in a way that it is difficult to find thenits much more rewarding to have bigger trade items, is it not?! Anyway, what he is also saying is that people who throw a film canister in a forest inside a tree are not as creative, or more lazy, than one who can conceal a five gallon bucket inside the same spot with the same difficulty. And yes I have a stupid micro or two, but they are where a traditional is inappropriate, and or really difficult to hide, I have ADHD so I dont have the patience. Also, if you don't like new rules, don't play the game, not the other way around. Snoognas is merely proposing an idea that would make regular, yes regular: "formed, built, arranged, or ordered according to some established rule, law, principle, or type" is the NORMAL cache type on Geocaching.com!!!

 

(no personal threats, Merely making my point!!!"

Link to comment
Freedom of choice is baaaaaad.

 

I've been through the entire thread and have't seen one post that said that.

 

My standards are superior to you hoy paloy. I must do everything in my power to set myself apart.

 

Nor one that intimated that.

 

I shouldn't hafta read the cache page. Subjectivity/schmubjectivity: ALL caches MUST adhere to MY standards or they're trash. *I* know what's best for everyone else and if they can't wake up and realize it, they're stupid, or worse. (psst....I'll just go DNF a few and complain. That'll make me feel better. Effin' slackers.)

 

Did you even read this thread?

 

Yay! Someone hid a cache. They are making an effort to contribute to the game.

 

Often yes, but sometimes its done just to add to thier find count. Not every cache "contributes to the game". In fact some are detrimental.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

bahhhh, don't discuss things unless you already know that everyone agrees. I think that is the lesson.

this whole forum is full of flames in disguise.

There is less discussion of caching than on posting policy and cutting the posts apart. always the way with forums I suppose. venting done.

 

So, on topic.

Micros are NOT always evidence of a lazy cache placer. My husband is a prime example. So, until someone hits every single micro, it is hard to make definitive statements like that.

 

Micros are fun sometimes, and a pain in the butt others. same with every other type of cache

 

did someone mention trading? I can't even start to count the tnlnsl log entries. soooo, tackle that side of the trading issue first, would ya? I don't mind it being small, I have small items that fit in all but the tiniest micros. (and in my area, that is very few)

 

Contribute, there is that word again. Well, people contribute in different ways, and the idea that caches are detrimental, well, I can see how on occasion that might be true, but I don't see any that I can say that about, and I doubt there are that many.

Link to comment
I don't think anybody, including the OP is looking to take micros away.  But a lot of people are concerned about the "micro explosion" in some areas.  Its great to say "if you don't like micros, don't do them", but in some regions, if you don't like micros, you don't go geocaching, because there aren't any other options. 

 

This is the central problem with the "micro explosion." New cachers see more experienced cachers hiding many of these, particularly quickly hidden, thoughtlessly placed ones, and emulate this behavior. This hasn't happened everywhere, but when it does happen, it does limit a persons choices for cache finds.

 

It seems to me to be, in many instances, a case of laziness on the part of the hider.

 

That seems a bit rude. I find it interesting that you seem to have the power to read minds.

 

The empirical evidence supports this. The vast majority of the really lame caches I've encountered lately were micros.

 

I think this is only part of the problem. First off - I have nothing against micros in particular. Some of the best caches I've ever done have been micros. They've either been deviously clever, or in locations so astounding that I did not care whether or not I logged a find because I was so amazed at the location.

 

I think there are a variety of reasons why this happens:

1. Demand. Many people will hunt for micros before hunting for larger, traditional caches, especially if a walk is involved. Put an ammo can at the end of a 3 mile hike to a gorgeous lake, and in some parts of the country it will get found once a year. I know you know this is true Brian. Throw a film cannister under the lamppost at your favorite large, discount retailer, and it will be found by lots of people. (I fall into this sometimes, and I actually ENJOY walking around outdoors to caches!)

2. Learned behavior. People emulating behavior they've seen elsewhere.

3. Laziness. As you point out, it's easy to hide certain types of micros. Perhaps that is a factor with some people. But I doubt that's most of it, because frequently the proliferators of micros are busy, busy people who hide lots and lots of caches.

4. Feedback. Some probably desire to increase the number of cache hides they have, in order to get more feedback from finders. I actually think this, combined with #1, is one of the bigger causes of this, at least until #2 takes over as the dominant force in an area. Cache logs typically provide, at least in my area, a stream of emails that say "I enjoyed your cache." Emails that say "your cache sucked bigtime" are quite rare, at least here in Dallas, Tx. (And I suspect they are rare elsewhere.) This constant positive feedback is likely quite addictive to some people. Putting out more caches is a way to generate more of this type of feedback. And most people I know would have difficulty hiking around the park carrying a dozen or so ammo cans, so micros are the way to go if you want to maximize your hides, and hence maximize the positive feedback you receive.

5. Expense. Hiding a traditional cache is expensive, and people don't, as a rule, maintain the quality over time. There are exceptions - some people invariably trade up. But on average, the trend is down. I would imagine some people become frustrated with this. Many people don't trade anyway. So some people probably see a larger cache container as being pointless.

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 2
×
×
  • Create New...