What Makes A Cache Lame?????

1.1k · February 2, 2005

I know people have talked about what a lame cache is, but why do you consider it LAME???? I guess when I feel a cache is lame is when it took NO imagination and no effort to do it, aka the micro in a pile of rocks. Just drive down the road see a pile of rocks and throw a film canister in it. I am looking for what it takes to make a good cache over all. I usually spend at least 10 hours on doing just a simple cache and probable more on the more complex ones. Some of this is working out the lameness of the cache. So what do you think.

cheers

20.7k · February 2, 2005

Why, why, why, why, why, why would you create another thread on this topic?

February 2, 2005

Why, why, why, why, why, why would you create another thread on this topic?

maybe lonliness??

5.7k · February 2, 2005

Why, why, why, why, why, why would you create another thread on this topic?

Hello:

If being a 'charter' member gives you any special influence with those who maintain the site, could you please ask them to filter out any posting that contans the word "LAME" ?

You are our only hope Oh B One.

February 2, 2005

I wonder how long before we get topics titled "Are topics about lame caches lame themselves?"

4.8k · February 2, 2005

Pocket queries often solve all.

20.7k · February 2, 2005

Lame is as lame does.

If you hide caches that you would like to find, you could certainly argue that they are not lame, since they are caches that some people would clearly enjoy.

From a finder's perspective it is a little tougher, but as the advocate above stated, you can do a pretty good job eliminating caches that you would not like through the use of PQs.

BTW, you may get additional insight from these threads. I did a search on just topics posted in the last seven days, so they should still be relevent.

lame topic

yawn

1.6k · February 2, 2005

To be nice to you, this topic has recently been discussed to death, thus all the annoyance in earlier posts.

In brief, a lame cache is one in which the hider has made no effort to create coolness in the cache. The location isn't cool, the hide isn't cool, the container isn't cool, the cache page itself isn't cool.

There are too many examples of these cropping up. We worry that the game will be diluted by them and new cachers will get the idea that this is the standard and from there, the lame factor will snowball.

Hope this helps

February 2, 2005

but why do you consider it LAME???? So what do you think. cheers

A lame cache is just there, to be there.

Probably one, just for the numbers. No reason to bring one to a location, other than for the cache. Not even for a view, or the adventure.

Going OT

Why, why, why, why, why, why would you create another thread on this topic?

For us verrrrrrrrrry slooooooooooooooow readers.

I’m still reading the posts from Jan 27th.

You guys just type way too fast for me, to read that quick.

Someday, I’d like to read as fast you all type.

Work release programs should include reading programs, not just mug shot type pictures.

SF1

February 2, 2005

I know people have talked about what a lame cache is, but why do you consider it LAME???? I guess when I feel a cache is lame is when it took NO imagination and no effort to do it, aka the micro in a pile of rocks. Just drive down the road see a pile of rocks and throw a film canister in it. I am looking for what it takes to make a good cache over all. I usually spend at least 10 hours on doing just a simple cache and probable more on the more complex ones. Some of this is working out the lameness of the cache. So what do you think.
cheers

A lame cache is one that someone doesn't want to do for one reason or another. That reason differs from person to person. One person's lame is anothers gold mine. I don't have a reason to call a cache lame. I like them all. Kind of a lame answer, huh...

5.7k · February 2, 2005

Lame is as lame does.

If you hide caches that you would like to find, you could certainly argue that they are not lame, since they are caches that some people would clearly enjoy.

From a finder's perspective it is a little tougher, but as the advocate above stated, you can do a pretty good job eliminating caches that you would not like through the use of PQs.

BTW, you may get additional insight from these threads. I did a search on just topics posted in the last seven days, so they should still be relevent.

lame topic

lame topic

lame topic

lame topic

yawn

"did a search on just topics posted in the last seven days, so they should still be relevent."

As if.

Oh B One, you have failed us.

18.9k · February 2, 2005

I'll just copy/paste from my earlier thread some conclusions:

# 1) Seems that the only real is that MOST lamppost caches in Wal-Mart parking lots are considered pretty lame.

#2) A well maintained cache (no junk, good log, dry etc) is rarely considered lame unless it is in a junk pile

#3) A unique hide or Well thought out idea is rarely lame,

#4) Caches with a view are rarely lame as long as #2 and #3 are true

#5) A good description with potential "gotchas!!" well described (weather, trail, terrian, parking etc) is necessary on the web page.

#6) Attitude and experience of the visitor are variables beyond our control

#7) Placing multiple caches that are deemed "identical" is lame only after finding many of the others.

20.7k · February 2, 2005

"did a search on just topics posted in the last seven days, so they should still be relevent."

As if.

Oh B One, you have failed us.

I should have used quotes around 'relevent'.

Edited February 2, 2005 by sbell111

3.8k · February 2, 2005

You ask "What makes a cache lame?"

Perhaps a more constructive question would be, "What makes a cache cool?" :blink: :unsure:

February 2, 2005

Pocket queries often solve all.

I guess I missed that filter on my Pocket Queries. How do they solve all?

--RuffRidr

20.7k · February 2, 2005

For the most part, PQs (and supporting software) can really help you weed out caches that you are not interested in.

February 2, 2005

For the most part, PQs (and supporting software) can really help you weed out caches that you are not interested in.

Depends on what you think is a lame cache. If I thought a lame cache was a Micro with a terrain rating of 1 or less, then ya Pocket Queries would help a bunch. But if I did that I would be missing out on some great hides down here. No matter how the pocket queries are twisted and filtered, you're either gonna get some lame caches, or you're going to get rid of some non-lame caches.

To me the only way to fix this would be to implement some sort of rating system. I hesitate to even bring it up, because I know how well that has gone over on these forums before. But I think until we do, we are going to be cursed with a bunch of lame caches.

--RuffRidr

1.6k · February 3, 2005

For the most part, PQs (and supporting software) can really help you weed out caches that you are not interested in.

Depends on what you think is a lame cache. If I thought a lame cache was a Micro with a terrain rating of 1 or less, then ya Pocket Queries would help a bunch. But if I did that I would be missing out on some great hides down here. No matter how the pocket queries are twisted and filtered, you're either gonna get some lame caches, or you're going to get rid of some non-lame caches.

To me the only way to fix this would be to implement some sort of rating system. I hesitate to even bring it up, because I know how well that has gone over on these forums before. But I think until we do, we are going to be cursed with a bunch of lame caches.

--RuffRidr

Local groups agreeing as to what is a good hide in their area. If you are in an urban area, micros may be the best you can do. We have a park in Kearney that is heavily used and trads just don't stay around well there, but micros are fine. Locals know this sort of thing, and we need to start getting them into the mix more.

Ratings that could be handled by the website would be a numerical score like a Likert scale. These have to have large numbers to be valid and we have many caches that don't come close to basic validity in terms of number of finders. Intrinsically ratings systems are flawed when you confine yourself to what this site could support.

2.1k · February 3, 2005

I wonder how long before we get topics titled "Are topics about lame caches lame themselves?"

we just did !!!

ya think?

9.4k · February 3, 2005

Lame caches tend to have really brief logs. "Found it" is about all the finders have to say about their experience. It's hard to write a long log when you only walked 35 feet from your car to find "yet another lampost micro".

5.3k · February 3, 2005

Lame caches tend to have really brief logs. "Found it" is about all the finders have to say about their experience. It's hard to write a long log when you only walked 35 feet from your car to find "yet another lampost micro".

Just because you can drive up to a cache, does not make it lame, if its a challenge to find it because of the way it is hidden or camouflaged, then it is not really a lame cache.

Lets not forget what is lame to some one will 100s of finds, may not be lame to some one with one a few finds.

this is an expermant that can be interesting to try.

Next time some one had a chance to take a noob out to find some caches, take them to a lamp post cache and observe them when they find it. I have done this. they always think it is a cool hide.

That is why there are so many of them now :rolleyes:

9.4k · February 3, 2005

Lame caches tend to have really brief logs. "Found it" is about all the finders have to say about their experience. It's hard to write a long log when you only walked 35 feet from your car to find "yet another lampost micro".

Just because you can drive up to a cache, does not make it lame, if its a challenge to find it because of the way it is hidden or camouflaged, then it is not really a lame cache.

Lets not forget what is lame to some one will 100s of finds, may not be lame to some one with one a few finds.

this is an expermant that can be interesting to try.

Next time some one had a chance to take a noob out to find some caches, take them to a lamp post cache and observe them when they find it. I have done this. they always think it is a cool hide.

That is why there are so many of them now

True, one lampost hide is cool. Even two or three. however, when there's one every block, they're lame

February 3, 2005

Lame caches tend to have really brief logs. "Found it" is about all the finders have to say about their experience. It's hard to write a long log when you only walked 35 feet from your car to find "yet another lampost micro".

Just because you can drive up to a cache, does not make it lame, if its a challenge to find it because of the way it is hidden or camouflaged, then it is not really a lame cache.

Lets not forget what is lame to some one will 100s of finds, may not be lame to some one with one a few finds.

this is an expermant that can be interesting to try.

Next time some one had a chance to take a noob out to find some caches, take them to a lamp post cache and observe them when they find it. I have done this. they always think it is a cool hide.

That is why there are so many of them now

Your experiment worked for me just the other day. I went out in the woods for a new one and the cache owner was there with another cacher. While looking for his cache we were talking about a couple of local caches, One he talked about was a DNF of his being a lamp post cache. He looked for quite a time and just couldn't find it. He had only 5 finds as I remember, but had placed a very well hidden cache in the woods......I had to leave with a DNF of my own as did the other guy.

February 11, 2005

So when someone signs the log and it ends with,TFLC. is this person saying that my cache was lame?

5k · February 11, 2005

So when someone signs the log and it ends with,TFLC. is this person saying that my cache was lame?

Probably not. For a lot of people, that's the standard log, regardless of quality. On one of my caches, where I enjoyed a long string of verbose logs describing the fun people had getting it, some posted a 1-line log. I'm sure they enjoyed it as much as anyone else, they just didn't feel like letting me know.

On the other hand, I usually write long, desriptive logs. I have a few one-liners (well.. maybe two lines) and those are reserved (in my case) for caches where I just can't think of anything to say.

Example: Here's a cache I found recently. Notice that my short log is the longest log in a long time. Quick Smiley

On the other hand, check out this cache: Did you hear that? (Background music!)

Without reading the logs, can you tell which cache people enjoyed more?

Jamie

1.6k · February 11, 2005

Let's all just keep beating that horse shall we ?

What is Lame to one , is a treasure to another , its basically undefinable .

Star

7.2k · February 11, 2005

So when someone signs the log and it ends with,TFLC. is this person saying that my cache was lame?

"TFLC?" Well, if it means "Thanks For Lame Cache" I'd say so.

However, I think that was a typo and meant to put "TFTC" which means "Thanks For The Cache." Follow the links to his finds and see how he logs other caches.

Hope this helps.

38.2k · February 11, 2005

To me a lame cache is one that when I get there and find it, I say to myself "what's the point? Why did the owner bring me here?" The area has no redeeming purpose other than to collect litter and the cache itself isn't a particularly challenging hide.

Now how can you tell a cache is lame? Here are the logs of two real caches:

Lame Cache

April 27, 2003 by xxxx (80 found)

Found it. Took nothing, left nothing. Signed log and continued east.

[view this log on a separate page]

April 26, 2003 by yyyyyyy (117 found)

Visited this cache with xxxxxx

[view this log on a separate page]

April 26, 2003 by xxxxxx (239 found)

We like these little stop offs. Found the cache and signed the log.

[view this log on a separate page]

April 20, 2003 by zzzzzzz (154 found)

An easy find at before 8:00 am. It was nice to get out and enjoy the fresh air. Thanks!

[view this log on a separate page]

April 20, 2003 by uuuuuuuuu (344 found)

Came, saw, quick find. On the way from NH to Schoharie, CO.

[view this log on a separate page]

[January 18, 2003 by tttttttt. (168 found)

Third find of the day. No trades. Thanks. Marc

[view this log on a separate page]

January 15, 2003 by qqqqqqf (210 found)

Second finder. Made the trip with nnnnnn. Thanks.

[view this log on a separate page]

January 15, 2003 by nnnnnn (596 found)

Found it today with qqqqqqf. Nice quick easy one for the winter.

[view this log on a separate page]

Not So Lame Cache

December 26, 2003 by xxxxxxxr (52 found)

First attempt at this cache was on 12/20/03. Spent a bit of time on the Hawk Watch platform talking to a couple and watching the birds in the area. Sauntered over to the first stage area and found it after about a 10 min. search. Had to read the hint to find it. From there, went to cache location and searched for about 20 minutes. Another place where there are many possible locations. Read hint and searched some more but could not find it. Gave up and decided to come back for this one and Graffiti Rock. Returned on 12/26/03 and went for Graffiti first. Then returned to search for Hawk Watch. Found it after a short search. It does not take much snow to totally obscure the cache. Last week I was literally standing on top of it and couldn't find it. SL and swapped Crayola Factory gold "coin" for a Corning Glass Museum green marble. Great area for a cache and the view is spectacular.

[view this log on a separate page]

November 2, 2003 by yyyyyyyyyyyy (42 found)

What a beautiful Fall day, best I can remember in years. Garrett, Laura and myself headed out for this one early because I had to work today, I am not off til Thursday, and who knows if we will ever have a day like this again (when I am off). Taking advantage of the weather, I decided to give this a look considering the rave reviews it recieves and being one of BBBBBB caches, how bad could it be?

We found the first stage revlatively easily. From there, we headed over to the Platform to see if we see anything. We were the only ones there and saw 12 Turkey Vultures....I think. Gorgeous veiws... quiet... peaceful.... relaxing... couldn't describe it any better. After a short stay at the platform, we went for the final cache. Definately not an easy find. Took us about an hour to find the cache. I am hoping it is because of the fallen foliage. Great hide and teriffic cache. We took nothing and left nothing. Our approach to the cahce was on the Tower road and we returned to the car via the Orange trail. Much better hike on the return. When we head out the Hawk watch seem to be getting a bit crowded, who could blame them on this gorgeous day.(Well worth the 45 min drive) Now I get to go to work. Pictures to come.....

[view this log on a separate page]

October 5, 2003 by Team xxxxxx (127 found)

N 40° 56.834 W 074° 28.296

#55. This cache was one of the best anywhere. This is why we are geocachers - to find out about neat places like this that we would never know about otherwise. We couldn't find the parking lot that BBBBBBB gave the coordinates for, so we parked by the Bat Cave and had a nice hike (found out later the road we were looking for was a couple miles down). We were hoping to find Pete the Polar Bear in this cache - he's supposed to be here - but there was no sign of him and nothing in the logs about him being picked up. We hope he hasn't been bearnapped! Traded a polished jasper stone and a Selby Gardens magnet for 2 AA batteries, and swapped Georges. Thanks for a great outing.

[view this log on a separate page]T

October 5, 2003 by mmmmmm (300 found)

#267 and 3 of 3 today

After I found the other two caches near where I parked I started the hike up to this great spot. I followed the white trail mostly but switched to an ATV road about halfway there. The hiding spot for the first element was to say the least a bit exposed feeling. I’m sure when the leaves fall from the trees this will become even harder to find without being seen. On another note. This cache is freakin’ cool!!! I spend a long time just taking pictures and taking in the view before I even started hunting. After that I used the cheat to find the first stage (I didn’t want to hang around here to long). I headed off to the second element and found it quickly in a Brian like hiding spot. I signed the log book and left a ‘’Late Show’’ pencil. Thank you for a great cache in a fantastic spot!

[view this log on a separate page]

October 2, 2003 by fffff (31 found)

I really enjoyed some of the view from this cache. It was a little bit of a challenge but not too bad

[view this log on a separate page]

September 27, 2003 by oooooo (352 found)

Team oooooo hiked over from the computer cache, roughly following the White and orange trails, in addition to several unmarked, but well-defined trails. After ¼ mile of walking we where hit with a brief shower and a few thunderclaps. That storm quickly cleared and we started spotting small salamanders (or newts, not sure which is which) on the trail. Very cool! As we approached the parking area for the Hawk Watch another storm rolled in, and literally dumped gallons of water on us. iiiiiiii produced a tarp shelter for us out of his backpack of magic tricks and we waited the storm out. (Thanks iiiiii, we owe you a beer and a burger!)

Once the storm cleared, the sun came out and we moved on. We made it to the hawk watch quickly and took in the sights; we even saw a rainbow!

After finding the great hiding spot for stage one, we proceeded to stage two. I think we actually found this stage quicker then it took us to actually retrieve it. The cache had managed to get itself wedged in to a tight spot. Be we where in good hands, ooooooo used her girl power to remove the cache and the three guys made their trades and signed the log.

[view this log on a separate page]

September 27, 2003 by zzzzzzz (69 found)

Geo#45 This was my first Group Hunt, I met Team DDDD on the Parking lot for the Cave and then waited for Team RRRRR to arrive. From there we headed to the Bat Cave & Computer Caches that I had done previously, so as an spectator I had the opportunity to watch their Geocaching Skills in action. They spotted both caches in no time and then we headed to the Hawk Watch. Our determination was not going to be deterred by a "small" downpour, so we basically swam the trails in our way up. Once there we enjoyed the AMAZING view from the top, and spent a few minutes looking for the first stage of the cache. Once found, we hiked towards the last stage were Team's EEEE's Female Power was the key to reach the sneaky cache.Took a Carabiner and left a Safety Strove light and a Cheesequake Park Trail Map.Thanks for another Great Hunt!

[view this log on a separate page]

September 27, 2003 by Team DDDD (130 found)

This was the 3rd find of the day for myself with zzzzz and Team EEEEEE. On the way to cache from our 2nd find, it absolutely poured. We all got soaked. Once we got to the lookout point, it was worth it. What a view! We snapped some pics and headed to the 1st stage. Found it after a couple of minutes of looking - that BBBBB is sneaky!! With the coords for the 2nd stage, we set off for the short walk to it and found it pretty quickly. Getting it out was another matter!!! I wonder who made it so tough - must have been the last cacher! We finally had to have the female power of Team EEEEEE get the cache. I signed the log, TNLN. Nice cache BBBBB and SSSSS - thanks!

[view this log on a separate page]

September 24, 2003 by hhhhhhhhh (294 found)

Took the day off today and after we'd loaded the kids on the schoolbus, my wife and I figured it was a perfect day to enjoy a hike. We enjoyed the drive down splitrock road and to the site - then hiked up to the ridge. Found the first stage immediately (how did I miss that last time?), spent a little time conversing with the hawk watchers - then headed off to find the cache. Quick find - took a tape and left a big yellow flashlight (wow - that ammo box is FULL!). We rehid the cache exactly as we found it and headed over toward 'Graffiti Rock Ramble'.

Thanks for a fun hunt and a great excuse to get out hiking without the kids!

[view this log on a separate page]

September 21, 2003 by JJJJJJJJl (59 found)

Last cache for the day found the first part with a little help, second part quite easily. Due to time and the sun going down we boggied out of their after taking a whistle and leaving a keychain. What a great ending to a great day.

[view this log on a separate page]

September 21, 2003 by LLLLLLLLL (64 found)

This was the final cache of the day for JJJJJJ and I. We had to use the hint for the first stage. After reading it we found it without too much trouble. It is awfully close to the trail but I think it is well out of site. Replaced it where we found it and off to the cache which JJJJJJJ found fairly quickly. I took the Smiley Face bubbles and left a Judge Button and some rubber frogs. We took the white trail back to the bat cave and just made it out when the bats were emerging. Cool. On the way down we saw the spooky cemetary but did not have time to investigate and were lucky enough to hear a screech owl calling just as we came out of the wood. Thanks for the ending to a great day.

[view this log on a separate page]

September 21, 2003 by eeeeeeee (207 found)

The Hawk Watch was full today - there must have been 25 people there. I felt very uncomfortable search for the first stage. I couldn't see any of them, so I hope they couldn't see me. I came by way of the Bat Cave and scored the first part of the new Graffiti Rock cache. After finding both parts of Hawk Watch, I completed Graffiti Rock on my way out. I highly recommend this hike to others, especially if you need 2 for a milestone. I swopped WG$ and added an extra, series 1988A.

[view this log on a separate page]

September 18, 2003 by BBBBBBBBt (1111 found)

Find #1019. Nice hike in; quite a few people at the platform ... I see some people get to drive right up to it. That bald eagle was circling the area again today. Both stages were easy finds. Took nothing, left a ''George.'' Thanks.

(Egads! As I was typing this log, somebody just lost control of their car and smashed in my neighbor's basement wall and window! Film at 11!)

[view this log on a separate page]

September 14, 2003 by SSSSSSSS (61 found)

Headed over to this cache after finding the first part of Graffitti Rock. Found the first part easily, but took a little longer with the 2nd since there were people back and forth to the hawk watch platform. Traded WG$ and signed log book. Met Team VVVVV on my way back to find the 2nd stage of Graffitti Rock, and saw SSSSSSSS in the parking lot, but didn't realize it was them untillater on....they look nothing like their pictures on the cards they leave.

[last edit: 9/14/2003 6:02:42 PM PST]

[view this log on a separate page]

September 14, 2003 by Team VVVVV (13 found)

Headed up to the first stage from the bat cave and stopped at Grafitti Rock Ramble stage one. Than we saw SSSSSS and headed twards the first stage. On the way we saw the YYYYYYYYs. Found the first stage fairly easily. Found the second part easily too. Saw a few hawks and hawk watchers. Took WG dollar and pocket knife left marble and silver.

Thanks!

[view this log on a separate page]

September 14, 2003 by SSSSSSSSS (107 found)

Parked in the desinated area and met with one of the hawk counters, he said look a bald eagle and pointed to a large bird circleing in the air, sure enough an eagle was flying around. he asked if we were geocachers? we interduced ourselfs and we chatted for a while, then we headed up the fireroad to the platform we grabbed the first stage (the numbers were right on) we punched the new cord into the gps and headed to the 2nd stage, found it and logged the book, took mini cache ready to go, and left smiliy face bubbles and a package of dice. and headed over to the rock cache, met with team sssss on the white trail while they were on the way to this cache, on our way back to the car the rain started and we got caught on the mountian in a downpour, we were soaked. (know how hard it is to walk up trails with wet jeans? ) great cache, we will be comming back with our camaras when the trees start to turn color

[view this log on a separate page]

August 31, 2003 by hhhhhhh (294 found)

What a great spot for the cache. Waking up to a cool clear day today - we packed a lunch and all headed up for a hike (on BrianSnat's suggestion). Well - a great suggestion it was, we reached the Observation platform and found about a dozen or so people watching and identifying hawks. Very nice view - so we sat and had some lunch before looking for stage 1. Finding a micro in the woods isn't my forte and we only spent a few minutes searching, but alas, came up empty. We'll certainly be back (will be fun to bring friends to this out of the way gem) and will take more time to search for stage 1, but we really enjoyed the hike.

Thanks for a fun hunt!

[view this log on a separate page]

August 30, 2003 by MMMMMMMl (91 found)

Stopped by today because I felt guilty about taking a book and just leaving some WG$. I left a book called, The Home Brewer's Companion. Hopefully some cacher will be able to use it. I also traded the 2 new WG$ that were there for a Tom.

Some other interesting notes.. Spotted what we believe to be a Vermilion Flycatcher near stage 1 of this cache. I'm actually going back today to see if we can spot it again because its a rare find for NJ.

Also going from the Hawk platform to the cache we saw a copperhead. Of course I didn't have my camera!!! It was trying to make its way across the trail and froze when it saw us.

[view this log on a separate page]

August 30, 2003 by Sssssssss. (586 found)

#445 – 8/30/03 I’ve been chomping at the bit to find this cache since it popped up on the website a few days ago. It was just Ashley, Autumn, an me today. I had the parking cords punched into my GPS’r but somehow couldn’t get there (I know there is parking available there since we passed the area on our hike to the cache and saw several cars parked there). I decided to park in another designated spot right off Green Pond Rd. From there, the first part of the hike was pretty steep, but after that it was a piece of cake. We got to the vicinity of stage 1 without a problem, and Ashley found it quickly. I jotted down the coords for the final stage and punched them into my e-trax. There was small blue lizard (that’s right, blue) by the cache site. I never saw one like it. I tried to catch it but it scurried under a tree stump. We stopped by the overlook to take some pictures then moved onto the final stage. That was a pretty straight forward find as well as Ashley found it after just a few minutes. We swapped WG$’s - Ashley took the pocket dictionary and logged our visit – I left a bunch of WWF pencils, crayons, a mini pencil & sharpener. We took the same route back to the car. Our round trip was just a little over 4 miles. This was another classic BBBBBBB cache in a very nice area. Thanks BBBB for placing the cache!

February 11, 2005

I know people have talked about what a lame cache is, but why do you consider it LAME???? I guess when I feel a cache is lame is when it took NO imagination and no effort to do it, aka the micro in a pile of rocks. Just drive down the road see a pile of rocks and throw a film canister in it. I am looking for what it takes to make a good cache over all. I usually spend at least 10 hours on doing just a simple cache and probable more on the more complex ones. Some of this is working out the lameness of the cache. So what do you think.
cheers

A lame cache is one that someone doesn't want to do for one reason or another. That reason differs from person to person. One person's lame is anothers gold mine. I don't have a reason to call a cache lame. I like them all. Kind of a lame answer, huh...

Quoting myself, how lame. But Briansnat, the one that you demonstrated to be lame was liked by some folks for different reasons. I would not have planned a day around one like that but if I was in the area I would have stopped or if I was trying for the FTF I may have gone out of my way. Would I have remembered it a year later, maybe not, but I would have appreciated it as an effort. Some folks would not have liked it at all others would have appreciated it as a learning experience or, perish the thought, another smiley. Others may have appreciated the so called lame one if they could no longer make a hike (which will happen to most of us someday). The other cache sounds like something I would plan my day around, sounds fantastic and would probably remain in my memory for a long time. Geocaching is great because there is a cache for all tastes and physical conditions but none will please everyone.

February 11, 2005

Let's all just keep beating that horse shall we ?

What is Lame to one , is a treasure to another , its basically undefinable .

Star

I think we're looking at this the wrong way. We shouldn't be going out and trying to pinpoint lame caches in the attempt to lower their numbers. I think we need to encourage people to put "great" caches out. In this thread Markwell outlines a great method for doing that. Basically, his idea lets everyone pick up to 10% of the caches they have done and list them as their top caches. When a certain number of cachers have listed this as one of their top caches, the cache gets a special designation. With this type of system in place, we would both have a way to sort out good caches, and also a way to encourage people to put out better caches.

Jeremy seemed to like the idea, and it sounds like it might be in its initial phases. Hopefully, we'll see some of his work on this come to fruition.

--RuffRidr

20.7k · February 11, 2005

Let's all just keep beating that horse shall we ?

What is Lame to one , is a treasure to another , its basically undefinable .

Star

Can we just beat those who keep the 'lame' threads going instead?

Oops, Thats me!

3.1k · February 11, 2005

I love lame caches

Edited February 11, 2005 by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite

February 11, 2005

So many of these fine cachers are forgetting one very important point. A huge percentage of geocachers like these quick and easy caches. They think "so what" that they don't take them to a spot they will remember for the rest of their lives THEY ARE LIKED AND APPRECIATED FOR WHAT THEY ARE. I fully understand that some folks may not like them but others do and it would be a disservice to make them "illegal".

February 11, 2005

So many of these fine cachers are forgetting one very important point. A huge percentage of geocachers like these quick and easy caches. They think "so what" that they don't take them to a spot they will remember for the rest of their lives THEY ARE LIKED AND APPRECIATED FOR WHAT THEY ARE. I fully understand that some folks may not like them but others do and it would be a disservice to make them "illegal".

What about the new cachers that go out and find 2 or 3 of these caches and decide that searching through old waste dumps and loading docks is not for them? I know of cachers that this was their first introduction to the sport. I'd hate to lose the potentially good hides that these cachers would have provided later.

What if a reporter wanted to do an article in the newspaper about Geocaching? Would you take them to any of these "lame" hides? What if they didn't seek out local geocachers and just went on to find these lame caches by themselves? I don't think that would make for a very good article or show us in a very good light.

Like I said earlier, I don't want to ban any of these caches. I think we need to work harder and smarter to encourage user's to put more thought into cache placement.

Horse: "I'm not quite dead yet."

Poster: "You'll be stone dead in a moment."

WHACK!

--RuffRidr

7.2k · February 11, 2005

THEY ARE LIKED AND APPRECIATED FOR WHAT THEY ARE.

So tell me, what do you like about them?

February 11, 2005

IMO a lame cache is one that is not unique to the finder.

For example: A newbie goes out and finds a perfectly dry ammo box in a crack near a hiking trail in their area. there are hundreds of similar hides in that area. The cacher finds it and is elated. later on, they remember that cache and place another one like it.

then after finding 200 caches similar to the one they found, they get bored and consider that kind of cache lame.

This was my post in another thread on lame caches, enjoy. (or not)

20.7k · February 11, 2005

So tell me, what do you like about them?

I like that even the lame ones get me out of the house.

20.7k · February 11, 2005

What about the new cachers that go out and find 2 or 3 of these caches and decide that searching through old waste dumps and loading docks is not for them?

What about it? What if the first cache they went to was a 1/2 mile walk in woods and they came back with 3 ticks. They get disgusted and quit. Believe it or not, if a few people try the game and don't like it, its not the end of the world (or the game).

What if a reporter wanted to do an article in the newspaper about Geocaching? Would you take them to any of these "lame" hides? What if they didn't seek out local geocachers and just went on to find these lame caches by themselves? I don't think that would make for a very good article or show us in a very good light.

I can't think of a singe article in which the reporter went after a cache without being led to a specific cache by a geocacher. Certainly, if a reporter contacts one of us (any of us) we are going to take him/her to our favorite cache. Even cachers who enjoy lightpole micros are pretty likely to show them something else. Even if the reporter is shown a lame cache, is the article going to be worse than the 'get a life' comment. Probably not. The worse thing that would happen is the article would not attract many players. Big deal. I rather doubt that it would affect any cacher-landowner negotiation.

Like I said earlier, I don't want to ban any of these caches. I think we need to work harder and smarter to encourage user's to put more thought into cache placement.

I think the answer is to not pressure people into hiding caches. This will result in cachers placing caches that they would like to find. (My definition of non-lame.)

February 11, 2005

I think we're looking at this the wrong way. We shouldn't be going out and trying to pinpoint lame caches in the attempt to lower their numbers. I think we need to encourage people to put "great" caches out.

Exactly. No one likes to be told that their cache is lame (at least I wouldn't). As briansnat so eloquently demonstrated above, if you are writing a log, it's just not nice to point it out. Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

That's why I like Markwell's Top Caches idea so much. If my cache is lame, nobody has to say anything to me. But my cache won't be showing up on anybody's Top 10%, either.

February 13, 2005

Met a guy who was from another area . . . he had over 900 finds . . . lots of experience. But NONE with a particular cache hide that was quite common in our area.

Our, what some consider usual/lame ideas for a cache, was absolutely wonderful and exciting for this highly experienced cacher - it means you do NOT have to be a new cacher, just someone having a new experience to take the lame out of the commonplace. All caches are new for some friends, all are, therefore, fine.

7.2k · February 13, 2005

All caches are new for some friends, all are, therefore, fine.

I dunno. The sneaker cache, the split open tennis ball cache, and the rotting bird carcass virt are universally considered pretty darn "not fine."

So, no, it is not "anything goes."

3.1k · February 13, 2005

Personally I haven't done one I consider lame.

1.7k · February 13, 2005

Lame caches:

Ones where I go to places where illicit sexual activity takes place, high volume of drug users, homeless camps. That is not why I go caching. Those are not caches that I enjoy.

February 13, 2005

When somebody hides a whole bunch in a short span of time in a relatively small area. This is a sure recipe for LAME. These caches are usually micros (almost always) and even when they aren't they're probably lame. This is a direct consequence of somebody gung ho on the idea of hiding more caches rather than better ones. They don't give each individual cache the thought, planning, and attention (maintenance) that they should to be worthy of being listed.

The website could address this issue with policy but that won't happen until some of us start listing our caches elsewhere. This website's version of geocaching will ultimately become a drive and dump tour of parking lots.

Have fun with that.

1.6k · February 13, 2005

When somebody hides a whole bunch in a short span of time in a relatively small area. This is a sure recipe for LAME. These caches are usually micros (almost always) and even when they aren't they're probably lame. This is a direct consequence of somebody gung ho on the idea of hiding more caches rather than better ones. They don't give each individual cache the thought, planning, and attention (maintenance) that they should to be worthy of being listed.

The website could address this issue with policy but that won't happen until some of us start listing our caches elsewhere. This website's version of geocaching will ultimately become a drive and dump tour of parking lots.

Have fun with that.

I hate that. Especially when people with only two finds do it because they think they know what makes a good cache.

3.2k · February 13, 2005

In most activities there is a learning curve. We need a variety of cache difficulties to teach finding techniques to new or younger cachers. In my opinion there is a place for the small park micro.. or even the parking lot micro... if it serves the purpose of allowing Dad to teach a kid how to use the GPS, or even just provide a quick diversion, while Mom is shopping. (or the reverse if that is more appealing) ....or if it fits the schedule of anyone with a few minutes to fill. Sure beats walking the mall or sitting in traffic.

Sure I like the more isolated caches, preferably with a lot of complex route finding and a briar patch, cliff, or stream to contend with; but not with 20 minutes of daylight after a day of work... or while on my way to another meeting. If an easily accessible cache is what fits a purpose or the time frame available why not?? And if it is too lame for someone's taste, then they should be able to just ignore it.

February 13, 2005

And if it is too lame for someone's taste, then they should be able to just ignore it.

Some cachers just don't seem to be able to ignore the types they don't want to seek. It is easier to complain about them and try to spoil it for others.

February 14, 2005

I have come across some caches that didn't peek my interest very much and I suppose could be considered a "lame" cache by many. My 4 year old, on the other hand, thinks every one of them is awesome and it puts a smile on his face as well as his two sisters that come along. That is what is improtant to me and why I got into this activity. To my son, a lame cache would be what others think of as a challenging cache, one he could search until he is a teenager and still not find it. So to all the people who place "lame" caches...THANKS!!!

7.2k · February 14, 2005

And if it is too lame for someone's taste, then they should be able to just ignore it.

Some cachers just don't seem to be able to ignore the types they don't want to seek. It is easier to complain about them and try to spoil it for others.

Some people just don't understand that a caching population has seen fit to not place caches they don't like and an outsider just seems to not understand we don't want those types of caches here.

It's like a neighbor letting their 150lb Great Dane sh*t in your yard.

February 14, 2005

And if it is too lame for someone's taste, then they should be able to just ignore it.

Some cachers just don't seem to be able to ignore the types they don't want to seek. It is easier to complain about them and try to spoil it for others.

Some people just don't understand that a caching population has seen fit to not place caches they don't like and an outsider just seems to not understand we don't want those types of caches here.

It's like a neighbor letting their 150lb Great Dane sh*t in your yard.

CR, my remark wasn't aimed at any particular caching area or situation. It was aimed at geocaching in general where there seem to be folks that want to take away, or influence those that have the ability to take away, caches that such a huge percentage enjoy.

What Makes A Cache Lame?????

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment