Crappy Cache Locations

[CoyoteRed]

... but I have specifically sought out parking lot caches when time didn't allow for more.

Common misconception some of us are trying to fight. You don't have to place a quickie in a parking lot. A perfectly nice location will do just as well.

[Trinity's Crew]

I'm sure I would enjoy quick caches in perfectly nice locations. I just don't believe I have the right to decide that for everyone.

[+drat19]

I'm sure I would enjoy quick caches in perfectly nice locations. I just don't believe I have the right to decide that for everyone.

Stating one's opinion, STRONGLY, is not "deciding for everyone". CR's not going around stealing/removing caches he considers less-than-desirable...now THAT would be "deciding". He's entitled to his opinion about them just as those who defend these types of caches are entitled to theirs as well.

 

If other cachers are discouraged ("feeling bullied"??) from placing caches because they're concerned about what some strong personalities in the area might think or say, it's not the strong personality's fault that these folks don't have the backbone to push back just as hard.

 

-Dave R.

Edited March 1, 2005 by drat19

[+drat19]

It bothers me that there appears to be a campaign to do away with lame caches.

And it bothers me that there appears to be a campaign to PLACE so many "what some consider lame" caches when other more suitable locations would do just as well.

 

Those of us railing AGAINST "caches we consider lame" have just as much right to state this opinion, STRONGLY, as those who would argue that we're not allowed to do so.

 

-Dave R.

[Trinity's Crew]

Your opinions are valid. As is MINE, since, after all they are only opinions.

As for a CAMPAIGN to place so many "what some consider lame" micros, please point me to threads where this is the topic starter. Then look at the number of threads where "lame caches" is the theme.

 

I didn't say anything about what anyone else should do/think/post. I merely stated that I don't think I have the right to decide for everyone. Thanks for the input!

[Trinity's Crew]

I agree that CR is not deciding anything directly. He is however trying to influence the opinions of those who play and moderate the game. This is absolutely his right, but it is my right to express a dissenting opinion for the exact same reasons.

[+briansnat]

I agree that CR is not deciding anything directly. He is however trying to influence the opinions of those who play and moderate the game. This is absolutely his right, but it is my right to express a dissenting opinion for the exact same reasons.

CR is arguing against junk caches in unappealing locations. You're arguing in favor of them. Hmmmmmm, I like his opinion better.i

[Trinity's Crew]

I am not arguing for "junk caches in unappealing places". Nice try, though. I am arguing that there is no universally agreed upon standard for "lame" nor is there likely to be.

[+drat19]

I agree that CR is not deciding anything directly. He is however trying to influence the opinions of those who play and moderate the game. This is absolutely his right, but it is my right to express a dissenting opinion for the exact same reasons.

Absolutely! (seriously)

 

Now let's see who fights harder. If the "against what some consider lame" caches contingent finally gives up fighting, and leaves the game to the "what some consider lame micro spewers", then we will wish you all well with your fun parking lot to random tree hollow to roadsign to random roadside to another parking lot game.

 

-Dave R.

Edited March 1, 2005 by drat19

[Trinity's Crew]

Absolutely! (seriously)

 

Now let's see who fights harder. If the "against what some consider lame" caches contingent finally gives up fighting, and leaves the game to the "what some consider lame micro spewers", then we will wish you all well with your fun parking lot to random tree hollow to roadsign to random roadside to another parking lot game.

 

-Dave R.

Man, you seem to lump many types of caches into the "lame" category. (Unless I misunderstood your post) I guess that's my problem. Everyones idea of lame is different.

[+drat19]

Absolutely! (seriously)

 

Now let's see who fights harder.  If the "against what some consider lame" caches contingent finally gives up fighting, and leaves the game to the "what some consider lame micro spewers", then we will wish you all well with your fun parking lot to random tree hollow to roadsign to random roadside to another parking lot game.

 

-Dave R.

Man, you seem to lump many types of caches into the "lame" category. (Unless I misunderstood your post) I guess that's my problem. Everyones idea of lame is different.

Yeah, I guess I do. Which is one reason why my caching activity has dropped so dramatically in recent months. The game I joined almost 3 years ago is not the same game anymore...and the "what some consider lame" (yes, I coined that term, in deference to those who have that different opinion) cache propagation aspect is a (the) major reason why. I respect that some people are OK with that, I really do.

 

I'm not (OK with it). That is my opinion, respectfully submitted.

 

-Dave R.

Edited March 1, 2005 by drat19

[Trinity's Crew]

Good luck with the fight/campaign/crusade/opinion. I really don't have the time to keep this up.

 

I know that many people feel very strongly about the issue of caches being "lame".

 

I agree that some/many caches are not as much fun as others. My problem stems from the fact that there is no way administer this since "lame" is completely subjective.

 

Putting further restrictions on cache placement is likely to hurt the game rather than help it.

 

IMO the best way to fight lame caches is to ignore those caches that you dislike and get like-minded people to place quality caches in the area you live.

 

P.S. I'm getting ready to hide my first cache. It's a "lame ammo box" that I'm going to place in a "lame hollow tree" not too far from a hiking trail in a park near my house. I have many reasons for picking this particular spot. I just don't see why I need to justify them to anyone.

[+mrmnjewel]

This has to be the silliest, most useless thread I have read on here. Arguing over cache locations is asinine. Do the ones you like, don't do the ones you don't. To go to a lot of effort whining and complaining about it shows that maybe some of us do have too much time on our hands as the cop in the original post mentioned. Lighten up, people.

[+drat19]

Good luck with the fight/campaign/crusade/opinion. I really don't have the time to keep this up.

 

I know that many people feel very strongly about the issue of caches being "lame". 

 

I agree that some/many caches are not as much fun as others. My problem stems from the fact that there is no way administer this since "lame" is completely subjective.

 

Putting further restrictions on cache placement is likely to hurt the game rather than help it.

 

IMO the best way to fight lame caches is to ignore those caches that you dislike and get like-minded people to place quality caches in the area you live.

 

P.S. I'm getting ready to hide my first cache. It's a "lame ammo box" that I'm going to place in a "lame hollow tree" not too far from a hiking trail in a park near my house. I have many reasons for picking this particular spot. I just don't see why I need to justify them to anyone.

I don't think anyone on this "crusade" is trying to place more restrictions, per se, but is just trying to STRONGLY encourage (and if some call that "bullying", then so be it) people that better locations than the current trend in many areas can be chosen if only just a little more thought were put into their choices. And to also point out to folks that a. Just because a location CAN support a cache hide doesn't mean that it SHOULD, and b. If it means placing fewer caches in an area, but keeping the location and/or cache quality higher, then that's what it means.

 

As to your prospective cache hide, I know you didn't ask for my opinion, and you're free to disagree with it and not need to justify it to me or anyone, but with all that said: I think your cache hide idea sounds fine, not lame at all.

 

-Dave R.

Edited March 1, 2005 by drat19

[+bigredmed]

I agree that some/many caches are not as much fun as others. My problem stems from the fact that there is no way administer this since "lame" is completely subjective.

 

There is a way to reduce the lame cache factor.

 

Step 1. We keep a easy to read and digest listing of cache numbers by type for a given area (say county by county).

 

Step 2. We add an instruction in the "how to place a cache" page to refer to this chart for your area.

 

Step3. We state that if the type of cache you want to place is already represented, be prepared to defend it to the approver.

 

Step 4. We encourage people to place new types of caches that are underrepresented in their area (thus making even a lamppost micro cool, by virtue of it being rare in that area.)

 

Step 5. On the cache registration page, we add a box that accepts the cache owner's answer to a question: What makes your cache special? The approvers are free to use their learned judgement about how they want to use this answer.

 

I would suggest that it be weighed heavily in the approval process. That cache types that are unique in the area, or novel to the game be approved rapidly, that caches that represent one of twenty of the same old thing are not approved at all.

 

This requires reallly simple changes to the website for cache listing, and requires only a modest amount of programming to list the caches by type rather than with the conventional listing page. In other words, preventing lame caches is doable.

[+drat19]

I agree that some/many caches are not as much fun as others. My problem stems from the fact that there is no way administer this since "lame" is completely subjective.

 

There is a way to reduce the lame cache factor.

 

Step 1. We keep a easy to read and digest listing of cache numbers by type for a given area (say county by county).

 

Step 2. We add an instruction in the "how to place a cache" page to refer to this chart for your area.

 

Step3. We state that if the type of cache you want to place is already represented, be prepared to defend it to the approver.

 

Step 4. We encourage people to place new types of caches that are underrepresented in their area (thus making even a lamppost micro cool, by virtue of it being rare in that area.)

 

Step 5. On the cache registration page, we add a box that accepts the cache owner's answer to a question: What makes your cache special? The approvers are free to use their learned judgement about how they want to use this answer.

 

I would suggest that it be weighed heavily in the approval process. That cache types that are unique in the area, or novel to the game be approved rapidly, that caches that represent one of twenty of the same old thing are not approved at all.

 

This requires reallly simple changes to the website for cache listing, and requires only a modest amount of programming to list the caches by type rather than with the conventional listing page. In other words, preventing lame caches is doable.

I love this!

 

But be prepared for the vocal counterpoints from others.

 

-Dave R.

[+Renegade Knight]

I am not arguing for "junk caches in unappealing places". Nice try, though. I am arguing that there is no universally agreed upon standard for "lame" nor is there likely to be.

For the record.

 

I like homeless camps, decaying buildings, junkyards, junkpiles and a few types others are on the record as calling lame.

 

The debate has no resolution other than to allow all viable caches to be approved. When it comes to traditional caches the game errs on the side of those who have a broader view of what is ok.

 

My OP was just to point out a funny incident in a day of caching. It wasn't meant to re-ignite the eternal debate.

[Trinity's Crew]

Okay, I lied. I'm back.

Sorry to debate this AGAIN. It just seemed to need both perspectives represented.

 

Also, having approvers shoot down caches that are "over-represented" is a direct attempt to regulate cache placement.

 

As I stated before, too much regulation is likely to hurt, not help the game.

 

Edited to add things that I forgot to type!

Edited March 1, 2005 by Trinity's Crew

[+Mastifflover]

I agree that some/many caches are not as much fun as others. My problem stems from the fact that there is no way administer this since "lame" is completely subjective.

 

There is a way to reduce the lame cache factor.

 

Step 1. We keep a easy to read and digest listing of cache numbers by type for a given area (say county by county).

 

Step 2. We add an instruction in the "how to place a cache" page to refer to this chart for your area.

 

Step3. We state that if the type of cache you want to place is already represented, be prepared to defend it to the approver.

 

Step 4. We encourage people to place new types of caches that are underrepresented in their area (thus making even a lamppost micro cool, by virtue of it being rare in that area.)

 

Step 5. On the cache registration page, we add a box that accepts the cache owner's answer to a question: What makes your cache special? The approvers are free to use their learned judgement about how they want to use this answer.

 

I would suggest that it be weighed heavily in the approval process. That cache types that are unique in the area, or novel to the game be approved rapidly, that caches that represent one of twenty of the same old thing are not approved at all.

 

This requires reallly simple changes to the website for cache listing, and requires only a modest amount of programming to list the caches by type rather than with the conventional listing page. In other words, preventing lame caches is doable.

I love this!

 

But be prepared for the vocal counterpoints from others.

 

-Dave R.

Ok I hate it. I can see a potential cache hider looking at these hoops to jump through and saying "why bother".

[+cache_test_dummies]

There is a way to reduce the lame cache factor.

To me, all this would seem to do is to move the 'lame-or-not' decision from the members of the local community into the hands of the approver. What if the approver's personal views on 'lame' didn't match those of the community?

 

Also, I just don't see the connection between 'lame' and cache type representation.

[+Team Tecmage]

Okay,

 

First off, I realize something important here- CR and Sissy SELL microtubes, so I clearly believe that CR is not in any way arguing AGAINST micros. He is also not arguing against math-based puzzle caches. Drat19 is not arguing against easy caches. No one here is arguing against anything but "LAME" caches.

 

I think it is way too simplistic to assume that if someone, like Trinity's Crew, is arguing FOR lame caches because he brings up the very valid point that lame is subjective. Who will determine what is lame? I don't want to deterine that. I know what I think is lame, but if I were allowed to impose my standard, then NO ONE would be happy. You see, the people that own caches I would decline would be ticked, and people that have a higher "standard" than me would be ticked about some caches that I did approve.

 

Bigmedred's idea would work except it would inject more regulation into Geocaching than many are going to accept. remember the introduction of approvers and moderators? Who is going to volunteer to administer all this?

 

Now, if you choose to read this as supporting lame caches, then you are wrong. I have strong feelings about what has been posted here partly because I don't think anyone in The Carolinas, Mississippi, Missouri, or Oregon can tell us in Indiana what is lame, and us here in Indiana need to keep our ideas of lame local to our state as well.

[+Salvelinus]

My solution to the "lameness" is to eliminate the prominence of numbers on this website. Keep your numbers viewable to you on your own account page, but I personally find little need to see anyone else's. If you need a number to reference a cachers experience then stop adding them up after someone reaches 100, 200 or some reasonable milestone. Use 100+ instead. What's the difference between a cacher that has found 200 or 2000 caches...other than one may have more free time than another? I'm convinced that the numbers fixation breeds the lameness. Reduce the focus on numbers and I believe quality caches would return.

 

When I started caching it was constantly stated that placing caches is all about location, location, location. Is it still like this?, or is the unspoken truth that it is becoming all about numbers, numbers, numbers?

 

Salvelinus

[+Salvelinus]

Edit: Double post...that was weird!

 

Salvelinus

Edited March 1, 2005 by Salvelinus

[+briansnat]

Man, you seem to lump many types of caches into the "lame" category. (Unless I misunderstood your post) I guess that's my problem. Everyones idea of lame is different.

 

There are many types of caches that are widely considered to be unappealing. You can't tell me that anything but very small segment of the geocaching population actually enjoys caches in feces and debris strewn lots, caches next to homeless encampments, caches in heroin "shooting galleries" and caches next to garbage dumpsters.

[+mtn-man]

I agree that some/many caches are not as much fun as others. My problem stems from the fact that there is no way administer this since "lame" is completely subjective.

 

There is a way to reduce the lame cache factor.

 

Step 1. We keep a easy to read and digest listing of cache numbers by type for a given area (say county by county).

 

Step 2. We add an instruction in the "how to place a cache" page to refer to this chart for your area.

 

Step3. We state that if the type of cache you want to place is already represented, be prepared to defend it to the approver.

 

Step 4. We encourage people to place new types of caches that are underrepresented in their area (thus making even a lamppost micro cool, by virtue of it being rare in that area.)

 

Step 5. On the cache registration page, we add a box that accepts the cache owner's answer to a question: What makes your cache special? The approvers are free to use their learned judgement about how they want to use this answer.

 

I would suggest that it be weighed heavily in the approval process. That cache types that are unique in the area, or novel to the game be approved rapidly, that caches that represent one of twenty of the same old thing are not approved at all.

 

This requires reallly simple changes to the website for cache listing, and requires only a modest amount of programming to list the caches by type rather than with the conventional listing page. In other words, preventing lame caches is doable.

No thank you.

 

I get hammered enough as it is over virtual cache guidelines. In another topic just over an hour ago I was called a "purists who lack(s) the vision of a positive and poignant place, because they are blinded by their fears of land managers" because I have to follow the guidelines for virtual caches. I don't want subjective guidelines on traditional caches nor do I want to have to chart cache types for all the metro area. Man, you have got to be kidding. There are so many ways that would not work. I can make a list big enough to fit into a 50 cal. ammo box on this one.

 

You want to stop "lame" caches? Don't post a smiley if you visit one. Post a note (not a smiley, not a SBA) and say the cache was not one that you felt *you* deserved a smiley for because it was not up to *your personal standards*. At least you have been able to make your point and others can seek the cache or avoid it if they want to.

 

The last thing we need are subjective guidelines for traditional caches. No thanks.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

When I started caching it was constantly stated that placing caches is all about location, location, location. Is it still like this?, or is the unspoken truth that it is becoming all about numbers, numbers, numbers?

 

Since I started caching in 8/03 it's been about the fun, not necesarily the location, and since they killed sig lines I see no numbers posted here - you have to go look for them, and if they don't mean anything, why would you look?

 

I am sort of ambivalant about numbers. My first few hundred I logged all I found, then started logging only the interesting ones, then got into cacheleague competition where it was all about the numbers. After cacheleague I decided competition wasn't fun for me, and went back to logging just those where the cache was exceptional or something interesting happened along the way.

 

I did that till my local Geocaching Association planned a celebration for those with over 1000 caches - I had logged 870 or something - and suddenly I felt the need to make 1000 by the event...I did, literally the day before! I have no idea why that was important to me.

 

Since then I have logged some and not others. I have been at 1093 for weeks.

 

Sometimes I think I ought to go get and log 7 so I will have 1100, I can get 7 any day I want, but just don't care that much - I cached with maybe 10 people this week at maybe 40 caches and not a one was new to me, I just enjoyed watching (and laughing at!) them.

 

So, numbers are nice, I suppose, sort of a marker, a way to keep track and perhaps I occasionaly use them in the forums to try to establish a little credibility...not to tell folks how to play but to let folks know I am not a complete newbie.

 

Some of the best cachers I know have small numbers - ClayJar, Jeff35080, many others, have just a few hundred finds but are the back-bone of geocaching, contributing far more to the game than I.

 

Ed

[+Team Cotati]

Okay,

 

First off, I realize something important here- CR and Sissy SELL microtubes, so I clearly believe that CR is not in any way arguing AGAINST micros. He is also not arguing against math-based puzzle caches. Drat19 is not arguing against easy caches. No one here is arguing against anything but "LAME" caches.

 

I think it is way too simplistic to assume that if someone, like Trinity's Crew, is arguing FOR lame caches because he brings up the very valid point that lame is subjective. Who will determine what is lame? I don't want to deterine that. I know what I think is lame, but if I were allowed to impose my standard, then NO ONE would be happy. You see, the people that own caches I would decline would be ticked, and people that have a higher "standard" than me would be ticked about some caches that I did approve.

 

Bigmedred's idea would work except it would inject more regulation into Geocaching than many are going to accept. remember the introduction of approvers and moderators? Who is going to volunteer to administer all this?

 

Now, if you choose to read this as supporting lame caches, then you are wrong. I have strong feelings about what has been posted here partly because I don't think anyone in The Carolinas, Mississippi, Missouri, or Oregon can tell us in Indiana what is lame, and us here in Indiana need to keep our ideas of lame local to our state as well.

You surely can't mean to imply that the fine folk of the great state of Indiana are so different that they would enjoy these: "There are many types of caches that are widely considered to be unappealing. You can't tell me that anything but very small segment of the geocaching population actually enjoys caches in feces and debris strewn lots, caches next to homeless encampments, caches in heroin "shooting galleries" and caches next to garbage dumpsters." You don't mean to imply that, do you?

[+Salvelinus]

When I started caching it was constantly stated that placing caches is all about location, location, location. Is it still like this?, or is the unspoken truth that it is becoming all about numbers, numbers, numbers?

 

Since I started caching in 8/03 it's been about the fun, not necesarily the location, and since they killed sig lines I see no numbers posted here - you have to go look for them, and if they don't mean anything, why would you look?

 

I don't look. But everytime I read cache logs I see other cachers numbers whether I want to or not. I assume others can as well. I also see forum threads linking worldwide rankings and "atta boys" for cachers reaching certain find numbers.

 

Maybe numbers don't mean much to you or I, but they definately mean something to many. Usually those that are placing caches that many non-numbers cachers would consider "lame".

 

Is it possible to consider that there may be a correlation there?

 

Salvelinus

[Trinity's Crew]

Man, you seem to lump many types of caches into the "lame" category. (Unless I misunderstood your post) I guess that's my problem. Everyones idea of lame is different.

 

There are many types of caches that are widely considered to be unappealing. You can't tell me that anything but very small segment of the geocaching population actually enjoys caches in feces and debris strewn lots, caches next to homeless encampments, caches in heroin "shooting galleries" and caches next to garbage dumpsters.

How many actually fall into this category? What percentage? 1 % 1/10 of 1%? I've seen this argument but I haven't encountered any caches like this. (I'm sure you can post a few, but there are many many thousands of caches hidden out there, right?

More often than not, I see words like "lamp post" or "parking lot" and "uninspiring" or "lazy" associated with these threads. The feces and the addicts, not so much. (Maybe WalMart addicts. )

 

Anyway, there are ways to deal with these types of caches by logging them honestly. Found cache in feces in a lot filled with debris. (Although I think I would have to pass on finding that one. ) Maybe just a note or DNF stating the same thing.

Enough of these logs along with some "Should be archived" logs would probably eliminate the problem.

[+Renegade Knight]

My solution to the "lameness" is to eliminate the prominence of numbers on this website. Keep your numbers viewable to you on your own account page, but I personally find little need to see anyone else's. If you need a number to reference a cachers experience then stop adding them up after someone reaches 100, 200 or some reasonable milestone. Use 100+ instead. What's the difference between a cacher that has found 200 or 2000 caches...other than one may have more free time than another? I'm convinced that the numbers fixation breeds the lameness. Reduce the focus on numbers and I believe quality caches would return.

 

When I started caching it was constantly stated that placing caches is all about location, location, location. Is it still like this?, or is the unspoken truth that it is becoming all about numbers, numbers, numbers?

 

Salvelinus

That came out of left field.

 

I've got a lot of finds. I find them like everyone else. One cache at a time. I've hidden a lot of caches. Not because it was about the numbers. It was because I enjoyed hiding them. Once you hide one if you enjoy it, you think about the next one. For me it's about creative ideas. Some will work, some will create nasty threads in the forums about your sucky idea for a cache that becomes the poster child for Lame Caches. I'm willing to see what works and what doesn't in spite of that. I'm willing to do technical hides, puzzle hides, lame hides (just for spite), difficutl to get to caches, and any other variation I can think of. The only thing I answer to is my own cache muse.

 

If you take away numbers, I'll still seek my next cache, I'll still place them and I will do both at my own pace. It changes nothing except some people who dwell on them too much may (and I won't hold my breath) quit accusing people of numbers like it's some evil demon.

[+Team Cotati]

Man, you seem to lump many types of caches into the "lame" category. (Unless I misunderstood your post) I guess that's my problem. Everyones idea of lame is different.

 

There are many types of caches that are widely considered to be unappealing. You can't tell me that anything but very small segment of the geocaching population actually enjoys caches in feces and debris strewn lots, caches next to homeless encampments, caches in heroin "shooting galleries" and caches next to garbage dumpsters.

How many actually fall into this category? What percentage? 1 % 1/10 of 1%? I've seen this argument but I haven't encountered any caches like this. (I'm sure you can post a few, but there are many many thousands of caches hidden out there, right?

More often than not, I see words like "lamp post" or "parking lot" and "uninspiring" or "lazy" associated with these threads. The feces and the addicts, not so much. (Maybe WalMart addicts. )

 

Anyway, there are ways to deal with these types of caches by logging them honestly. Found cache in feces in a lot filled with debris. (Although I think I would have to pass on finding that one. ) Maybe just a note or DNF stating the same thing.

Enough of these logs along with some "Should be archived" logs would probably eliminate the problem.

I wish that I knew. I do know that for sure those examples pop up in here continually. There must be many more than you or I realize. Who knows? Brian perhaps?

Edited March 1, 2005 by Team cotati697

[+Team Cotati]

My solution to the "lameness" is to eliminate the prominence of numbers on this website.  Keep your numbers viewable to you on your own account page, but I personally find little need to see anyone else's.  If you need a number to reference a cachers experience then stop adding them up after someone reaches 100, 200 or some reasonable milestone.  Use 100+ instead.  What's the difference between a cacher that has found 200 or 2000 caches...other than one may have more free time than another?  I'm convinced that the numbers fixation breeds the lameness.  Reduce the focus on numbers and I believe quality caches would return.

 

When I started caching it was constantly stated that placing caches is all about location, location, location.  Is it still like this?, or is the unspoken truth that it is becoming all about numbers, numbers, numbers?

 

Salvelinus

That came out of left field.

 

I've got a lot of finds. I find them like everyone else. One cache at a time. I've hidden a lot of caches. Not because it was about the numbers. It was because I enjoyed hiding them. Once you hide one if you enjoy it, you think about the next one. For me it's about creative ideas. Some will work, some will create nasty threads in the forums about your sucky idea for a cache that becomes the poster child for Lame Caches. I'm willing to see what works and what doesn't in spite of that. I'm willing to do technical hides, puzzle hides, lame hides (just for spite), difficutl to get to caches, and any other variation I can think of. The only thing I answer to is my own cache muse.

 

If you take away numbers, I'll still seek my next cache, I'll still place them and I will do both at my own pace. It changes nothing except some people who dwell on them too much may (and I won't hold my breath) quit accusing people of numbers like it's some evil demon.

"Some will work, some will create nasty threads in the forums about your sucky idea for a cache that becomes the poster child for Lame Caches."

 

I know one thing for sure, you can avoid those worrisome nasty threads in the forums by not posting your ideas for caches. Just create them and seek approval. Once they are approved the creators of those nasty threads can just learn to live with them. I wouldn't worry too much about such criticisims.

 

It occurs to me that by posting your ideas for a cache in these forums you are almost inviting criticisims as if you need some form of group acceptance and approval.

 

I wonder, are there many in these forums who would stalk you and your caches for such cheap thrills? I hope not.

Edited March 1, 2005 by Team cotati697

[+Mastifflover]

Maybe numbers don't mean much to you or I, but they definately mean something to many.  Usually those that are placing caches that many non-numbers cachers would consider "lame".

 

Is it possible to consider that there may be a correlation there?

 

Salvelinus

No I believe that is just an unfair generalization. I like the numbers and will openly say that it helps motivate me to get out and cache. Does it make me a better cacher than somebody with only a couple of hundred finds, no. Conversely does it make me more likely to hide a so called lame cache, no. Salvelinus I find it hard to believe that our caching environments are so different considering our locations. If you want a day of finding caches with nice views and long hikes it's there for the taking. If you want a day of knocking off a couple of dozen finds then that's there too. I like them both and I like the fact that I can make that choice depending on what caching mood I'm in for the day.

[+BigWhiteTruck]

At least part of the hostility toward lame micros, junk caches, etcetera, is the inability to hide a great cache in it's proximity once it is hidden. For example, if someone tags a great spot with a junk cache, any more-motivated cacher is prevented from placing a good one nearby.

This has plagued me many times.

[CoyoteRed]

You want to stop "lame" caches? Don't post a smiley if you visit one. Post a note (not a smiley, not a SBA) and say the cache was not one that you felt *you* deserved a smiley for because it was not up to *your personal standards*. At least you have been able to make your point and others can seek the cache or avoid it if they want to.

This doesn't work because your note would just get deleted. I know from personal experience.

[Trinity's Crew]

At least part of the hostility toward lame micros, junk caches, etcetera, is the inability to hide a great cache in it's proximity once it is hidden. For example, if someone tags a great spot with a junk cache, any more-motivated cacher is prevented from placing a good one nearby.

This has plagued me many times.

I thought micros in a great spot were okay. I thought that the idea was to take you somewhere nice.

 

I realize that your view on "junk caches" and "lame micros" may be different than others who have posted. That's okay, but it illustrates my point that the whole issue is too subjective for anyone to be able to claim "I know what a lame cache is, and you will agree with my definition of lame because I know best."

[+Team Tecmage]

Okay,

 

First off, I realize something important here- CR and Sissy SELL microtubes, so I clearly believe that CR is not in any way arguing AGAINST micros.  He is also not arguing against math-based puzzle caches.  Drat19 is not arguing against easy caches.  No one here is arguing against anything but "LAME" caches.

 

I think it is way too simplistic to assume that if someone, like Trinity's Crew, is arguing FOR lame caches because he brings up the very valid point that lame is subjective.  Who will determine what is lame?  I don't want to deterine that.  I know what I think is lame, but if I were allowed to impose my standard, then NO ONE would be happy.  You see, the people that own caches I would decline would be ticked, and people that have a higher "standard" than me would be ticked about some caches that I did approve. 

 

Bigmedred's idea would work except it would inject more regulation into Geocaching than many are going to accept.  remember the introduction of approvers and moderators?  Who is going to volunteer to administer all this?

 

Now, if you choose to read this as supporting lame caches, then you are wrong.  I have strong feelings about what has been posted here partly because I don't think anyone in The Carolinas, Mississippi, Missouri, or Oregon can tell us in Indiana what is lame, and us here in Indiana need to keep our ideas of lame local to our state as well.

You surely can't mean to imply that the fine folk of the great state of Indiana are so different that they would enjoy these: "There are many types of caches that are widely considered to be unappealing. You can't tell me that anything but very small segment of the geocaching population actually enjoys caches in feces and debris strewn lots, caches next to homeless encampments, caches in heroin "shooting galleries" and caches next to garbage dumpsters." You don't mean to imply that, do you?

Hopefully you just forgot the or the , implying that you are joking. Again, I am not arguing for lame caches, NOR am I arguing for dangerous or inappropriate locations. If you are looking to troll, do it elsewhere.

[+Team Cotati]

Okay,

 

First off, I realize something important here- CR and Sissy SELL microtubes, so I clearly believe that CR is not in any way arguing AGAINST micros.  He is also not arguing against math-based puzzle caches.  Drat19 is not arguing against easy caches.  No one here is arguing against anything but "LAME" caches.

 

I think it is way too simplistic to assume that if someone, like Trinity's Crew, is arguing FOR lame caches because he brings up the very valid point that lame is subjective.  Who will determine what is lame?  I don't want to deterine that.  I know what I think is lame, but if I were allowed to impose my standard, then NO ONE would be happy.  You see, the people that own caches I would decline would be ticked, and people that have a higher "standard" than me would be ticked about some caches that I did approve. 

 

Bigmedred's idea would work except it would inject more regulation into Geocaching than many are going to accept.  remember the introduction of approvers and moderators?  Who is going to volunteer to administer all this?

 

Now, if you choose to read this as supporting lame caches, then you are wrong.  I have strong feelings about what has been posted here partly because I don't think anyone in The Carolinas, Mississippi, Missouri, or Oregon can tell us in Indiana what is lame, and us here in Indiana need to keep our ideas of lame local to our state as well.

You surely can't mean to imply that the fine folk of the great state of Indiana are so different that they would enjoy these: "There are many types of caches that are widely considered to be unappealing. You can't tell me that anything but very small segment of the geocaching population actually enjoys caches in feces and debris strewn lots, caches next to homeless encampments, caches in heroin "shooting galleries" and caches next to garbage dumpsters." You don't mean to imply that, do you?

Hopefully you just forgot the or the , implying that you are joking. Again, I am not arguing for lame caches, NOR am I arguing for dangerous or inappropriate locations. If you are looking to troll, do it elsewhere.

If you're referring to me, no I didn't forget a thing.

[+flask]

 

But, let's go check things out. What kind of trophy pix do you take? Ooh, interesting. A whole bunch of "urban decay" pix to say the least. Uh, huh. What? Did I miss your favorite parking lot somewhere, I didn't see it.

 

Yeah. Right.

if, sir (and i use the term with every bit as much respect as you use it yourself), you had taken the trouble to actually LOOK at my gallery you would notice that no fewer than SEVENTY-SIX of the photographs in my first twenty pages are either taken IN parking lots or FROM parking lots.

 

i have some ot home that are OF the parking lots, but as they are of no interest to anyone but myself i don't bother to post most of them online.

 

either you are making argument without doing your homework or you're just not very clever.

 

so yes, i think my argument about my affinity for parking lots stands.

[+bigredmed]

At least part of the hostility toward lame micros, junk caches, etcetera, is the inability to hide a great cache in it's proximity once it is hidden.  For example, if someone tags a great spot with a junk cache, any more-motivated cacher is prevented from placing a good one nearby.

This has plagued me many times.

I thought micros in a great spot were okay. I thought that the idea was to take you somewhere nice.

 

I realize that your view on "junk caches" and "lame micros" may be different than others who have posted. That's okay, but it illustrates my point that the whole issue is too subjective for anyone to be able to claim "I know what a lame cache is, and you will agree with my definition of lame because I know best."

No you miss his point.

 

If you have a park with a great view, the place to put the cache is somewhere close to the part of park where the view is best. If the park is a city block in size, and someone has put a lamppost micro in the parking lot of a store next door, that great spot is off limits.

 

With the 0.1 mile rule and the "once its there, its the owner's call on removing it" tradition (which is a good one and I am not arguing it), we have the real possibility of blinking out good locations for crappy caches.

[+Team Tecmage]

Okay,

 

First off, I realize something important here- CR and Sissy SELL microtubes, so I clearly believe that CR is not in any way arguing AGAINST micros.  He is also not arguing against math-based puzzle caches.  Drat19 is not arguing against easy caches.  No one here is arguing against anything but "LAME" caches.

 

I think it is way too simplistic to assume that if someone, like Trinity's Crew, is arguing FOR lame caches because he brings up the very valid point that lame is subjective.  Who will determine what is lame?  I don't want to deterine that.  I know what I think is lame, but if I were allowed to impose my standard, then NO ONE would be happy.  You see, the people that own caches I would decline would be ticked, and people that have a higher "standard" than me would be ticked about some caches that I did approve. 

 

Bigmedred's idea would work except it would inject more regulation into Geocaching than many are going to accept.  remember the introduction of approvers and moderators?  Who is going to volunteer to administer all this?

 

Now, if you choose to read this as supporting lame caches, then you are wrong.  I have strong feelings about what has been posted here partly because I don't think anyone in The Carolinas, Mississippi, Missouri, or Oregon can tell us in Indiana what is lame, and us here in Indiana need to keep our ideas of lame local to our state as well.

You surely can't mean to imply that the fine folk of the great state of Indiana are so different that they would enjoy these: "There are many types of caches that are widely considered to be unappealing. You can't tell me that anything but very small segment of the geocaching population actually enjoys caches in feces and debris strewn lots, caches next to homeless encampments, caches in heroin "shooting galleries" and caches next to garbage dumpsters." You don't mean to imply that, do you?

Hopefully you just forgot the or the , implying that you are joking. Again, I am not arguing for lame caches, NOR am I arguing for dangerous or inappropriate locations. If you are looking to troll, do it elsewhere.

If you're referring to me, no I didn't forget a thing.

Then you must have misread my post. No where did I argue for lame caches or inappropriate locations. Please reread my post, because I clearly stated my position. "Lame" is subjective. Who is going to be the arbitor of what is and isn't lame? I do not want that job, and Geocaching.com does not need to have that position. One of the major complaints in years past has been the number of rules that exist here- some people have left here for that very reason. As mtn-man stated, he does not want to try to enforce some sort of lameness rule either.

 

My point about Indiana is that a cache site is something that needs to be addressed locally.

 

Team Cotati697, I try to be reasonable here (except in the OT Forum), and I am not interested in maintaining a debate that a) does not focus on the topic, is a distortion of either your position or mine, or c) some combination of the two. So, if I offended you, I apologize.

 

Back to the topic at hand, what viable options exist for improving caches that we consider "lame"?

[+5¢]

At least part of the hostility toward lame micros, junk caches, etcetera, is the inability to hide a great cache in it's proximity once it is hidden.  For example, if someone tags a great spot with a junk cache, any more-motivated cacher is prevented from placing a good one nearby.

This has plagued me many times.

I thought micros in a great spot were okay. I thought that the idea was to take you somewhere nice.

 

I realize that your view on "junk caches" and "lame micros" may be different than others who have posted. That's okay, but it illustrates my point that the whole issue is too subjective for anyone to be able to claim "I know what a lame cache is, and you will agree with my definition of lame because I know best."

No you miss his point.

 

If you have a park with a great view, the place to put the cache is somewhere close to the part of park where the view is best. If the park is a city block in size, and someone has put a lamppost micro in the parking lot of a store next door, that great spot is off limits.

 

With the 0.1 mile rule and the "once its there, its the owner's call on removing it" tradition (which is a good one and I am not arguing it), we have the real possibility of blinking out good locations for crappy caches.

Can't speak for your area, but mine is about out of what everyone calls great locations. I haven't seen anyone place a cache across from a park in a lampost while the park was actually available to put a cache. This then brings up the next question when all the good spots are gone and most of the cachers have found 75% of the caches in their respective area what happens? Do those cachers quit caching or do they reinvent the wheel?

 

I believe a lot of the lame caches get placed when a large percentage of cachers have found most of the caches in an area and have to drive 50 miles or so to get some caches. Enter in the newbies who have 20 finds and want to place their first cache. Where do they hide one? The parks, cemeteries, and historical places in their area are taken. Gee this lamppost looks good.

 

Just an opinion here but if we were to let go of some of our older caches then new caches ( quality caches) could be placed and half of this arguement wouldn't be taking place. Plus veteran finders would also have more caches to find.

 

On a side note, eventually if no one wants to give up there space and lame caches are banned, there will be more people in the forums with nothing to do but argue and most people will quit caching for lack of things to find.

[CoyoteRed]

 

But, let's go check things out.  What kind of trophy pix do you take?  Ooh, interesting.  A whole bunch of "urban decay" pix to say the least.  Uh, huh.  What?  Did I miss your favorite parking lot somewhere, I didn't see it.

 

Yeah.  Right.

if, sir (and i use the term with every bit as much respect as you use it yourself), you had taken the trouble to actually LOOK at my gallery you would notice that no fewer than SEVENTY-SIX of the photographs in my first twenty pages are either taken IN parking lots or FROM parking lots.

 

i have some ot home that are OF the parking lots, but as they are of no interest to anyone but myself i don't bother to post most of them online.

 

either you are making argument without doing your homework or you're just not very clever.

 

so yes, i think my argument about my affinity for parking lots stands.

Well, yes, I did do my home work and your 76 pix have no bearing what so ever on what I said. First, I'll just have to take your word on some of the pix being taken from a parking lot. Others, when the subject just happened to be in a parking lot has no bearing on your argument. I can't even say "nice try" on that one.

 

Granted, there were a few of tunnels and abandoned buildings, stuff I would think a fan of entropy would be interested in.

 

But here's your argument, you say that placing parking lot caches are so interesting that you your self won't even post pictures of some of your favorite spots because they of no interest to anyone but you. So, because parking lots are interesting to you, they are interesting enough for anyone else. But you just said your pix of parking lots of "no interest to anyone but myself." How do you reconcile those statements?

 

No, sir, I continue to think your arguments hold no water.

[CoyoteRed]

This then brings up the next question when all the good spots are gone and most of the cachers have found 75% of the caches in their respective area what happens?

Folks were complaining that all of the "good spots" were taken early in the game. They've been proven wrong time and again. If you can't find a good spot then you just ain't looking.

 

I mean, dadgum, you can place a cache every 528'!

 

We had a cacher come down from PA or some place and one comment he made is that the same park here which might have 2 or 3 caches would have 8 or 10 up there.

 

A park isn't "taken" with one cache. You can find other spots in the same park. That's not to mention greenspaces that most cacher don't know about. All you need to do is get out and explore.

[+5¢]

You win CR. Do what you want, I will do the same. Luckily I have the will power to not fall victim to you ideology.

 

On a side not Walmart caches are great. Ever go to a town you have never been before and stay the night? I did once and I forgot my toothbrush. I wish there had been a walmart cache in that town so I didn't have to drive around in circles trying to find one. I could have pulled it right up and gotten a toothbrush and a cache. Then I could have took a picture and sent it to Renegade for his collection of urban decay.

[Hucklebuck]

I could have pulled it right up and gotten a toothbrush and a cache. Then I could have took a picture and sent it to Renegade for his collection of urban decay.

But not urban tooth decay.

Edited March 2, 2005 by Hucklebuck

[+flask]

i have some ot home that are OF the parking lots, but as they are of no interest to anyone but myself i don't bother to post most of them online.

 

hmmm... pix of the actual lampposts? spoilers.

pix of the other cars? sure, if you want 'em.

pix of the pavement itself? you bet. just because few people are interested in the actual pavement doesn't mean nobody is interested in the cache.

 

it don't pay to be the arbiter of other people's opinions.

 

No, sir, I continue to think your arguments hold no water.

 

and that's "ma'am", reasearch boy.

[+hikemeister]

I noticed in my area....all the caches are 1/1. this is boring.

I've only done 2, and the two that I've done are boring as hell.

I'm taking it upon myself to add some extreme caches and some incredibly rediculous multi caches that could end up taking a couple days.

If you're in the Hamilton Ont Canada area...check my caches out.

They'll be up and running int he near future.

Han_and_Leia

 

...i think there should be a stop put to all these simple caches where people rack up a score. lets make something worth seeing!

no more off the trail to the right in a bush!

I'm not sure how you can have such a feel for the caches in your area with only two finds. A quick search of caches closest to one of your finds shows caches rated 3/4, 4/4, 3/2, 2/2.5, 2.5/2, 2/2, 2/3, 4/1, 4.5/2, 3.5/2.5, 2/3, 2/3, 3/2 and 5/1.5 within 5 miles. Not to shabby for a city area.

Yikes Brian -- I think you scared them away from the thread!

 

Hey, can you run a background check on my too? That was cool.

 

[CoyoteRed]

Ever go to a town you have never been before and stay the night?

Sure, plenty of times.

 

If I did ever need anything from Wal-mart I know how to use a phonebook, ask the clerk, and use my mapping software. Do you need a cache next to a bathroom is case you gotta go, too?

[CoyoteRed]

just because few people are interested in the actual pavement doesn't mean nobody is interested in the cache.

Come on, follow the argument. I didn't say no one would be interested in the cache as it's quite obvious numbers hounds don't care what they hunt as long as most of them are quick and easy. I was talking about the location being interesting.