Skirt Lifters - Luv'em or Hate'em

[+TrailGators]

I had it all along. You just gave me what I needed. We need a recommendation from someone that has tested and used an effective method to actually and effectively avoid these caches.

Good luck. If you discover a watertight method of avoiding caches YOU are guaranteed to dislike while not missing out on a single cache YOU are likely to enjoy, let me know.

I never said it had to be 100%. I'm not sure why you guys keep giving advice when you don't practice what you preach.... Edited April 15, 2007 by TrailGators

[Clan Riffster]

I kinda like the solution that I use myself. It's called "So what if it's a lame cache?

This is similar to sbell's earlier statement in a different thread. To paraphrase;

"OK, If it does stink, it's only a PNG. It'll only stink for a few seconds, tops."

(I know that's not an exact translation)

That was one of the best examples for why those who dislike LPC's should tolerate them.

 

My approach to avoid lameness comes in three stages:

1. Eliminate micros from my PQ's altogether
   
2. Learn from experience who hides lame caches and delete them from GSAK
   
3. After stumbling upon a stinker that slipped through, go find a good cache
   

This is an imperfect solution at best, but it works at a local level. Whenever I go out of town, this system fails at stage 2, because I have no way of knowing who creates wonderful caches and who plops film canisters into Burger King shrubbery. While I respect your belief that a carpy cache is inherently better than no cache, I don't share that belief. Finding a carpy cache brings me very little pleasure, which is why I go to such extravagant means to avoid them. Life is too short to be miserable, and finding one carpy cache after another would only serve to make me miserable. If I find myself stuck somewhere without transportation, and the only caches near me are carpy, I'll leave my Garmin in my room and just take a walk. That, at least, brings me pleasure anytime.

 

The one thing that my system doesn't address, is my belief that lame caches, by their very existence, are detrimental to this game we all love to play. My solution to that particular issue is to promote creativity, both through my own hides, and by praising those who also support creativity, and by vocalizing my feelings for caches which lack creativity.

 

If you're arguing that skirt lifter caches are less than worthy based on traffic count numbers, I'm afraid the facts are not on your side.

Nope. Not even close. The reason they are less worthy has nothing to do with how many folks find them.

 

LPC hides are being hidden, found, logged and enjoyed tolerated by the thousands every day.

I fixed it for you. Consider it Pro Bono Publico. No need to send cash.

[+KBI]

What is your goal in this discussion?

To defend my statements.

 

Every time I dare to suggest that a cache has a right to exist regardless of it's creativity level, I get attacked. Every time I dare to suggest that a cache hider should be allowed to hide their own cache any way they please (within the guidelines), I get attacked. Every time I dare to suggest that the complainers should consider learning some way to peacefully co-exist with these hides, as I have, I get attacked. Every time I dare to suggest that the complainers simply steer clear of the hides they don't like, I get bombarded with lame excuses why it's so

hard

to figure out which ones to avoid. Every time I dare to suggest that "lame" is really only in the eye of the GPS holder, people

really

freak out.

That's nice.

 

However, the "right to exist" is different than published for the enjoyment of others.

You're back to claiming that people are not enjoyng those skirt lifter hides?

 

As soon as any cache is published, it is presented as an effort of one person to entertain another in one form or another. It doesn't simply exist for existence sake. If it did, then it wouldn't need to be published.

Again, LPCs are popular. Those listings are worth publishing for the sake of the people who like finding them.

 

The idea of holding others to a certain level of creativity doesn't impact the existence of any particular cache, only the presentation of a cache for the enjoyment of others.

How exactly do you propose to "hold others to a certain level of creativity?" And whose standard of creativity would you hold them to?

 

It's kind of like the hobby of painting (art, not house). I can certainly paint to my heart's content, but as soon as I present my work at a gallery I had better be at a certain level of skill or my viewers will complain.

If you were selling something then you would have a point. If it's just a display gallery, OTOH, then what do you care how many people like your work? If YOU like your work, and if even a few of the viewers get something out of it, isn't that enough? Cache hiders aren't selling anything. They put out their cache for free, and you choose freely whether to enjoy it ... for free.

 

Caches have been hidden that have never been found. Were they a total waste of time?

 

Now, I'm sure someone might suggest that my pathetic attempts should be considered just as valid as Renior, but, come on, really?

Yes, really. In our hobby, all hides that comply with the guidelines get published, no matter how unentertaining-to-CoyoteRed they may be. There is no Creativity Czar to approve hides based on cleverness or coolness, and I hope there never will be.

 

That nice that you defend those would choose to place a cache any way they see fit. On the other hand, what about those who ask others to consider the enjoyment of others when designing a cache placement?

It's fine to ask the cache hider to tailor his entire hide concept and design to your taste. If, however, he politely declines your request and puts out ten more LPCs for the entertainment of those who like LPCs, what are you going to do then? THAT'S the essence of this discussion.

 

Shouldn't the enjoyment of those seeking the cache count for something--much like those viewing art in a gallery?

If there is an art gallery, yet down at the street corner there's a guy selling prints of Dogs Playing Poker and another proudly selling watercolors created by his toddler ... you're always welcome to skip the street corner display and stay in the gallery if you prefer, CR. Would you prefer to go to the street corner anyway and berate those other guys for their poor taste in art? If you do, you might have to speak up to be heard over the clamor of their brisk business.

 

When I hide caches I demand quite a bit from my own hides. I hold myself to a high standard. On the other hand, why should I care if a few other hiders out there don't meet my standards? How do I know they're not meeting their own particularly specific standards? How do I know they're not hiding caches based on exactly what they think people will enjoy? How do I know they don't enjoy finding LPC caches themselves? Who are we to tell them that they're doing it "wrong?"

 

Isn't there room for all types of caching in this hobby? Isn't there room for a few lowbrow perty-pik-cher stores on the same street as the elite art galleries?

[+TrailGators]

My approach to avoid lameness comes in three stages:

1. Eliminate micros from my PQ's altogether
   
2. Learn from experience who hides lame caches and delete them from GSAK
   
3. After stumbling upon a stinker that slipped through, go find a good cache
   

This is an imperfect solution at best, but it works at a local level. Whenever I go out of town, this system fails at stage 2, because I have no way of knowing who creates wonderful caches and who plops film canisters into Burger King shrubbery. While I respect your belief that a carpy cache is inherently better than no cache, I don't share that belief. Finding a carpy cache brings me very little pleasure, which is why I go to such extravagant means to avoid them. Life is too short to be miserable, and finding one carpy cache after another would only serve to make me miserable. If I find myself stuck somewhere without transportation, and the only caches near me are carpy, I'll leave my Garmin in my room and just take a walk. That, at least, brings me pleasure anytime.

 

The one thing that my system doesn't address, is my belief that lame caches, by their very existence, are detrimental to this game we all love to play. My solution to that particular issue is to promote creativity, both through my own hides, and by praising those who also support creativity, and by vocalizing my feelings for caches which lack creativity.

I couldn't agree more CR. I especially agree/follow the items that I put in bold. The Burger King comment was funny but very true... Edited April 15, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

I meant that people are going to hide caches that fail to adequately or satisfactorily entertain CoyoteRed, and there's nothing CoyoteRed can do about it. I meant that I really wish you could accept that fact. I meant that no matter what clever methods, electronic or otherwise, you manage to invent to try to protect yourself from the unpleasant discomfort of being disappointed by a geocache, it is still going to happen. I meant that you will, at some point, have to come to terms with that truth.

Thank you for the explanation.

 

I think you have at least one assumption wrong. I don't need to satisfied with every cache I come across. I realize not everyone is going to have the skills to create a good cache.

Stop right there: There's the problem. When you say "not everyone is going to have the skills to create a good cache," you imply a premise: You imply that if the cache doesn't satisfy you -- if it doesn't satisfy CoyoteRed -- then it is therefore, by definition, not "good." Don't you see fallacy with that logic?

 

What I have a problem with is experienced cachers not even bothering to consider entertaining others beyond the excuse to increase either the hider's numbers or the finder's.

Why should that matter? Why should they share your agenda? Why begrudge them their fun?

 

There's really no excuse for such pathetic attempts by these cachers. They are capable of so much more, yet it seems as though they think we're not worth it.

Yet ... the hiders and finders seem to be enjoying themselves. That doesn't sound pathetic to me. The world of caching doesn't exist only to entertain CoyoteRed. Once again, the problem isn't with the actual caches, it's elsewhere ...

[+KBI]

I had it all along. You just gave me what I needed. We need a recommendation from someone that has tested and used an effective method to actually and effectively avoid these caches.

Good luck. If you discover a watertight method of avoiding caches YOU are guaranteed to dislike while not missing out on a single cache YOU are likely to enjoy, let me know.

I never said it had to be 100%. I'm not sure why you guys keep giving advice when you don't practice what you preach....

Us guys? KBI is only one person.

 

What is it that you think I preach but don't practice?

[+TrailGators]

I had it all along. You just gave me what I needed. We need a recommendation from someone that has tested and used an effective method to actually and effectively avoid these caches.

Good luck. If you discover a watertight method of avoiding caches YOU are guaranteed to dislike while not missing out on a single cache YOU are likely to enjoy, let me know.

I never said it had to be 100%. I'm not sure why you guys keep giving advice when you don't practice what you preach....

Us guys? KBI is only one person.

 

What is it that you think I preach but don't practice?

I thought that was obvious. I was referring to everyone that has preached some method that you don't even use yourself. You admitted that you don't avoid any cache. I tend to believe people that speak from experience and not believe the converse.

[+KBI]

While I respect your belief that a carpy cache is inherently better than no cache, I don't share that belief. Finding a carpy cache brings me very little pleasure, which is why I go to such extravagant means to avoid them.

Yet you continue Geocaching, which tells me that the bennies outweigh whatever cost to your psyche those caches cause. Sounds like you've found some acceptable way to "tolerate" them. That's good.

 

If I find myself stuck somewhere without transportation, and the only caches near me are carpy, I'll leave my Garmin in my room and just take a walk. That, at least, brings me pleasure anytime.

Fair enough. To each his own.

 

The one thing that my system doesn't address, is my belief that lame caches, by their very existence, are detrimental to this game we all love to play.

I keep hearing this, yet I remain unconvinced.

 

My solution to that particular issue is to promote creativity, both through my own hides, and by praising those who also support creativity ...

I'm with you there!

 

... and by vocalizing my feelings for caches which lack creativity.

Your call, but I can't imagine any circumstance where I'd be willing to cross that line and abandon politeness for boorishness. I don't see that being very effective, anyway.

 

If you're arguing that skirt lifter caches are less than worthy based on traffic count numbers, I'm afraid the facts are not on your side.

Nope. Not even close. The reason they are less worthy has nothing to do with how many folks find them.

That's not likely to be the opinion of the hiders of the skirt lifters. They might differ with you on that point

 

Please don't try to tell me that the reason they are less worthy is because YOU don't like them.

 

LPC hides are being hidden, found, logged and enjoyed tolerated by the thousands every day.

I fixed it for you. Consider it Pro Bono Publico. No need to send cash.

Who are you to say that those finders aren't enjoying those caches? No offence intended, but that assumption comes off sounding arrogant and snobbish. Is it that hard to believe that large numbers of other people enjoy things that you don't happen to like?

[+KBI]

I had it all along. You just gave me what I needed. We need a recommendation from someone that has tested and used an effective method to actually and effectively avoid these caches.

Good luck. If you discover a watertight method of avoiding caches YOU are guaranteed to dislike while not missing out on a single cache YOU are likely to enjoy, let me know.

I never said it had to be 100%. I'm not sure why you guys keep giving advice when you don't practice what you preach....

Us guys? KBI is only one person.

 

What is it that you think I preach but don't practice?

I thought that was obvious. I was referring to everyone that has preached some method that you don't even use yourself. You admitted that you don't avoid any cache. I tend to believe people that speak from experience and not believe the converse.

As I've said ad nauseum: Even without PQs I have never had a problem detecting which caches I'm likely to dislike, and I've never had a problem dealing emotionally with the ones that slip through that filter. That method woks for me with 100% satisfaction. THAT'S what I'm recommending you try.

 

I preach it; I practice it.

 

In other words: The lame caches aren't going away. Accept it. Don't fight them. You don't have to like them, but neither do you have to be troubled by their mere existence.

[+TrailGators]

I had it all along. You just gave me what I needed. We need a recommendation from someone that has tested and used an effective method to actually and effectively avoid these caches.

Good luck. If you discover a watertight method of avoiding caches YOU are guaranteed to dislike while not missing out on a single cache YOU are likely to enjoy, let me know.

I never said it had to be 100%. I'm not sure why you guys keep giving advice when you don't practice what you preach....

Us guys? KBI is only one person.

 

What is it that you think I preach but don't practice?

I thought that was obvious. I was referring to everyone that has preached some method that you don't even use yourself. You admitted that you don't avoid any cache. I tend to believe people that speak from experience and not believe the converse.

As I've said ad nauseum: Even without PQs I have never had a problem detecting which caches I'm likely to dislike, and I've never had a problem dealing emotionally with the ones that slip through that filter. That method woks for me with 100% satisfaction. THAT'S what I'm recommending you try.

 

I preach it; I practice it.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You already admitted that you don't avoid any caches in this post:

 

[The bottomline is that your system works "great" for you because you "tolerate" caches and so there are no caches that you avoid.

NOW YOU"VE GOT IT!!!!

 

So how do you practice it?

[Clan Riffster]

No offence intended, but that assumption comes off sounding arrogant and snobbish.

I'm OK with that.

Being an opinionated <expletive excluded> is one of my strong points.

[+tozainamboku]

Has anyone been caching today?

I found three pages of ice cream analogies and each side claiming the other doesn't want to talk. I found 29 caches this weekend - not a single LPC among them. In fact the only parking lot I was in was the one DNF I had. A puzzle cache. I did try to lift the lamp post skirt but the hint indicates it's not there anyhow. Had it been under the lamp post skirt I wouldn't come to the Geocaching.com forums to complain.

[+TrailGators]

Has anyone been caching today?

I found three pages of ice cream analogies and each side claiming the other doesn't want to talk. I found 29 caches this weekend - not a single LPC among them. In fact the only parking lot I was in was the one DNF I had. A puzzle cache. I did try to lift the lamp post skirt but the hint indicates it's not there anyhow. Had it been under the lamp post skirt I wouldn't come to the Geocaching.com forums to complain.

I was caching in the desert all day Saturday. I attended a CITO event and a barbeque and found 17 caches. For some reason I didn't find any LPCs out there....

 

Oh yeah! Mr. T somebody had ice cream, but it melted in the desert heat...

Edited April 16, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

As I've said ad nauseum: Even without PQs I have never had a problem detecting which caches I'm likely to dislike, and I've never had a problem dealing emotionally with the ones that slip through that filter. That method woks for me with 100% satisfaction. THAT'S what I'm recommending you try.

 

I preach it; I practice it.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You already admitted that you don't avoid any caches in this post:

 

[The bottomline is that your system works "great" for you because you "tolerate" caches and so there are no caches that you avoid.

NOW YOU"VE GOT IT!!!!

So how do you practice it?

What I said is that I've never had a problem detecting caches I'm likely to dislike. As I've said before, I'll hunt them anyway if I have the time, or if there's nothing else within walking/driving distance. Any cache is better than no cache. I like all caching. Prioritizing caches isn't at all the same as avoiding caches.

 

That's what I practice, and I enjoy it.

 

There is only a true contradiction between those two KBI posts if "detecting caches I'm likely to dislike" means the same as "avoiding caches."

 

Judges? Can I get a ruling?

[+KBI]

No offence intended, but that assumption comes off sounding arrogant and snobbish.

I'm OK with that.

Being an opinionated <expletive excluded> is one of my strong points.

You can be arrogant and snobbish and <expletive excluded> opinionated to me all you want.

 

'Cause you're my friend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And 'cause I think that's as close to a conceded point as I'm ever going to get out of Clan Riffster.

 

[+TrailGators]

As I've said ad nauseum: Even without PQs I have never had a problem detecting which caches I'm likely to dislike, and I've never had a problem dealing emotionally with the ones that slip through that filter. That method woks for me with 100% satisfaction. THAT'S what I'm recommending you try.

 

I preach it; I practice it.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You already admitted that you don't avoid any caches in this post:

 

[The bottomline is that your system works "great" for you because you "tolerate" caches and so there are no caches that you avoid.

NOW YOU"VE GOT IT!!!!

So how do you practice it?

What I said is that I've never had a problem detecting caches I'm likely to dislike. As I've said before, I'll hunt them anyway if I have the time, or if there's nothing else within walking/driving distance. Any cache is better than no cache. I like all caching. Prioritizing caches isn't at all the same as avoiding caches.

 

That's what I practice, and I enjoy it.

 

There is only a true contradiction between those two KBI posts if "detecting caches I'm likely to dislike" means the same as "avoiding caches."

 

Judges? Can I get a ruling?

You acknowledged that you avoid them. I've asked you point blank which ones you avoid. Now you are trying to squirm out of that by changing your story to "detecting caches that you are likely to dislike." Why would you need to detect anything if you are going to find it anyhow? It also doesn't make sense why you would find anything you dislike. Sorry but I don't get what your story is. Edited April 16, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

Speaking of "contradictions," I just realized: I still haven't heard back from FizzyMagic.

 

... If you disagree with either of those two statements and believe I've been inconsistent, please show me where I've (1) challenged someone's right to their opinion, or where I've (2) berated or belittled someone for wanting to encourage better hides. Producing either inconsistency via a link or quote will prove me wrong, but of course to defend your post you'll need to show both.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Obfuscation – intentional confusion of the issue – is a common logical fallacy, is it not? What's the formal name of that particular logical fallacy, Fizzy? Aren't you the logic expert?

<crickets>

 

<crickets>

 

<crickets>

[+KBI]

As I've said ad nauseum: Even without PQs I have never had a problem detecting which caches I'm likely to dislike, and I've never had a problem dealing emotionally with the ones that slip through that filter. That method woks for me with 100% satisfaction. THAT'S what I'm recommending you try.

 

I preach it; I practice it.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You already admitted that you don't avoid any caches in this post:

 

[The bottomline is that your system works "great" for you because you "tolerate" caches and so there are no caches that you avoid.

NOW YOU"VE GOT IT!!!!

So how do you practice it?

What I said is that I've never had a problem detecting caches I'm likely to dislike. As I've said before, I'll hunt them anyway if I have the time, or if there's nothing else within walking/driving distance. Any cache is better than no cache. I like all caching. Prioritizing caches isn't at all the same as avoiding caches.

 

That's what I practice, and I enjoy it.

 

There is only a true contradiction between those two KBI posts if "detecting caches I'm likely to dislike" means the same as "avoiding caches."

 

Judges? Can I get a ruling?

You acknowledged that you do not avoid them. I've asked you point blank which ones you avoid. Now you are trying to squirm out of that by changing your story to "detecting caches that you are likely to dislike." Why would you need to detect anything if you are going to find it anyhow?

I'll explain it yet again: I prioritize the caches within my target area. I look over the available information and decide which ones sound cool and which ones sound lame (to me) in order to make the most of my available time. If I only have time to find some of them I go after the best-sounding ones first. If I have time to find all of them I find all of them -- and I usually find something to enjoy about all of them.

 

It also doesn't make sense why you would find anything you dislike. Sorry but I don't get what your story is.

Maybe "like less" would have been more accurate than "dislike." Does that help?

 

Why does all this have you so concerned?

 

I enjoy ALL caching. You obviously do not.

 

Vive la Différence!

 

(Aw jeez, did I just speak French? Yuck.)

[+TrailGators]

OK, KBI put your method to the test for the caches in 92027. Tell me which ones are LPCs and tell me which ones are lame. Also tell me how long it took you. But wait I might go to 92127 instead so please do those too. Next week I'm going to 92025 and 92129. So please do those too while you're at it. But if it's hot next week I may go to over to 92008 and 92009. So do those too please.

[Mushtang]

OK, KBI put your method to the test for the caches in 92027. Tell me which ones are LPCs and tell me which ones are lame. Also tell me how long it took you. But wait I might go to 92127 instead so please do those too. Next week I'm going to 92025 and 92129. So please do those too while you're at it. But if it's hot next week I may go to over to 92008 and 92009. So do those too please.

Yes KBI, do this. Use your method to tell us which ones are LPCs and which ones Trailgators would think are lame like you said you could. Clearly your earlier post said you could do such a thing. I don't happen to have a link to it, but that doesn't matter. I'm sure you said you could detect LPCs at some point.

 

I just read back through this thread and don't see where you said you could, so it must have been in another thread. C'mon, what are you waiting for? Afraid to show us how your method of detecting LPCs and lame caches works?

[+KBI]

OK, KBI put your method to the test for the caches in 92027. Tell me which ones are LPCs and tell me which ones are lame. Also tell me how long it took you. But wait I might go to 92127 instead so please do those too. Next week I'm going to 92025 and 92129. So please do those too while you're at it. But if it's hot next week I may go to over to 92008 and 92009. So do those too please.

That's over 80,000 caches to research -- if I did the search thingy correctly. Do you normally burden yourself with that much pre-caching homework?

 

I pretty much never go after a cache without reading the cache page first. I bring the printouts with me. Even spending the better part of a day caching I can usually expect to find and log maybe 20 caches at the VERY most -- and that's only if a large percentage of them are the infamous drive-ups. The great multis, mysteries, puzzles and high-difficulty hides really slow me down.

 

If you want to be a bit more serious with your question I might apply my method to a hypothetical caching-target area near you. I never research an entire city because I never find an entire city's worth of caches in one outing.

 

80,000 caches in one afternoon is a bit optimistic, even for an expert cacher like you, don't you think?

[+TrailGators]

OK, KBI put your method to the test for the caches in 92027. Tell me which ones are LPCs and tell me which ones are lame. Also tell me how long it took you. But wait I might go to 92127 instead so please do those too. Next week I'm going to 92025 and 92129. So please do those too while you're at it. But if it's hot next week I may go to over to 92008 and 92009. So do those too please.

That's over 80,000 caches to research -- if I did the search thingy correctly. Do you normally burden yourself with that much pre-caching homework?

 

I pretty much never go after a cache without reading the cache page first. I bring the printouts with me. Even spending the better part of a day caching I can usually expect to find and log maybe 20 caches at the VERY most -- and that's only if a large percentage of them are the infamous drive-ups. The great multis, mysteries, puzzles and high-difficulty hides really slow me down.

 

If you want to be a bit more serious with your question I might apply my method to a hypothetical caching-target area near you. I never research an entire city because I never find an entire city's worth of caches in one outing.

 

80,000 caches in one afternoon is a bit optimistic, even for an expert cacher like you, don't you think?

We don't even have that many caches in California yet. All those areas combined have under 1000 caches. Just do 92027, I'm most familiar with that area. Also if I had to do pre-caching homework I would quit caching and play golf with Briansnat... Edited April 16, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

... if I had to do pre-caching homework I would quit caching and play golf with Briansnat...

You’re serious? Nevermind the experiment, then.

 

If you're going to go after caches without first reading the descriptions, then there's not much I or anyone else can do to help you avoid disappointment. Those who choose to hunt caches without reading the descriptions deserve whatever confusion, trouble or frustration may ensue. Some may relish such a risky mystery-adventure, but apparently you don’t, based on your comments about loathing skirt-lifter hides – so why do you voluntarily subject yourself to certain disappointment?

 

If I so despised easy lamp post hides, yet I refused to read anything about caches before hunting them, I’d be too ashamed to complain about my resulting frustrations in the forums.

 

You have a serious dislike for certain types of caches. You don't want to bother reading the descriptions the owners went to the trouble to write for you, or the sometimes very informative cache page logs, yet you expect someone or something to somehow magically determine which caches you will like better than others?

 

Yep, sounds perfectly reasonable to me. The golf part, I mean.

[CoyoteRed]

You're back to claiming that people are not enjoyng those skirt lifter hides?

Good lord! How many folks in this very thread have said they don't like LPCs? I don't have to claim it. Folks are saying it. Sheesh.

 

Face it. You're simply arguing for lower quality experiences for reasons known only to you. While you do recognize a growing segment of the caching community is concerned with the growth of less-than-satisfying cache you would rather argue for it. I'm not sure anyone believes you when you claim to be only defending the right of folks to place anything they want. I think you have other motives, what exactly they are I don't know, but it has little to do with bettering our hobby.

[CoyoteRed]

In other words: The lame caches aren't going away. Accept it. Don't fight them. You don't have to like them, but neither do you have to be troubled by their mere existence.

Telling us what to do again?

 

Besides, rude behavior and foul language in public is a fact of life yet it still remains unacceptable. Go figure. Just because something is a fact of life doesn't mean no one should work against it. You're working from a logical disconnect again.

[+sbell111]

I don't disagree at all. I'm not proposing any sort of restriction. I'm just asking for labeling to enable filtering for those of us who aren't interested.

 

I'm genuinely interested in knowing: Would you support the addition of a "Parking Lot" attribute? If not, why?

Would you support an 'under a pile of sticks' attribute? How about a 'fake bolt' attribute? A 'fake birdhouse' attribute? An 'artificial rock' attribute?

 

Why not have an attribute for any possible way to hide a cache?

[+sbell111]

But if I feel that the LPC is lame and a detriment to the quality of geocaching as a whole, (as opposed to the 5 mile round-trip hike to the top of the mountain), why should I not be entitled to express that opinion?

Did someone say you weren’t entitled to express your opinion?

It seems to me the LPC supporters are too interested in stressing "either way is correct", and have convinced themselves my side doesn't believe that.

I am convinced that you don't believe that. If you truly do believe that "either way is correct," how can you also state that "the LPC is lame and a detriment to the quality of geocaching as a whole?" It is either acceptable to you that people enjoy hiding and finding the kinds of caches you happen to think of as lame, or it isn't. Which is it?

Are we on the same sheet of music? I thought my post made it clear that I accept that LPC's are approved and listed on this website (and I have for a long time). I guess it then goes without saying that it is acceptable that people enjoy hiding and finding these type of caches. I don't see however, how my expressing the opinion that I see it as a deterioration of the hobby, is a problem.

You apparently believe that they are somewhat less worthy and should not be allowed. Perhaps that is not exactly the same as not believing that 'either way is correct', but I don't see how.

I could see if these types of hides existed from the beginning. But they didn't. In the early days, no one was hiding keyholders and/or film canisters in parking lots under lamp post covers. I'm no big time old-timer, but they didn't start showing up in my area until 2005, and still haven't in many areas.

They were certainly around in mid-2002 and other varieties of 'lame' micros preceded them. As far as I'm concerned, that's close enough to 'the beginning'. Certainly, they predate most posters to these forums.

[Mushtang]

Also if I had to do pre-caching homework I would quit caching and play golf with Briansnat...

So you don't do any prep before going out caching? Then what good would a LPC filter, attribute, or anything else do for you? Maybe you want the site to only list caches that you would enjoy, and remove the rest (even if other people enjoy them) so that you can just plug in the coords and be sure you're going to have a good time.

[+sbell111]

My area has recently been spammed with a series of 25 of these. Can someone tell me the quickest, easiest way to ignore a series of caches (i.e. those with a common name)? I started to open up each one and click the "Ignore Listing" link, but that was taking too much time.

The easiest way to ignore these is to do it from GSAK. Sort you database by cache owner and check off each one of the offending caches. Then, right click and choose 'delete'. In the box that pops up, choose the radio button for 'all user ticked' and check the box that says 'Also stop future imports adding back in'. Click 'OK' and those caches will never bother you again.

[+sbell111]

Film canisters are to Geocaching what Hershey's Kisses are to food.

I was off Hershey's kisses for years until someone mentioned the truffle variety. Yumm.

[+Starkey444]

Hi all,

I live and cache in the UK and I haven't a clue what you are all talking about. We don't have flippy-flappy things on our lamp-posts in England and from reading this thread it sounds like a good job too!!

 

I did once do a micro which was magnetically attached to the inside of the base of an old victorian lamp post right in the middle of one of the large London parks. Not only was it VERY scenic in the park, but what a challenge retreiving it - a lovely sunny day with masses of people walking through the park, sitting on nearby benches or lying on the grass. And this was at the time of the heightened security due to the then recent terrorist bombings in London so people tended to be on their guard and suspicious of anyone acting unusual. It took me 40 mins to get it, nearly made me late for a sales meeting, and took every ounce of bravado and cunning I could muster.

 

But I did get it. Not only a big relief as I don't actually live in London and don't go there often, but also a massive sense of satisfaction and personal euphoria at succeeding against all the odds and NOT getting locked up in jail for acting in a suspicious manner.

 

So, cannot comment on flippy-flappy LPC's, but I dont have any problem using lamp-posts if they are as cunning and challenging as the London one. Parking lot LPC's dont seem very inventive/interesting/challenging to me.

 

Starkey444

[Mushtang]

You're back to claiming that people are not enjoyng those skirt lifter hides?

Good lord! How many folks in this very thread have said they don't like LPCs? I don't have to claim it. Folks are saying it. Sheesh.

My guess would be about 5. But let's assume I've way underestimated and say 10, or even 50. If 50 people in this thread said they didn't like LPCs, that doesn't mean that nobody else ever enjoys them either. Claiming that a published LPC wouldn't be enjoyed by others pretty much sounds like you're saying NOBODY enjoys finding them even if the owner enjoys hiding them.

 

Good lord! How many folks in this very thread have said they DO like LPCs? I can think of several that have said it. Sheesh.

[+TrailGators]

Also if I had to do pre-caching homework I would quit caching and play golf with Briansnat...

So you don't do any prep before going out caching? Then what good would a LPC filter, attribute, or anything else do for you? Maybe you want the site to only list caches that you would enjoy, and remove the rest (even if other people enjoy them) so that you can just plug in the coords and be sure you're going to have a good time.

Of course I do. I load my GPS and my Palm. Setting a filter on a PQ is not the same as having to read every cache page before I go. KBI was supposed to to tell me which caches were lame and which ones were LPCs in 92027 with his method. He never did.

[+sbell111]

I had it all along. You just gave me what I needed. We need a recommendation from someone that has tested and used an effective method to actually and effectively avoid these caches.

Good luck. If you discover a watertight method of avoiding caches YOU are guaranteed to dislike while not missing out on a single cache YOU are likely to enjoy, let me know.

I never said it had to be 100%. I'm not sure why you guys keep giving advice when you don't practice what you preach....

Us guys? KBI is only one person.

 

What is it that you think I preach but don't practice?

I thought that was obvious. I was referring to everyone that has preached some method that you don't even use yourself. You admitted that you don't avoid any cache. I tend to believe people that speak from experience and not believe the converse.

You complain about the methods that were offered, but a quick look at your local caches shows that you haven't yet attempted my method. Apparently, you would rather complain about the problem then try a possible solution.

[Mushtang]

Also if I had to do pre-caching homework I would quit caching and play golf with Briansnat...

So you don't do any prep before going out caching? Then what good would a LPC filter, attribute, or anything else do for you? Maybe you want the site to only list caches that you would enjoy, and remove the rest (even if other people enjoy them) so that you can just plug in the coords and be sure you're going to have a good time.

Of course I do. I load my GPS and my Palm. Setting a filter on a PQ is not the same as having to read every cache page before I go.

Who said you needed to read every cache page before you went out? I think reading the cache page of the next cache you're headed to would help you determine if it's going to be one you'll like or not. If not, pick another cache, read the page, and make a decision. KBI's point was that if you just show up to a cache without doing any research at all and it's one you don't like, then how can you complain? What if you got to the location, couldn't find it, and later saw that the most recent log was a DNF from someone saying that they picked up the remains of the container that had been destroyed but the log book was gone? If it were me, I'd feel like maybe I should have read the cache page first, or accept the fact that if I didn't read the page I'm taking a chance.

 

KBI was supposed to to tell me which caches were lame and which ones were LPCs in 92027 with his method. He never did.

He was supposed to? I saw where you asked him to, but nowhere did I see anything that requred him to, nor did he agree to. What are you talking about? If I say, "Trailgators, mail me $1000 cash", does that mean that you're now supposed to send me $1000?

[+sbell111]

You're back to claiming that people are not enjoyng those skirt lifter hides?

Good lord! How many folks in this very thread have said they don't like LPCs? I don't have to claim it. Folks are saying it. Sheesh....

I don't think that anyone is taking the position that everyone loves LPCs or that there aren't some posters in these forums that are very vocal about their dislike for these caches.

 

The difference is that you appear to be taking the position that no one (or very few people) enjoy LPCs. This is apparently not true, based on logs to these caches.

[+sbell111]

... if I had to do pre-caching homework I would quit caching and play golf with Briansnat...

You’re serious? Nevermind the experiment, then.

 

If you're going to go after caches without first reading the descriptions, then there's not much I or anyone else can do to help you avoid disappointment. Those who choose to hunt caches without reading the descriptions deserve whatever confusion, trouble or frustration may ensue. Some may relish such a risky mystery-adventure, but apparently you don’t, based on your comments about loathing skirt-lifter hides – so why do you voluntarily subject yourself to certain disappointment?

 

If I so despised easy lamp post hides, yet I refused to read anything about caches before hunting them, I’d be too ashamed to complain about my resulting frustrations in the forums.

 

You have a serious dislike for certain types of caches. You don't want to bother reading the descriptions the owners went to the trouble to write for you, or the sometimes very informative cache page logs, yet you expect someone or something to somehow magically determine which caches you will like better than others?

 

Yep, sounds perfectly reasonable to me. The golf part, I mean.

I think that you have hit on the difference of expectations between LPC haters and LPC defenders. Personally, I read the description for each cache I go after right before I go after it. If there is anything about the cache that makes me think that I won't like it (at that time), I'll save that one for another day and read the next cache's description.

 

I couldn't imagine blindly wandering from cache to cache.

[+sbell111]

In other words: The lame caches aren't going away. Accept it. Don't fight them. You don't have to like them, but neither do you have to be troubled by their mere existence.

Telling us what to do again?

 

Besides, rude behavior and foul language in public is a fact of life yet it still remains unacceptable. Go figure. Just because something is a fact of life doesn't mean no one should work against it. You're working from a logical disconnect again.

I believe that KBI is suggesting that you work to improve cache quality in a number of ways.

• Continue to hide CoyoteRed-worthy caches. If they are truly superior, other cachers will emulate them.
  
• Reward good caches with glowing logs. The high praise that you give to CoyoteRed-worthy caches will hopefully spur the cacher to hide more CoyoteRed-worthy caches.
  
• When talking to other cachers, chat up caches and hiding styles that are CoyoteRed-worthy.
  
• Take reasonable steps to avoid caches that aren't CoyoteRed-worthy.
  

[+sbell111]

Also if I had to do pre-caching homework I would quit caching and play golf with Briansnat...

So you don't do any prep before going out caching? Then what good would a LPC filter, attribute, or anything else do for you? Maybe you want the site to only list caches that you would enjoy, and remove the rest (even if other people enjoy them) so that you can just plug in the coords and be sure you're going to have a good time.

Of course I do. I load my GPS and my Palm. Setting a filter on a PQ is not the same as having to read every cache page before I go.

You know, everytime that someone suggests reading a cache page before hunting for it's cache someone makes the statement that it isn't worth their time to read every cache page in their PQ. This is either a misunderstanding of what is being suggested or a deliberate attempt to sidestep the point. You do not have to read the cache page for every cache in your area. You merely have to take a look at the cache page for the next cache you are considering.

KBI was supposed to to tell me which caches were lame and which ones were LPCs in 92027 with his method. He never did.

How was KBI 'supposed to' do that? If you dared KBI to fly to the moon, are you going to claim victory if he doesn't?

 

You were given options to avoid the great multitude of LPCs. Why don't you attempt the methods that were offered and report back? Is it only because it is easier to complain about there being no perfectly easy solution to sort out caches that you don't approve of?

 

<Edited to add that Mushtang posted all of this, just a few posts above, darn it.>

Edited April 16, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

I believe that KBI is suggesting that you work to improve cache quality in a number of ways.

• Continue to hide CoyoteRed-worthy caches. If they are truly superior, other cachers will emulate them.
  
• Reward good caches with glowing logs. The high praise that you give to CoyoteRed-worthy caches will hopefully spur the cacher to hide more CoyoteRed-worthy caches.
  
• When talking to other cachers, chat up caches and hiding styles that are CoyoteRed-worthy.
  
• Take reasonable steps to avoid caches that aren't CoyoteRed-worthy.
  

How is this any different than what I'm doing now? Am I supposed to stop with these four points you mentioned? I'm not at the moment as I generally also indicate those caches I don't care for. This is what I'm doing now, right here in this thread. Am I wrong in doing this?

[Mushtang]

<Edited to add that Mushtang posted all of this, just a few posts above, darn it.>

That's okay. I'll send you half of the $1000 that Trailgators is supposed to send me. I haven't seen any yet though.

[+sbell111]

Was belching and moaning on my list?

 

I don't think that this bm helps improve the quality of anything.

Edited April 16, 2007 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

I don't disagree at all. I'm not proposing any sort of restriction. I'm just asking for labeling to enable filtering for those of us who aren't interested.

 

I'm genuinely interested in knowing: Would you support the addition of a "Parking Lot" attribute? If not, why?

Would you support an 'under a pile of sticks' attribute? How about a 'fake bolt' attribute? A 'fake birdhouse' attribute? An 'artificial rock' attribute?

 

Why not have an attribute for any possible way to hide a cache?

 

We just need one:

 

[+briansnat]

The difference is that you appear to be taking the position that no one (or very few people) enjoy LPCs. This is apparently not true, based on logs to these caches.

 

How many people really love these caches? Do you think a lot of people see a Walmart LPC pop up and add it to their mental "must do list'?

 

The people I know who do them, do them: 1. Because they like to keep a certain radius around their home clear of unfound caches, regardless of type. 2. Because they happened to be driving by the parking lot and noticed a cache was there on their GPS. 3. To get it off their closest unfound search. 4. They're this sport for numbers and they would log a dog turd if it would add to their smiley count.

[+sbell111]

The difference is that you appear to be taking the position that no one (or very few people) enjoy LPCs. This is apparently not true, based on logs to these caches.

How many people really love these caches? Do you think a lot of people see a Walmart LPC pop up and add it to their mental "must do list'?

 

The people I know who do them, do them: 1. Because they like to keep a certain radius around their home clear of unfound caches, regardless of type. 2. Because they happened to be driving by the parking lot and noticed a cache was there on their GPS. 3. To get it off their closest unfound search. 4. They're this sport for numbers and they would log a dog turd if it would add to their smiley count.

Is there any difference between #1 and #3?

 

Either way, additional reasons that people find them have been given in this very thread.

[+StarBrand]

Somebody! - Please kill this topic off.....

 

Summary thus far:

Most don't like LPC.

Some Do.

Some don't care.

Some want to ban them.

Some don't.

Most want a way to filter them out.

Some Don't.

Repeat......

[+sbell111]

I don't disagree at all. I'm not proposing any sort of restriction. I'm just asking for labeling to enable filtering for those of us who aren't interested.

 

I'm genuinely interested in knowing: Would you support the addition of a "Parking Lot" attribute? If not, why?

Would you support an 'under a pile of sticks' attribute? How about a 'fake bolt' attribute? A 'fake birdhouse' attribute? An 'artificial rock' attribute?

 

Why not have an attribute for any possible way to hide a cache?

We just need one:

 

<SNIP>

Is that icon supposed to represent those caches that briansnat doesn't like? Luckily, we all don't have to live with only those caches that briansnat finds worthy.

[Mushtang]

The difference is that you appear to be taking the position that no one (or very few people) enjoy LPCs. This is apparently not true, based on logs to these caches.

 

How many people really love these caches? Do you think a lot of people see a Walmart LPC pop up and add it to their mental "must do list'?

 

The people I know who do them, do them: 1. Because they like to keep a certain radius around their home clear of unfound caches, regardless of type. 2. Because they happened to be driving by the parking lot and noticed a cache was there on their GPS. 3. To get it off their closest unfound search. 4. They're this sport for numbers and they would log a dog turd if it would add to their smiley count.

It sounds like you answered your own question, and gave a lot of examples of people that would find LPCs and have fun doing it.

 

It doesn't mean that they might not prefer a different kind of hide, but they'll enjoy the LPC at the time.

[+KBI]

You're back to claiming that people are not enjoyng those skirt lifter hides?

Good lord! How many folks in this very thread have said they don't like LPCs? I don't have to claim it. Folks are saying it. Sheesh.

That hasn't been my experience at all, and I've cached all over the country (that's my other account, the one I use at work).

 

Forum evidence: A few folks are saying they don't like them. In the forums. Lots of forum posters have also come out in favor of happy tolerance of those hides. Many even say they like them!

 

Real-world evidence: Here are a couple of bona fide Wal-Mart skirt lifter lamp post micros that I have found and logged myself:

 

Muggle Mart D'ville (GCX7MW) (Found as KBI)

Found: 39 times since last July.

A quick brouse of the logs found no complaints, but plenty of things like "great job!!", "Had fun dodging muggles to sign log. Thanks for the fun" and "Thanks for the hide!"

 

WAL-MART (GCJ653) (Like the clever name? I found this one during a work week as Captrussell)

Found: 176 times since April of '04.

A quick brouse of the logs found no complaints, but plenty of comments like "That was tricky. Realy nice hide though." and "Neat little hide. My little girl was intrigued by the cover." and "I needed a quick break and geo-fix, this served both of my purposes quite well!" and "This one will go on my special categories list of caches. ... The fun was getting it without being seen. OMG! This was the most muggle intense cache of my short caching career. ... Picture my wife in the car watching us and laughing her head off. I have to say, this was the most fun I have had with one of these yet. Thanks for all the fun! "

 

That sure doesn't sound like griping to me.

 

Now it's your turn, CR. Link us to some bona fide Wal-Mart skirt lifter lamp post micros where the logs (or lack of logs) indicate that people (beyond the vocal complainers in the forums) are strongly against the existence of these hides.

 

I'll looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

 

 

Face it. You're simply arguing for lower quality experiences for reasons known only to you.

… and to anyone who has read even a fraction of my endless babble. Have you tried actually reading any KBI babble?

 

While you do recognize a growing segment of the caching community is concerned with the growth of less-than-satisfying cache you would rather argue for it. I'm not sure anyone believes you when you claim to be only defending the right of folks to place anything they want. I think you have other motives, what exactly they are I don't know, but it has little to do with bettering our hobby.

Aw, c’mon, CR – please don’t tell me you’re back to calling me a liar again.

 

I have never lied to you. I have been completely honest. What would be the point in making this stuff up? I argue from a position of personal and carefully thought-out principles. (I also keep my mind open to potentially convincing arguments that might change my mind, and occasionally I have been convinced to modify my positions.)

 

You apparently haven’t understood my description of my position, as evidenced by this comment:

 

While you do recognize a growing segment of the caching community is concerned with the growth of less-than-satisfying cache you would rather argue for it.

KBI wants more lame hides? Have I ever said that? Not at all. If you can find a post where I’ve expressed a desire for more lame hides, please link it.

 

You even said it yourself once when paraphrasing my position: I don’t PROMOTE lame hides; I DEFEND them. Remember? I liked the way you phrased that – it was spot-on, and much more eloquent and concise than anything I’ve been able to come up with on my own.

[+sbell111]

Somebody! - Please kill this topic off.....

 

Summary thus far:

Most don't like LPC.

Some Do.

Some don't care.

Some want to ban them.

Some don't.

Most want a way to filter them out.

Some Don't.

Repeat......

Again, if this thread was killed, another just like it would be started within a day or two. We may as well just leave this one be. That way, no one is obligated to make the same argument over again.