Skirt Lifters - Luv'em or Hate'em

[+TrailGators]

I accept TrailGator's apology.

I'm still waiting for the apology ... (He didn't seem to mind me apologizing to him when it was called for. I guess the double-standard thing applies to everything -- opinions, preferences, debating rules ...)

Sbell already said that I apologized...Anyhow, I am willing to apologize if anything that I said made it sound like I hate LPCs or dislike people that hide them...

No, it was this:

 

So I'm not the Satan that you guys portrayed me to me....

And by the way, who called you Satan? Did someone here actually use that name to describe you? If not, are you the only one who is allowed to make inferences and use descriptive language?

 

I'm going to have to ask you to either:

• Apologize to me for implying that I called you Satan, or
  
• Stop complaining about the very accurate descriptive words people are using to characterize your comments.
  

Fair is fair.

 

The fact that you made an unfair inference didn't offend me. That's just faulty logic, and you're welcome to do that all you like. What offended me was your double standard: You scolded me for using the word "whining" to describe your griping, and you've made it clear at other times that you hold the rest of us to a high standard of debate etiquette -- which is fine -- but then you did the same thing to me that you don't like others doing to you. I did not call you Satan.

I never said that you called me that...Anyhow, you're right I shouldn't have said that. So I apologize. So did you like the movie? Edited April 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+The Jester]

You were thrown off by my sarcasm. That whole idea I proposed about people archiving their LPCs was mocking Sbell's law: If you know that most people won't enjoy a cache, all that matters is that you like it, so hide it. It's also known as the "me me me" law. We live in the "me me me" world because of great thinkers like that. So I proposed the valid converse of Sbell's law: "If you no longer like then archive it." Do I believe that? Of course not. Would I mind if someone archived an LPC? Of course not.

Ironically, your perception toward these types of caches is identical to the alleged "me me me" law.

How is hiding caches that most finders would really enjoy being self-centered? How is taking people to kewl locations being self-centered? How is using clever camo being self-centered? Look at the flip side.... Someone throws an empty vitamin bottle (label still on the bottle) under a lamp post behind a Taco Bell with a crumpled up piece of paper inside.

They are self-centered when each of the terms are defined by you:

1. Caches that most finders would really enjoy - You will not admit that people like LPC's although the number of logs they get indicate so. You have said something to the effect "OK, they may log them, but how do we know they really liked them?" - this is colored by your preception "I don't like them, so how can anyone." The caches you have defined as ones people would enjoy are the hiking/view type, therefore it's self-centered.

2. Kewl locations - very subjective, as demonstrated with the WOW factor for virtuals. Each person defines this for themselves so it is (and should be) self-centered.

3. Clever camo - Defining what is clever is again subjective. You and the other anti-LPCer's have admitted that the first few such finds are fun & good. But with exposure some decide to then hate them. But can't this happen with any camo idea? If it becomes common some will start to "hate" it.

 

See my previous post (713) for the example LPC I used. They and some of their friends enjoyed the first LPC, so hide one like it because it was so good. A pier and micro park seem like nice locations. And they definitely thought it clever camo. All the elements you want - in a LPC.

 

Look on the filp side ... Someone tosses an ammo can (the military markings still on it) in a tree within a couple of hundred feet of a school, but down a trail which does have a view of the Cascade Mountains at times (nothing different than most of the area around here. And the trail doesn't start anywhere near the school.) with a few random pieces of cheap swag. Which cache (yours or mine - BTW my example is real) has the higher potential for bad times? A few cachers turned off by the location (short log or ignored), or an EOD call out?

[+TrailGators]

You were thrown off by my sarcasm. That whole idea I proposed about people archiving their LPCs was mocking Sbell's law: If you know that most people won't enjoy a cache, all that matters is that you like it, so hide it. It's also known as the "me me me" law. We live in the "me me me" world because of great thinkers like that. So I proposed the valid converse of Sbell's law: "If you no longer like then archive it." Do I believe that? Of course not. Would I mind if someone archived an LPC? Of course not.

Ironically, your perception toward these types of caches is identical to the alleged "me me me" law.

How is hiding caches that most finders would really enjoy being self-centered? How is taking people to kewl locations being self-centered? How is using clever camo being self-centered? Look at the flip side.... Someone throws an empty vitamin bottle (label still on the bottle) under a lamp post behind a Taco Bell with a crumpled up piece of paper inside.

They are self-centered when each of the terms are defined by you:

1. Caches that most finders would really enjoy - You will not admit that people like LPC's although the number of logs they get indicate so. You have said something to the effect "OK, they may log them, but how do we know they really liked them?" - this is colored by your preception "I don't like them, so how can anyone." The caches you have defined as ones people would enjoy are the hiking/view type, therefore it's self-centered.

2. Kewl locations - very subjective, as demonstrated with the WOW factor for virtuals. Each person defines this for themselves so it is (and should be) self-centered.

3. Clever camo - Defining what is clever is again subjective. You and the other anti-LPCer's have admitted that the first few such finds are fun & good. But with exposure some decide to then hate them. But can't this happen with any camo idea? If it becomes common some will start to "hate" it.

 

See my previous post (713) for the example LPC I used. They and some of their friends enjoyed the first LPC, so hide one like it because it was so good. A pier and micro park seem like nice locations. And they definitely thought it clever camo. All the elements you want - in a LPC.

 

Look on the filp side ... Someone tosses an ammo can (the military markings still on it) in a tree within a couple of hundred feet of a school, but down a trail which does have a view of the Cascade Mountains at times (nothing different than most of the area around here. And the trail doesn't start anywhere near the school.) with a few random pieces of cheap swag. Which cache (yours or mine - BTW my example is real) has the higher potential for bad times? A few cachers turned off by the location (short log or ignored), or an EOD call out?

Look at the photos that Miragee posted then compare that with a parking lot at Wal-Mart. Are you seriously saying that most people wouldn't think the spot that Miragee took those photos was "kewler" than a parking lot? I think the fact is that many people could care less about location. Many people don't need camo either. You probably won't agree with that either. I can't seem to find any common ground with some of you. So since this isn't going anywhere so why don't we just drop it......

[+sbell111]

... The simple fact is that I also "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. ...

But, people already do hide other kinds of caches.

 

Do you really mean that you wish people would only hide caches that you preferred, regardless of what other people prefer?

Edited April 21, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

... The simple fact is that I also "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. ...

But, people already do hide other kinds of caches.

 

Do you really mean that you wish people would only hide caches that you preferred, regardless of what other people prefer?

No not at all. Man you never quit twisting things. Edited April 21, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Miragee]

Look at the photos that Miragee posted then compare that with a parking lot at Wal-Mart.

<snip>

As long as the new caches I placed this week while this discussion was going on got mentioned -- or the pictures I posted did -- I thought ya'll might want to look at the cache pages:

 

"Well Looky Here -- Another Great View"

 

and

 

"Little Cache, Great View, No Name"

 

They won't get many visits, but they are out there . . . waiting . . .

[+TrailGators]

Look at the photos that Miragee posted then compare that with a parking lot at Wal-Mart.

<snip>

As long as the new caches I placed this week while this discussion was going on got mentioned -- or the pictures I posted did -- I thought ya'll might want to look at the cache pages:

 

"Well Looky Here -- Another Great View"

 

and

 

"Little Cache, Great View, No Name"

 

They won't get many visits, but they are out there . . . waiting . . .

The other caches in Horsethief canyon have 17 visits since March 9th. That's not bad for that type of cache. Also the number of logs means nothing about how good the cache is. There are tons of people that will find almost anything easy because it's good for their numbers. Why would they go on a hike to get two caches when they could buzz around town and get 20-30 in the same amount of time? Some of these people enjoy these caches so much that they use stickers instead if signing them so they can spend 5 seconds at the cache instead of 10 seconds. So the truth is many people love the number and not the cache. But I suppose the defenders will think I'm making this up too.

[Mushtang]

... The simple fact is that I also "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. ...

But, people already do hide other kinds of caches.

 

Do you really mean that you wish people would only hide caches that you preferred, regardless of what other people prefer?

No not at all. Man you never quit twisting things.

That wasn't much of a twist at all dude. If you wished that the people hiding LPCs would hide other kinds, then that would mean that you wish they'd hide non-LPCs. That would pretty much eliminate the hiding of LPCs, would it not? That's what he (and I) took it to mean.

[+KBI]

Anyhow, you're right I shouldn't have said that. So I apologize.

 

So did you like the movie?

I only watched part of it, but it was good.

[+TrailGators]

... The simple fact is that I also "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. ...

But, people already do hide other kinds of caches.

 

Do you really mean that you wish people would only hide caches that you preferred, regardless of what other people prefer?

No not at all. Man you never quit twisting things.

That wasn't much of a twist at all dude. If you wished that the people hiding LPCs would hide other kinds, then that would mean that you wish they'd hide non-LPCs. That would pretty much eliminate the hiding of LPCs, would it not? That's what he (and I) took it to mean.

Where did I say only?

[+TrailGators]

Anyhow, you're right I shouldn't have said that. So I apologize.

 

So did you like the movie?

I only watched part of it, but it was good.

We owe a lot to those brave men and women.

[Mushtang]

... The simple fact is that I also "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. ...

But, people already do hide other kinds of caches.

 

Do you really mean that you wish people would only hide caches that you preferred, regardless of what other people prefer?

No not at all. Man you never quit twisting things.

That wasn't much of a twist at all dude. If you wished that the people hiding LPCs would hide other kinds, then that would mean that you wish they'd hide non-LPCs. That would pretty much eliminate the hiding of LPCs, would it not? That's what he (and I) took it to mean.

Where did I say only?

You didn't use the word, but what you said implied it. If people that hid LPCs hid something else instead, then wouldn't that leave only non-LPCs?

[+KBI]

We owe a lot to those brave men and women.

We owe everything to those brave men and women.

 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

-- Thomas Jefferson

[Clan Riffster]

3. Clever camo - Defining what is clever is again subjective. You and the other anti-LPCer's have admitted that the first few such finds are fun & good. But with exposure some decide to then hate them. But can't this happen with any camo idea? If it becomes common some will start to "hate" it.

Maybe I'm the exception to the rule?

My first LPC was not "fun & good". The arrow on my 60CSx pointed to a parking lot, and for a minute I thought maybe I had told my GPSr to find a ______________ (<~~insert name of least favorite big box store), instead of a cache. My personal philosophy toward commercial property caches reads kinda like a statement Criminal made a while back; "Why did you bring me here?" There are a whole lot of really neat Mom & Pop type stores across the state that I've visited thanx to caching, so don't assume I'm opposed to CPC's) As the distance decreased, I noticed the arrow was pointing at a particular light pole, and I figured I must've fumbled the coords. My thought was, "Why in Gaia's name would anybody bring me to this stinky, sweltering, 500 acres of blacktop? Surely nobody would hide a cache there?" I lifted up the kilt, and a film canister popped out. I didn't think, "Hey, this is kewl!" What I thought was more along the lines of, "This is as lame as it can possibly get". I logged something to the effect of, "Thanx for the cache!", and went in search of an ammo can to get the bad taste out of my mind.

 

As sbell noted long ago, my displeasure only lasted a few seconds, so it didn't hurt too bad, but it's inaccurate to assume that "You and the other anti-LPCer's have admitted that the first few such finds are fun & good." I have made no such admission. My one LPC find was a stinker, which was the primary motivator in my developing my methods to avoid future displeasure.

[+TrailGators]

... The simple fact is that I also "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. ...

But, people already do hide other kinds of caches.

 

Do you really mean that you wish people would only hide caches that you preferred, regardless of what other people prefer?

No not at all. Man you never quit twisting things.

That wasn't much of a twist at all dude. If you wished that the people hiding LPCs would hide other kinds, then that would mean that you wish they'd hide non-LPCs. That would pretty much eliminate the hiding of LPCs, would it not? That's what he (and I) took it to mean.

Where did I say only?

You didn't use the word, but what you said implied it. If people that hid LPCs hid something else instead, then wouldn't that leave only non-LPCs?

That's what I mean by twisting. Take what I say and shove it to the extreme and then pretend that's what I meant. Whatever happened to the benefit of the doubt? I said that I "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. Because everything I say is going to be twisted by some, I'll have to explain in in finer detail. There are some hiders out here that literally have hundreds of hides and they predominantly use LPCs. One guy has over 350. So I "wish" they would find a larger variety of ways to hide all those caches.

[+The Jester]

Look at the photos that Miragee posted then compare that with a parking lot at Wal-Mart. Are you seriously saying that most people wouldn't think the spot that Miragee took those photos was "kewler" than a parking lot? I think the fact is that many people could care less about location. Many people don't need camo either. You probably won't agree with that either. I can't seem to find any common ground with some of you. So since this isn't going anywhere so why don't we just drop it......

I never said that (talk about twisting). I'm willing admit (especialy if you look at the example I gave) that not all LPC's are in big box parking lots. Just because you equate LPC with Parking Lot doesn't make that true for all LPC's. And while discussing LPC's we need to look at all of them.

 

Am I to take it that you agree with the rest of the points I made? You only tried to counter one...

 

And on the sillier side: I don't think people need camo, some caches need camo, but not the people.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't think people need camo, some caches need camo, but not the people.

If you ever saw me in my kilt, I can assure you you'd be wishing I had camo....Lots of camo.

[+TrailGators]

Look at the photos that Miragee posted then compare that with a parking lot at Wal-Mart. Are you seriously saying that most people wouldn't think the spot that Miragee took those photos was "kewler" than a parking lot? I think the fact is that many people could care less about location. Many people don't need camo either. You probably won't agree with that either. I can't seem to find any common ground with some of you. So since this isn't going anywhere so why don't we just drop it......

I never said that (talk about twisting). I'm willing admit (especialy if you look at the example I gave) that not all LPC's are in big box parking lots. Just because you equate LPC with Parking Lot doesn't make that true for all LPC's. And while discussing LPC's we need to look at all of them.

 

Am I to take it that you agree with the rest of the points I made? You only tried to counter one...

 

And on the sillier side: I don't think people need camo, some caches need camo, but not the people.

How did I twist what you said? You said: "Kewl locations - very subjective" and I responded with a clear example of how most LPCs pale in comparison. Also when I say LPC I am referring to the most common parking lot variety. There are always exceptions but exceptions aren't the rule. Edited April 21, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Team Geo-Joes]

Doesn't really matter to me. I like to do them right after I do a D4-T3 cache. Makes me feel powerful for walking around for 2 hours on the last cache that was impossible to find!!!!

[Mushtang]

... The simple fact is that I also "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. ...

But, people already do hide other kinds of caches.

 

Do you really mean that you wish people would only hide caches that you preferred, regardless of what other people prefer?

No not at all. Man you never quit twisting things.

That wasn't much of a twist at all dude. If you wished that the people hiding LPCs would hide other kinds, then that would mean that you wish they'd hide non-LPCs. That would pretty much eliminate the hiding of LPCs, would it not? That's what he (and I) took it to mean.

Where did I say only?

You didn't use the word, but what you said implied it. If people that hid LPCs hid something else instead, then wouldn't that leave only non-LPCs?

That's what I mean by twisting. Take what I say and shove it to the extreme and then pretend that's what I meant. Whatever happened to the benefit of the doubt? I said that I "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. Because everything I say is going to be twisted by some, I'll have to explain in in finer detail. There are some hiders out here that literally have hundreds of hides and they predominantly use LPCs. One guy has over 350. So I "wish" they would find a larger variety of ways to hide all those caches.

That sounds like you're twisting your own words. Also known as backpedaling. If you had said, "I wish people hid other kinds of caches too", or "I wish in addition to the 350 LPCs that a local hides he would also hide some non-LPCs", then you could claim that's what you said. Whether or not that's what you claim you meant, your statement clearly means "other kinds of caches".

 

So you wish that in addition to LPCs there other kinds? Well, good news, there are LOTS and LOTS of non-LPC hides out there. Filter all 1/1s and all micros from your PQs, and you'll still get more caches than you can ever find (as long as you keep getting the PQs updated weekly). What's that? You'll miss out on some 1/1s or micros that you would have enjoyed? Life's not fair.

 

Would you really want people to hide a mixture of kinds? You've been given a way to filter out a specific hider using GSAK and you're asking for a way to do this at the PQ level. If 350 LPC hider also hid nice ammo cans in the woods that you'd want to find, then you'd miss out on those if you filtered all of his hides from your view. You'd miss some "quality" caches this way too, and life still wouldn't be fair.

 

I wish you'd go with the first option and become a happier person. But as you've seen we can't get all our wishes to come true. Life isn't fair for anyone.

[+TrailGators]

... The simple fact is that I also "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. ...

But, people already do hide other kinds of caches.

 

Do you really mean that you wish people would only hide caches that you preferred, regardless of what other people prefer?

No not at all. Man you never quit twisting things.

That wasn't much of a twist at all dude. If you wished that the people hiding LPCs would hide other kinds, then that would mean that you wish they'd hide non-LPCs. That would pretty much eliminate the hiding of LPCs, would it not? That's what he (and I) took it to mean.

Where did I say only?

You didn't use the word, but what you said implied it. If people that hid LPCs hid something else instead, then wouldn't that leave only non-LPCs?

That's what I mean by twisting. Take what I say and shove it to the extreme and then pretend that's what I meant. Whatever happened to the benefit of the doubt? I said that I "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. Because everything I say is going to be twisted by some, I'll have to explain in in finer detail. There are some hiders out here that literally have hundreds of hides and they predominantly use LPCs. One guy has over 350. So I "wish" they would find a larger variety of ways to hide all those caches.

That sounds like you're twisting your own words.

Look, I told you what I meant by "some other kinds." Get off my back. Anyhow, I have proposed an enhancement to the ignore feature to ignore all of a cacher's hides. This will permanently get them out of my PQs so I don't have to deal with them at all. This will also expand the range of my PQs. Edited April 21, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Trucker Lee]

IMHO..............

Skirt lifters should be treated like any other cache. Those that took a bit of creativity to find, took me to somewhere interesting, made me laugh or think just a little, get rewarded with a nice log.

 

Boring Walmart LPCs get a "found it" log, and I get a smiley, but don't expect me to put any more effort into the log than you put into finding an interesting location.

[+TrailGators]

IMHO..............

Skirt lifters should be treated like any other cache. Those that took a bit of creativity to find, took me to somewhere interesting, made me laugh or think just a little, get rewarded with a nice log.

 

Boring Walmart LPCs get a "found it" log, and I get a smiley, but don't expect me to put any more effort into the log than you put into finding an interesting location.

That's exactly how I was. Think of each of those Wally World caches as a straw. Then think of your tolerance as a camel's back. At some point you may really want to hit the ignore button for the people placing all those straws.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Starting to Luv 'em

 

At least I'll know what to expect, and lately they've been in better condition than many regular C.aches I've found

[Mushtang]

Look, I told you what I meant by "some other kinds." Get off my back. Anyhow, I have proposed an enhancement to the ignore feature to ignore all of a cacher's hides. This will permanently get them out of my PQs so I don't have to deal with them at all. This will also expand the range of my PQs.

Fair enough. People are certainly allowed to change their minds, and I understand what you now mean.

 

You do realize that if you ignore all of a cacher's hides, you'll also ignore the non-LPCs that he hides, and you may be missing some caches you'd enjoy. Isn't that what you didn't like about the filter out 1/1s and Micros solution?

[CoyoteRed]

You do realize that if you ignore all of a cacher's hides, you'll also ignore the non-LPCs that he hides, and you may be missing some caches you'd enjoy. Isn't that what you didn't like about the filter out 1/1s and Micros solution?

Actually, you might have something.

 

If a hider knows that folks can do a blanket filter on user account and know that folks will filter out that hider if a personal threshold of lameness from a hider is reached would they give a bit more thought to their hides? Would a portion of the hiders who place caches commonly known to be less than satisfying start archiving them and placing better caches simply so they won't get filtered? I think so--at least a few would. Would it make much of a difference in the lame cache population? Maybe. It's hard to know. I'd never have thought folks would place caches simply to up other folks find counts in the first place, so what do I know.

[+TrailGators]

Look, I told you what I meant by "some other kinds." Get off my back. Anyhow, I have proposed an enhancement to the ignore feature to ignore all of a cacher's hides. This will permanently get them out of my PQs so I don't have to deal with them at all. This will also expand the range of my PQs.

Fair enough. People are certainly allowed to change their minds, and I understand what you now mean.

 

You do realize that if you ignore all of a cacher's hides, you'll also ignore the non-LPCs that he hides, and you may be missing some caches you'd enjoy. Isn't that what you didn't like about the filter out 1/1s and Micros solution?

 

This solution targets the cachers that are hiding many of these types of caches and not just the general population. Certain people have a vastly different style than I do and that is the concept. Also if I did get a recommendation on a certain cache hidden by one of these people then I could always go back and unclick it to un-ignore that one. It is far easier to un-ignore one or two caches than it is to ignore 350 or more. Edited April 22, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

You do realize that if you ignore all of a cacher's hides, you'll also ignore the non-LPCs that he hides, and you may be missing some caches you'd enjoy. Isn't that what you didn't like about the filter out 1/1s and Micros solution?

Actually, you might have something.

 

If a hider knows that folks can do a blanket filter on user account and know that folks will filter out that hider if a personal threshold of lameness from a hider is reached would they give a bit more thought to their hides? Would a portion of the hiders who place caches commonly known to be less than satisfying start archiving them and placing better caches simply so they won't get filtered? I think so--at least a few would. Would it make much of a difference in the lame cache population? Maybe. It's hard to know. I'd never have thought folks would place caches simply to up other folks find counts in the first place, so what do I know.

To be honest, I doubt it would influence many of these folks. These people are part of a different game. That is why I hope they give us this feature, so we can effortlessly generate a list of caches that fit our game! Edited April 22, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

There are tons of people that will find almost anything easy because it's good for their numbers. Why would they go on a hike to get two caches when they could buzz around town and get 20-30 in the same amount of time? Some of these people enjoy these caches so much that they use stickers instead if signing them so they can spend 5 seconds at the cache instead of 10 seconds. So the truth is many people love the number and not the cache. But I suppose the defenders will think I'm making this up too.

You are full of disparaging generalizations. The fact is, many cachers will never find caches that require a hike for many reasons. Perhaps they don't like to hike. Maybe they are wary of ticks and the associated diseases. Perchance they are unable to hike comfortably. It is certainly conceivable that they don't have time in their lives to take on a hike.

... The simple fact is that I also "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. ...

But, people already do hide other kinds of caches.

 

Do you really mean that you wish people would only hide caches that you preferred, regardless of what other people prefer?

No not at all. Man you never quit twisting things.

That wasn't much of a twist at all dude. If you wished that the people hiding LPCs would hide other kinds, then that would mean that you wish they'd hide non-LPCs. That would pretty much eliminate the hiding of LPCs, would it not? That's what he (and I) took it to mean.

Where did I say only?

You didn't use the word, but what you said implied it. If people that hid LPCs hid something else instead, then wouldn't that leave only non-LPCs?

That's what I mean by twisting. Take what I say and shove it to the extreme and then pretend that's what I meant. Whatever happened to the benefit of the doubt? I said that I "wish" people would hide some other kinds of caches. Because everything I say is going to be twisted by some, I'll have to explain in in finer detail. There are some hiders out here that literally have hundreds of hides and they predominantly use LPCs. One guy has over 350. So I "wish" they would find a larger variety of ways to hide all those caches.

I clearly don't understand what your position is. As far as I can tell, there are only two possible meanings to your comment.

1. "You wish that people would hide some other kinds of caches in addition to LPCs." If this is your meaning, I question why you made the comment, since lots of people hide lots of non-LPC caches. There are lots of other cache alternatives to look for. If you use my method (previously discussed), you will discover many of those alternative caches.
   
2. "You wish that people would hide some other kinds of caches instead of LPCs." If this is your meaning, I question why you think that your preferences are so more important than other peoples preferences that the caches that they like should not even exist.
   

[+Always & Forever 5]

There are tons of people that will find almost anything easy because it's good for their numbers. Why would they go on a hike to get two caches when they could buzz around town and get 20-30 in the same amount of time? Some of these people enjoy these caches so much that they use stickers instead if signing them so they can spend 5 seconds at the cache instead of 10 seconds. So the truth is many people love the number and not the cache. But I suppose the defenders will think I'm making this up too.

 

Honestly, I can't for the life of me understand why you give a rat's fuzzy butt what the motivation behind other people is. Why does it matter to you if they're in it for the numbers or not? Does it affect the way you play your game? If so, it shouldn't. So now, you think that stickers need to be outlawed? Or, just what is your point? I must have missed the rule that says stickers are not allowed. I must have also missed the rule that states "No buzzing around town getting 20-30 micros in the same time as hiking for 1 or 2". I must also have missed the rule that says a cacher can't love numbers, he/she must ONLY love the cache.

 

I have an idea...why don't you leave GC.com and start your own website, and you can make these ridiculous, limiting rules? In the meantime, leave GC.com the way it is, and quit trying to dictate who can hide what.

[+sbell111]

Some time ago, I made up some tiny log book stickers. The reason I like them is not for easy park and grab micros. I like them for when I am caching in the woods and the bugs are trying to drain me. The truth is, I almost always forget to pack them so they almost never get used.

 

I have no idea what a rant about stickers is doing in a LPC-rant thread.

[+Kit Fox]

Honestly, I can't for the life of me understand why you give a rat's fuzzy butt what the motivation behind other people is. Why does it matter to you if they're in it for the numbers or not? Does it affect the way you play your game? If so, it shouldn't.

 

It affects everyone of us who dislike caches placed for the purposes of "Micro Spew ™." Those of us that dislike these caches must use creative pocket queries, or scrutinize each cache individually, to make sure that Micro Spew ™ caches don't show up on our GPS. A few of us have even asked for additional attributes, or some sort of system, to help effectively weed out this type of cache. Most of us have asked for these tools without ever asking for a ban on certain types of caches.

 

So now, you think that stickers need to be outlawed? Or, just what is your point? I must have missed the rule that says stickers are not allowed. I must have also missed the rule that states "No buzzing around town getting 20-30 micros in the same time as hiking for 1 or 2". I must also have missed the rule that says a cacher can't love numbers, he/she must ONLY love the cache.

 

I have an idea...why don't you leave GC.com and start your own website, and you can make these ridiculous, limiting rules? In the meantime, leave GC.com the way it is, and quit trying to dictate who can hide what.

 

Once again, your putting words into his mouth. Nobody was trying to ban stickers.

 

I used to use stickers on logbooks because it was faster to log caches. I stopped doing it, because I felt that I wasn't taking enough time to enjoy the cache, and I was turning into a "mechanical cacher" who was on a mission to find every cache possible. Now I take the time to sign each logbook with a pen, and I write unique logs for every cache I find. You won't find me logging anything like this anymore, "#100 of 167 TFTC."

[Mushtang]

It affects everyone of us who dislike caches placed for the purposes of "Micro Spew ™." Those of us that dislike these caches must use creative pocket queries, or scrutinize each cache individually, to make sure that Micro Spew ™ caches don't show up on our GPS. A few of us have even asked for additional attributes, or some sort of system, to help effectively weed out this type of cache. Most of us have asked for these tools without ever asking for a ban on certain types of caches.

I'm still in the dark about what additional filters you need. If you filter out 1/1s and Micros, won't you eliminate nearly all of the caches you call Micro Spew?

[+KBI]

There are tons of people that will find almost anything easy because it's good for their numbers. Why would they go on a hike to get two caches when they could buzz around town and get 20-30 in the same amount of time? Some of these people enjoy these caches so much that they use stickers instead if signing them so they can spend 5 seconds at the cache instead of 10 seconds. So the truth is many people love the number and not the cache. But I suppose the defenders will think I'm making this up too.

Honestly, I can't for the life of me understand why you give a rat's fuzzy butt what the motivation behind other people is. Why does it matter to you if they're in it for the numbers or not? Does it affect the way you play your game? If so, it shouldn't. So now, you think that stickers need to be outlawed? Or, just what is your point? I must have missed the rule that says stickers are not allowed. I must have also missed the rule that states "No buzzing around town getting 20-30 micros in the same time as hiking for 1 or 2". I must also have missed the rule that says a cacher can't love numbers, he/she must ONLY love the cache.

 

I have an idea...why don't you leave GC.com and start your own website, and you can make these ridiculous, limiting rules? In the meantime, leave GC.com the way it is, and quit trying to dictate who can hide what.

While I'm on your side and agree 100% with your ideals, let's be fair to TrailGators. He didn't actually call for any rule changes or bans in his post you quoted, and hasn't for some time now, preferring instead to stick strictly to making unnecessary noise about the caches he doesn't like. He's not a Rulemonger any more, but he's definitely still a Complainer.

 

Trust me, it's progress. Some people are actually responding well to this debate.

[+Always & Forever 5]

Once again, your putting words into his mouth. Nobody was trying to ban stickers.

No, I didn't put any words in anyone's mouth. I asked a question. Actually, I asked what his point was, getting way off topic about the stickers thing. Now, it appears that his point now involves a rant about anything he doesn't actually do while caching.

 

It's all about TG, hmmm? He doesn't do stickers, and now flames about anyone who does. He prefers a hike for 1 or 2 caches, and flames anyone who prefers micros.

[+Always & Forever 5]

...preferring instead to stick strictly to making unnecessary noise about the caches he doesn't like.

Well, maybe up until now, but that's certainly changed, hasn't it?

[+Kit Fox]

It affects everyone of us who dislike caches placed for the purposes of "Micro Spew ™." Those of us that dislike these caches must use creative pocket queries, or scrutinize each cache individually, to make sure that Micro Spew ™ caches don't show up on our GPS. A few of us have even asked for additional attributes, or some sort of system, to help effectively weed out this type of cache. Most of us have asked for these tools without ever asking for a ban on certain types of caches.

I'm still in the dark about what additional filters you need. If you filter out 1/1s and Micros, won't you eliminate nearly all of the caches you call Micro Spew?

 

I've already asked for A "parking lot" attribute, and others have asked for an option to "Ignore all caches from a particular geocacher."

 

I'm not against all micros, just the "placed for no reason, other than another smiley" type. Weeding out all micros wouldn't work, because caches like this are high on my to-do list.

 

Hat Trick

 

Stone Sentinel

 

 

My solution albeit imperfect, is to run two pocket queries one that excludes all caches with a terrain rating of less than three stars. I also run a PQ of caches that excludes all caches with a difficulty of less than three stars. The second query requires some extra effort, because I need to take extra time to review said caches for "hard caches hidden in parking lots."

Edited April 23, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+sbell111]

... I've already asked for A "parking lot" attribute, and others have asked for an option to "Ignore all caches from a particular geocacher." ...

There have been many calls for this option in recent threads. A few cachers have mentioned that this would pretty much solve the problem of lame caches, for them.

 

I'm not sure that everyone who wants this option understands that it is already possible to do this using GSAK.

[+sbell111]

... My solution albeit imperfect, is to run two pocket queries one that excludes all caches with a terrain rating of less than three stars. I also run a PQ of caches that excludes all caches with a difficulty of less than three stars. The second query requires some extra effort, because I need to take extra time to review said caches for "hard caches hidden in parking lots."

You might take a look at my previously-explained system. It adds an additional PQ, but would be better at filtering out the 'microspew' and leaving in 'non-microspew'

[+Kit Fox]

... My solution albeit imperfect, is to run two pocket queries one that excludes all caches with a terrain rating of less than three stars. I also run a PQ of caches that excludes all caches with a difficulty of less than three stars. The second query requires some extra effort, because I need to take extra time to review said caches for "hard caches hidden in parking lots."

You might take a look at my previously-explained system. It adds an additional PQ, but would be better at filtering out the 'microspew' and leaving in 'non-microspew'

 

Sbell111,

 

Can you post a link to your tutorial?

 

Thanks.

[+TrailGators]

... I've already asked for A "parking lot" attribute, and others have asked for an option to "Ignore all caches from a particular geocacher." ...

There have been many calls for this option in recent threads. A few cachers have mentioned that this would pretty much solve the problem of lame caches, for them.

 

I'm not sure that everyone who wants this option understands that it is already possible to do this using GSAK.

I use the site to view caches on maps on the site and to few nearest caches on the site. So the "cacher ignore function" would allow me to do this and not view the caches that I have ignored. Also when I ignore all a cachers caches I may opt to un-ignore the few that people recommend. This would be cumbersome to do in GSAK. Plus we should think about others that would want to use. Many people struggle with doing the basics of paperless caching/GSAK. So this is a much cleaner solution then trying to get everyone to use macros in GSAK. Edited April 23, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

I've already asked for A "parking lot" attribute,

Which would work only for those cache owners that actually use attributes correctly. I'm not against this idea, I just don't see it helping you eliminate the caches you want to avoid. Ignoring all micros, or all 1/1 caches, would do a much better job.

 

and others have asked for an option to "Ignore all caches from a particular geocacher."

Yup, and this too is an option that will certainly help you avoid a lot of the caches you don't like. I hope they put this function on the site someday. However, you'll only avoid the PLCs hidden by those folks, and not the ones placed by people that tend to hide several kinds of caches. Ignoring all micros, or all 1/1 caches, would do a much better job.

 

I'm not against all micros, just the "placed for no reason, other than another smiley" type. Weeding out all micros wouldn't work, because caches like this are high on my to-do list. Hat Trick, Stone Sentinel

Yes, weeding out all micros and 1/1s will keep you from seeing some caches in your PQs that you'd want to get otherwise, but it would still leave you with more caches that you'd like than you could ever find.

 

Life's not perfect. If you're not going to be happy with any system that doesn't eliminate 100% of the caches you won't like, while leaving 100% of the caches you will like, you're going to be disappointed.

 

My solution albeit imperfect, is to run two pocket queries one that excludes all caches with a terrain rating of less than three stars. I also run a PQ of caches that excludes all caches with a difficulty of less than three stars. The second query requires some extra effort, because I need to take extra time to review said caches for "hard caches hidden in parking lots."

It sounds like you're willing to do some preliminary work before you go caching to try and avoid the kind you don't like. That's good. Since you're asking for other ways to assist you I'm guessing you're not happy with your current system, and just reading the cache page of the next cache you're after (or a group of cache pages for the caches you'll try for in the next couple of hours) isn't an option either.

 

I really hope a neat system is put in place that will let people eliminate the crappy LPCs that they don't like while leaving the fun micros and difficult LPCs. I'm not sure how it would work and be as effective as the earlier suggested method, but I'd like to see it happen for those that want it.

[+TrailGators]

There are tons of people that will find almost anything easy because it's good for their numbers. Why would they go on a hike to get two caches when they could buzz around town and get 20-30 in the same amount of time? Some of these people enjoy these caches so much that they use stickers instead if signing them so they can spend 5 seconds at the cache instead of 10 seconds. So the truth is many people love the number and not the cache. But I suppose the defenders will think I'm making this up too.

Honestly, I can't for the life of me understand why you give a rat's fuzzy butt what the motivation behind other people is. Why does it matter to you if they're in it for the numbers or not? Does it affect the way you play your game? If so, it shouldn't. So now, you think that stickers need to be outlawed? Or, just what is your point? I must have missed the rule that says stickers are not allowed. I must have also missed the rule that states "No buzzing around town getting 20-30 micros in the same time as hiking for 1 or 2". I must also have missed the rule that says a cacher can't love numbers, he/she must ONLY love the cache.

 

I have an idea...why don't you leave GC.com and start your own website, and you can make these ridiculous, limiting rules? In the meantime, leave GC.com the way it is, and quit trying to dictate who can hide what.

While I'm on your side and agree 100% with your ideals, let's be fair to TrailGators. He didn't actually call for any rule changes or bans in his post you quoted, and hasn't for some time now, preferring instead to stick strictly to making unnecessary noise about the caches he doesn't like. He's not a Rulemonger any more, but he's definitely still a Complainer.

 

Trust me, it's progress. Some people are actually responding well to this debate.

Thanks KBI for calling the dogs off. I agree that we don't need to go there again. I actually haven't been complaining lately and have been trying to find a way out of this for those of us that do not enjoy a certain style of caching. Edited April 23, 2007 by TrailGators

[+StarBrand]

 

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

 

round 312 - still no winners.

[+TrailGators]

 

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

 

round 312 - still no winners.

It may not look like it to you but I think we have progressed.....

[+tozainamboku]

...preferring instead to stick strictly to making unnecessary noise about the caches he doesn't like.

Well, maybe up until now, but that's certainly changed, hasn't it?

TrailGators, KitFox, Clan Riffster, Coyote Red, and others have not called for banning of any kinds of caches. If they or others have in the past I think the issues is pretty much settled. Mostly everyone now agrees that different people like to cache for different reasons and some people do like finding urban hides in what is seen by some others as not inspirinig locations. The debate here centers around two issues.

1. How to filter out the caches you don't enjoy without missing any surprises you might like
   
2. How to encourage geocachers to hide more of the cache you like to find
   

Suggestions have been made for the first issue. There is no easy way to filter out all the caches a particular cacher considers lame that would not also filter out some cache they may like. sbell111's "patented" method is to eliminate almost all "lame" caches but that will still leave many good caches. After you have found all the good caches you can then take the time to see if there are goods that you filtered out in the first past. I guess some object to delaying all the good 1/1 caches till after you have found everthing else. Of course if someone gives you a recommendation you could add it to your list. Some tools like bookmark lists already exist that allow cachers to share list of caches they like or dislike. These probably aren't being used enough. Requests for attributes that indicate if a cache is an urban park 'n grab have not been acted on by TPTB. Perhaps if we could debate the pros and cons of this without resorting to name calling something could be worked out. However, all attributes are voluntary and as we have seen with the SCUBA attribute not always applied properly. I might put the Park N Grab attribute on some of my caches just to see if it would increase the number of people who would hike to my caches. (I wonder sometimes if my caches are not getting visited because almost all of them have attributes for snakes, ticks, and poison plants.) The ability to add caches en masse to an ignore list or to ignore all cache place by a particular hider might be something to help people manage caches they want to avoid. I know some people will add my caches to their ignore list.

The second issue gets a little controversial. Some people feel that any attempt to encourage others to place the cache you like is eliteist. I don't think this is eliteist at all. It is quite reasonable to look for ways to increase the caches you like. Some proposals have been made that I have characterized as affirmative action for "non-lame" caches. Most of these proposals don't get argued for once this is pointed out. People are asking for guidelines that simply ask hiders to think about the reasons they have place a cache and to think about placement, creativity in the hide, and the finder's overall experience. Ideas such as "lead by example" - place hides you think are better examples for people to follow, use bookmark lists to point out exceptional caches, and perhaps some sort of reward system that recognizes creative cache hiders that Jeremy has hinted he is working on, may be ways to encourage the type of hides the "complainers" don't complain about. None of these stop a person from placing a lamp post skirt lifter if they still want to hide one after considering the alternatives.

[+sbell111]

... My solution albeit imperfect, is to run two pocket queries one that excludes all caches with a terrain rating of less than three stars. I also run a PQ of caches that excludes all caches with a difficulty of less than three stars. The second query requires some extra effort, because I need to take extra time to review said caches for "hard caches hidden in parking lots."

You might take a look at my previously-explained system. It adds an additional PQ, but would be better at filtering out the 'microspew' and leaving in 'non-microspew'

 

Sbell111,

 

Can you post a link to your tutorial?

 

Thanks.

It's really not that much different from your method except that I only include micros in the two PQs that limit difficulty and terrain. I include two other PQs. One that has all types of caches except traditionals with all difficulties and terrains and a PQ of just traditionals with no micros. Obviously, if you are not interested in any other cache types (or anything else), you will deselect these from your PQs.

 

The key, I think, is drilling down the terrain and difficulty from your micro PQs so you eliminate the great bulk of 'micro-spew' without affecting too many 'non-spew' micros. Obviously, you will eliminate some good micros, but you will still be left with the great bulk of caches that you are interested in going after. Only after finding all of these 'likely good' caches do you take a look at the micros that were filtered out. In most areas, there are enough caches that a cacher will never have to take a look at the remainder.

 

I've tried to craft this post from your perspective as to what caches are undesirable, rather than mine. I hope it has helped.

Edited April 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

... I've already asked for A "parking lot" attribute, and others have asked for an option to "Ignore all caches from a particular geocacher." ...

There have been many calls for this option in recent threads. A few cachers have mentioned that this would pretty much solve the problem of lame caches, for them.

 

I'm not sure that everyone who wants this option understands that it is already possible to do this using GSAK.

I use the site to view caches on maps on the site and to few nearest caches on the site. So the "cacher ignore function" would allow me to do this and not view the caches that I have ignored. Also when I ignore all a cachers caches I may opt to un-ignore the few that people recommend. This would be cumbersome to do in GSAK. Plus we should think about others that would want to use. Many people struggle with doing the basics of paperless caching/GSAK. So this is a much cleaner solution then trying to get everyone to use macros in GSAK.

You might want to take a second read of my post. I gave no opinion on the requested feature. My post was merely to advise those people who want this feature that it was already available through GSAK. This would allow them to begin benefitting from the feature today, rather than waiting for it's possible release in the future.

[+sbell111]

TrailGators -

 

In a number of threads, you have mentioned the 'best of' list for caches in your area. Why don't you start a 'best micros' list, also. This would allow you to totally ignore low difficulty or terrain micros unless they are on the list. Since the list would be micro-only, the micros wouldn't be overshadowed by ammo boxes placed at the end of scenic hikes.

[+Miragee]

Yesterday I loaded my GPSr with all the caches in a particular area. I had three DNFs on Regular-sized caches that have gone missing . . .

 

I also saw this guy:

 

 

As I worked my way back home, I was very happy to find two caches . . . one that might be called a "lame micro" and another that turned out to be an LPC . . .

 

Just a different perspective . . .