I almost don't want to admit this..

[+geomann1]

I have been told that I place some good caches in my cache logs, by email, and the fact that many of my caches are on bookmark lists. I have one cache where people thank me for the opportunity just to BE at the location I shared . That doesn't give me the right to crap on someone else's effort to partricipate.

 

I've never found one of your caches but I will take your word that they are as good as you say. So assuming that they are, no, that doesn't entitle you to bag on anyone else. I don't think many feel that it is okay to bag on someone else, I know I don't But how did you acquire this skill? Did someone help you? How would you have responded if someone extended a helping hand to you when you were new or inexperienced? Would this leave you offended?

 

I would also point out that placing (and finding) a cache is not rocket science. Once you've found a several dozen or so one should have a good idea of what is a high quality cache and what is not. Reality is the different people have different standards and will likely not change.

[+TotemLake]

I'd rather hold my tongue than discourage a willing participant that is hiding caches that meet the listed guidelines. Ya never know when they might snap to hiding something more inspired. I've seen it happen.

 

Is it divine intervention that we are hoping for? How exactly is that willing participant going to know any better unless they run across a good cross section of discussion on the issue? It's my hope that they would read threads like this and see that very few people like to hunt these types of caches and that every time someone states that "I'd rather find one good cache than 50 LPCs" that this would influence their hides.

 

 

I anticipated this type of response to my post. I even had an idea who might post it. That's whyyy I posted this:

 

 

I'll watch the rest of the peanut gallery whine and complain about cache quality and comment my tired speech when I feel like posting it. Who knows which side of the fence does more good? From the bookmarks and comments on my own caches, I would venture to assert that I am leading by example.

 

 

Frankly, this particular forum has a bad reputation with most cachers I meet (and I've met THOUSANDS) for negativity. As a cross section of local geocaching continuums go, very few brave the waters here. Other than the coin forum, I am the ONLY person from my local geocaching continuum who participates here regularly. A few others dip their toe in from time to time, but most describe this forum in terms of ickyness.

 

 

What I struggle with is someone suggesting that someone has failed in anything, especially having fun.

 

 

I'll draw a better picture.

 

 

99.999% of geocachers go geocaching for fun. It's what they CHOOSE to do with their quality time and expendable resources such as gas and batteries, etc.

 

 

If you choose to do an activity for fun and then you don't end up with the result you set out for, ummm, you've failed to attain your goal.

 

 

In business I learned a valuable lesson about failure that I apply to those that work under me. It goes like this: "It's either training or attitude." After 10 years in middle management, whenever there has been a problem with an employee, it has ALWAYS been one of those two things. Always.

 

 

Since we can assume that most people KNOW how to have fun, what we're left with in the geocaching context is NOT a training issue.

 

 

If you head out for any cache with an air of entitlement and an unhealthy dose of expectation, you're gonna fail more often than not UNLESS you do extensive research and CHOOSE your cache hunts wisely.

 

 

It's your quality time and your resources you choose to spend on geocaching. What I struggle with is someone suggesting they are owed anything more than a log to sign and a cache hidden within posted guidelines when they hunt a cache.

 

 

 

"Failure is a hard pill to swallow until you realize the only failure you can really have in this sport is the failure to enjoy yourself."

TotemLake 4/26/04

 

 

Okay, how many of you just KNEW I was gonna post that quote?

It was only a matter of time. But you lead up to it well with this post. There is a significant difference between entitlements and having fun. Entitlement is more concerned about how many eggs are in the basket rather than the enjoyment they had in the activity it took to get them there.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I have been told that I place some good caches in my cache logs, by email, and the fact that many of my caches are on bookmark lists. I have one cache where people thank me for the opportunity just to BE at the location I shared . That doesn't give me the right to crap on someone else's effort to partricipate.

 

I've never found one of your caches but I will take your word that they are as good as you say. So assuming that they are, no, that doesn't entitle you to bag on anyone else. I don't think many feel that it is okay to bag on someone else, I know I don't But how did you acquire this skill? Did someone help you? How would you have responded if someone extended a helping hand to you when you were new or inexperienced? Would this leave you offended?

 

I would also point out that placing (and finding) a cache is not rocket science. Once you've found a several dozen or so one should have a good idea of what is a high quality cache and what is not. Reality is the different people have different standards and will likely not change.

 

Oh man, I am not sure I concur with this. But before I go any further what is your definition of a quality hide?

[+geomann1]

I would also point out that placing (and finding) a cache is not rocket science. Once you've found a several dozen or so one should have a good idea of what is a high quality cache and what is not. Reality is the different people have different standards and will likely not change.

 

Oh man, I am not sure I concur with this. But before I go any further what is your definition of a quality hide?

 

To start, I accept that the issue of cache quality has an element of subjectivity and that what I like may not be what you like.

 

What I consider a quality cache, is one that I find to be especially enjoyable experience, and has elements of the following:

 

1) Cleverly hidden using camo (not just covered).

 

2) Present some challenge to find (but still could still be a level 1 difficulty).

 

3) Has an element of orginality (LPC's, magnetic key holders under news racks need not apply).

 

4) Brings the searcher/finders to a scenic/interesting or at least not unpleasant location.

 

5) No safety issues (unless of course element of danger is part of cache and is clearly presented as such in the listing).

 

Not all factors need to be present, a ammo box hidden in the bushes that requires a pleasent hike to a very scenic or interesting location would certainly still qualify eventhough it might score low on 1 through 3.

 

Personally, I hide caches that I would enjoy to find.

 

Not very complicated.

[Clan Riffster]

Once you've found a several dozen or so one should have a good idea of what is a high quality cache and what is not.

I like to believe that most folks enter this game with very little knowledge regarding the vast intricacies inherent in this activity, outside of what they personally experience and what's available to read in the "Getting Started" section. If, for instance, in a player's early days, all they found were film canisters in dumpsters and Gladware shoved into shrubbery around strip malls, that impression might lead them to believe that's all there is to the game. If they were to hide a cache at that point in their career, these early experiences might reflect that.

 

As they mature in the game, they experience more variation, and that will also be reflected in their hide styles.

 

(Yeah, I know there are exceptions)

[+geomann1]

Once you've found a several dozen or so one should have a good idea of what is a high quality cache and what is not.

I like to believe that most folks enter this game with very little knowledge regarding the vast intricacies inherent in this activity, outside of what they personally experience and what's available to read in the "Getting Started" section. If, for instance, in a player's early days, all they found were film canisters in dumpsters and Gladware shoved into shrubbery around strip malls, that impression might lead them to believe that's all there is to the game. If they were to hide a cache at that point in their career, these early experiences might reflect that.

 

As they mature in the game, they experience more variation, and that will also be reflected in their hide styles.

 

(Yeah, I know there are exceptions)

 

I would agree with that. There are probably are some "under priveledged" geocaching areas. I guess I was lucky in that I found a variety of interesting caches early on which got me hooked on the sport. One should not be judgemental of people less fortunate.

[CoyoteRed]

Once you've found a several dozen or so one should have a good idea of what is a high quality cache and what is not.

If, for instance, in a player's early days, all they found were film canisters in dumpsters and Gladware shoved into shrubbery around strip malls, that impression might lead them to believe that's all there is to the game.

In some places it could be very easy to do just that with your first several dozen finds.

[CoyoteRed]

There are probably are some "under priveledged" geocaching areas. I guess I was lucky in that I found a variety of interesting caches early on which got me hooked on the sport. One should not be judgemental of people less fortunate.

It's not just areas, either. It seems like if you come in early into the sport you're more likely to have been fortunate in a similar way.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I would also point out that placing (and finding) a cache is not rocket science. Once you've found a several dozen or so one should have a good idea of what is a high quality cache and what is not. Reality is the different people have different standards and will likely not change.

 

Oh man, I am not sure I concur with this. But before I go any further what is your definition of a quality hide?

 

To start, I accept that the issue of cache quality has an element of subjectivity and that what I like may not be what you like.

 

What I consider a quality cache, is one that I find to be especially enjoyable experience, and has elements of the following:

 

1) Cleverly hidden using camo (not just covered).

 

2) Present some challenge to find (but still could still be a level 1 difficulty).

 

3) Has an element of orginality (LPC's, magnetic key holders under news racks need not apply).

 

4) Brings the searcher/finders to a scenic/interesting or at least not unpleasant location.

 

5) No safety issues (unless of course element of danger is part of cache and is clearly presented as such in the listing).

 

Not all factors need to be present, a ammo box hidden in the bushes that requires a pleasent hike to a very scenic or interesting location would certainly still qualify eventhough it might score low on 1 through 3.

 

Personally, I hide caches that I would enjoy to find.

 

Not very complicated.

 

Okay, that covers the basics pretty well. But you said this before I had a chance to. You were very fortunate to see and experience all of these things in your first dozen hides. How did you select the first caches you found? Did you have a mentor or someone that made any suggestions? I'd contend that someone buying a GPS and just starting out finding the caches by their home has a better chance having an opposite experience.

 

Now the rocket science part. I could be exceptionally slow but it took me a year to put out what I feel is a quality or exceptional cache. My personal journey went something like this.

 

Stage One. Learn the basics of GPS navigation and GC.com so I could find anything at all.

Stage Two. Find a random sampling of caches in my area with no outside direction.

Stage Three. Identify some of the better hiders in the area and find their caches.

Stage Four. Hide my first cache and completely screw up every aspect of it.

Stage Five. Repeat stage one.

Stage Six. Start perfecting cammo techniques and actively researching "the art of the hide" by reading cache pages for the sake of understanding how the useful information is presented and other written information that I was able to gather. The best written resource was a book called "Hiding things in Plain Sight" and a few books on hunting cammo.

Stage Seven. Understanding the value and finding more ways to obtain feedback on my cache hides. Start listening to and asking for feedback from everyone that has found a cache that is placed by me. Accepting that any cache that any cache I've hidden can be improved after it is found two or three times by what I learned.

Stage Eight. Start going with people to find my caches and observe how they approach my hides. This was the single most important technique that I learned for making my hides better but I think I needed to go through the earlier stages to even get here.

 

You know what? Almost three years into this and 42 hides later, I am still learning things with every cache I hide. Although my caches won 4 out of the 5 awards (including best overall hide) at our state CITO event this year, I fully believe that there is so much more to learn about hiding a cache. The caches I hide today are nothing like the first caches I hid because of things I learned along the way. So, I am a living proof that while all this is intuitive to some, it's not to others, like me.

 

I contend that this was such a long road to hide a quality cache for me because I had no help. Having no help was also a blessing in that I also was not influenced by cachers that claim -any cache is a good cache- as well. I contend that the average person is not near as determined (stubborn or pig headed take your pick) as I am and would truly benefit from some basic assistance early and even some advanced help after they learn the basics and have some hides under their belt.

 

Lately, in Stage Nine of my evolution, I've been teaming up with and partnering with the better hiders in the area on group effort hides. This has been very helpful and I think I will continue doing this.

[+geomann1]

I would also point out that placing (and finding) a cache is not rocket science. Once you've found a several dozen or so one should have a good idea of what is a high quality cache and what is not. Reality is the different people have different standards and will likely not change.

 

Oh man, I am not sure I concur with this. But before I go any further what is your definition of a quality hide?

 

To start, I accept that the issue of cache quality has an element of subjectivity and that what I like may not be what you like.

 

What I consider a quality cache, is one that I find to be especially enjoyable experience, and has elements of the following:

 

1) Cleverly hidden using camo (not just covered).

 

2) Present some challenge to find (but still could still be a level 1 difficulty).

 

3) Has an element of orginality (LPC's, magnetic key holders under news racks need not apply).

 

4) Brings the searcher/finders to a scenic/interesting or at least not unpleasant location.

 

5) No safety issues (unless of course element of danger is part of cache and is clearly presented as such in the listing).

 

Not all factors need to be present, a ammo box hidden in the bushes that requires a pleasent hike to a very scenic or interesting location would certainly still qualify eventhough it might score low on 1 through 3.

 

Personally, I hide caches that I would enjoy to find.

 

Not very complicated.

 

Okay, that covers the basics pretty well. But you said this before I had a chance to. You were very fortunate to see and experience all of these things in your first dozen hides. How did you select the first caches you found? Did you have a mentor or someone that made any suggestions? I'd contend that someone buying a GPS and just starting out finding the caches by their home has a better chance having an opposite experience.

 

Now the rocket science part. I could be exceptionally slow but it took me a year to put out what I feel is a quality or exceptional cache. My personal journey went something like this.

 

Stage One. Learn the basics of GPS navigation and GC.com so I could find anything at all.

Stage Two. Find a random sampling of caches in my area with no outside direction.

Stage Three. Identify some of the better hiders in the area and find their caches.

Stage Four. Hide my first cache and completely screw up every aspect of it.

Stage Five. Repeat stage one.

Stage Six. Start perfecting cammo techniques and actively researching "the art of the hide" by reading cache pages for the sake of understanding how the useful information is presented and other written information that I was able to gather. The best written resource was a book called "Hiding things in Plain Sight" and a few books on hunting cammo.

Stage Seven. Understanding the value and finding more ways to obtain feedback on my cache hides. Start listening to and asking for feedback from everyone that has found a cache that is placed by me. Accepting that any cache that any cache I've hidden can be improved after it is found two or three times by what I learned.

Stage Eight. Start going with people to find my caches and observe how they approach my hides. This was the single most important technique that I learned for making my hides better but I think I needed to go through the earlier stages to even get here.

 

You know what? Almost three years into this and 42 hides later, I am still learning things with every cache I hide. Although my caches won 4 out of the 5 awards (including best overall hide) at our state CITO event this year, I fully believe that there is so much more to learn about hiding a cache. The caches I hide today are nothing like the first caches I hid because of things I learned along the way. So, I am a living proof that while all this is intuitive to some, it's not to others, like me.

 

I contend that this was such a long road to hide a quality cache for me because I had no help. Having no help was also a blessing in that I also was not influenced by cachers that claim -any cache is a good cache- as well. I contend that the average person is not near as determined (stubborn or pig headed take your pick) as I am and would truly benefit from some basic assistance early and even some advanced help after they learn the basics and have some hides under their belt.

 

Lately, in Stage Nine of my evolution, I've been teaming up with and partnering with the better hiders in the area on group effort hides. This has been very helpful and I think I will continue doing this.

 

I learned the hard way, on my own, on the street (or more appropriately in the bushes).

 

I certainly respect the effort you put into your caches and hope to have the opportunity to find some. I also tend to want to do things my own way and learn my own lessons as I go along.

 

I have also come to the conclusion that a basic level 1 to 2 difficulty scale hide, that is put in a safe location (you can take your kids), and involves some skill to find and is a bit out of the ordinary, is still appreciated by many cachers. especially new participants.

[+sbell111]

That doesn't give me the right to crap on someone else's effort to partricipate

Ummm, you do have that right. I've yet to find the passage in the guidelines and TOS that prohibits honesty. You may choose not to exercise it but that's a horse in a different garage.

You are absolutely correct. Far be it for anyone to tell you (royal you) that you don't have the right to be a jerk. Edited July 6, 2007 by sbell111

[+Renegade Knight]

If you head out for any cache with an air of entitlement and an unhealthy dose of expectation, you're gonna fail more often than not UNLESS you do extensive research and CHOOSE your cache hunts wisely.

So, we have to lower our expectations to nothing more than finding an uninteresting cache in an uninteresting location and signing a soggy log?

 

Oh, unless we research the whole hunt first?

 

And then, not say anything negative because it might upset someone.

 

Uh, huh.

 

My latest favorite quote: "I firmly believe that a cache is not great just because it is." ~CurmudgeonlyGal

...

First, that's a good quote you brought out.

Second. Since we all get out of this activity what we bring to it, your expectations do have a lot to do with how much you are going to enjoy things. I find this easy to apply in caching. Not so easy to apply to crying babies at the movies.

 

You should research the hunt first. Back in the day you had to do that to even figure out which cache you could go find. Now you have to do it to figure out which caches you should go find given you have fun your own way.

[+Renegade Knight]

..."Maybe that's all the cache deserves. Some owners don't put much effort into the hide. Why should the finder put more effort into thanking the owner than the owner did in thinking about the hide?"...

 

A well dressed man opens a door for a well dressed woman. The woman says "You opened the door for me because I'm a lady". The Man says, "No I opened the door for you because I'm a gentleman".

 

It's not about the cache, it's about who you are as a finder when it comes to the logs you leave. Maybe the cache has no merit whatsoever. You can be a gentleman about it or you can be a jerk. Either gets the cache a lot and both can give the owner feedback they need.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Personally, I hide caches that I would enjoy to find.

 

Not very complicated.

 

There you go. A good working philosopy. No need for a 5 point list that restricts your creativity.

[+sbell111]

I don't think that hiding a succesful cache is as difficult as many are making it out to be. (Nor should it be.)

 

People like to make the same arguments over and over. One such position is that if someone tends to find only lame caches when they begin the game, he/she will hide only lame caches. I believe that this is highly unlikely.

 

If, when someone started out, he/she only found caches that they felt were lame, I believe that only two options would be likely. The individual would decide that the game is stupid and quit playing or they would hide a cache that they thought wasn't lame.

 

I suspect what the 'complainers' are really seeing is that a new person finds a few caches, enjoys them, and hides a similar cache. As (almost) always, the player hides a cache that he/she would enjoy.

 

As far as I can tell, these caches that are being complained about are well received by many. That certainly isn't going to keep some from complaining. I suspect that nothing will.

[+Renegade Knight]

...People like to make the same arguments over and over. One such position is that if someone tends to find only lame caches when they begin the game, he/she will hide only lame caches. I believe that this is highly unlikely....

 

If this theory were true, then caches today would all be as good as caches from back in the day. There was a time when a lamp post hide was unheard of making it creative and cutting edge. When people set out to be creative and orginal, the caches are going to be hit and miss. The misses are the price we pay for the hits.

[+DanOCan]

It would seem that there are a lot of cache connoiseurs out there who have strong opinions, but will still log what they believe are very lame caches because they want another smiley.

 

Yep, that's me in a nutshell.

 

I use this comparison: In the 1970s Phil Esposito was often chastised for scoring "garbage goals" -- lots of rebounds and mucking around and not very pretty. His response was "They all look like slapshots in the next day's paper."

 

That's how I look at lame cache hunts. They all look like 20 mile hikes on my profile page the next week.

 

For me I think it comes from getting enjoyment for cleaning out an area. I enjoy looking at my map and seeing large areas devoid of unfound caches. It is one of my personal challenges. When another lame cache pops up in one of those areas I have to find it. Sure, I could add it to my Ignore list but I still KNOW in my mind that it is there and it bugs me.

 

That being said, there are still caches that are so bad I won't hunt for them, or I will come back at a better time. One time I volunteered to come in to do some early morning work just because I knew it would give me the chance to nail a couple lame caches in high-muggle areas before they got busy.

 

I'll admit that if everyone stopped hunting lame caches the problem would go away. However, I maintain enough of a grip on reality to know that isn't going to happen. So, in the meantime, I will add to to the problem by hunting down the caches and complain about it later. No one says I have to make sense, it is just a game after all.

 

Cheers!

[+sbell111]

... I'll admit that if everyone stopped hunting lame caches the problem would go away. However, I maintain enough of a grip on reality to know that isn't going to happen. ...

I wonder if we agree that the reason that it will never happen is that not everyone will agree on what is 'lame'.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I don't think that hiding a succesful cache is as difficult as many are making it out to be. (Nor should it be.)

 

I think you have a point here. Effort put into hides is a matter of personal taste and style. There is nothing wrong with a simple hide. But be careful on that last statement or someone is going to soon drop in and accuse of you of attempting to dictate how the game should be played.

 

People like to make the same arguments over and over. One such position is that if someone tends to find only lame caches when they begin the game, he/she will hide only lame caches. I believe that this is highly unlikely.

 

Definitely a lot of factors at work here but it boils down to your personal expectations as a starting point. This is dictated by your personal experience. I don't think much of geocaching is intuitive, it's all learned. I can remember taking a group of 8 non-cachers out into a parking lot after a business dinner and locating an LPC with them. They were ABSOLUTELY amazed! A few of those folks actually went on to take up Geocaching in different parts of the world. Now, the magic of that LPC has worn off more than a little. We ocassionally will talk about that first WOW and how their own experiences have shaped their expectations.

 

If, when someone started out, he/she only found caches that they felt were lame, I believe that only two options would be likely. The individual would decide that the game is stupid and quit playing or they would hide a cache that they thought wasn't lame.

 

I think the experience of actually being able to find something, anything, with a GPS carries some cachers early on. The quality of the hide is often secondary to being able to locate something that is hidden at first. But I believe that shifts at some point for everyone. I don't think there is anyone who gets the same WOW from from their 50th LPC that they got from their first one.

 

I suspect what the 'complainers' are really seeing is that a new person finds a few caches, enjoys them, and hides a similar cache. As (almost) always, the player hides a cache that he/she would enjoy.

 

I think I have even seen you post something to the effect of "there's so many ways to enjoy this game and none of them are correct" and I could not agree with you more. Early experiences shape the way people enjoy the game. So exposing people to different types of hides that involve creativity, people that like travelers, take photos, solve puzzles ad infinitum offers the new cacher a much broader experience and I think it encourages people to want to explore what interests them more and eventually a few areas that they would like to grow their own experience in. I would not be honest if I said I would not be happy if a few of the newer cachers decided that they want to hide exception caches. But as you rightly point out, to each his own.

 

As far as I can tell, these caches that are being complained about are well received by many. That certainly isn't going to keep some from complaining. I suspect that nothing will.

 

Can't agree with the use of "complainers" in the context of this thread. People wanting to excel in any aspect of their life be it professionally or in their recreation are what makes this a great country. These are the the people that I personally enjoy and look up to the most. I think a lot of the people that hide more imaginative caches fit into this category.

 

But sometimes in something as counter intuitive as geocaching, people need a little help getting started before they can start to develop that. I think most, including myself, would like to encourage people (not complain about what they are doing) to do better not for what it can do for me but what it can do for their own ultimate enjoyment of geocaching.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+mtn-man]

That doesn't give me the right to crap on someone else's effort to partricipate

Ummm, you do have that right. I've yet to find the passage in the guidelines and TOS that prohibits honesty. You may choose not to exercise it but that's a horse in a different garage.

You are absolutely correct. Far be it for anyone to tell you (royal you) that you don't have the right to be a jerk.

This part of the forum guidelines seems to be lost lately. Let's revisit it again...

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

[+sbell111]

... But sometimes in something as counter intuitive as geocaching, people need a little help getting started before they can start to develop that. ...

I think our basic disconnect may be that you find geocaching to be counterintuitive.

 

Step one: Hide something

Step two: Record the hide on-line.

 

It's not difficult.

Edited July 6, 2007 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

I still fail to understand why those that feel 99% of all micro hides are lame don't just filter out micros.

 

If there are 200 micros in the area, and 2 are good, keeping the other 198 just to get to those 2 seems silly.

 

The only thing sillier would be to keep all 200 micros in your PQ and then complain in the forums about all the lame micros that you can't get away from.

[+Miragee]

That is as good point, and locally I might start doing that, only keeping the micros in my GSAK database placed by a couple of hiders who take care in their placements and use creativity in their containers.

 

When you are on a roadtrip, it is not easy to know who the hiders are to avoid. Although, if you travel enough miles between stops, you should get into someone else's territory, and hopefully they don't also prefer truly lousy locations.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

I still fail to understand why those that feel 99% of all micro hides are lame don't just filter out micros.

 

If there are 200 micros in the area, and 2 are good, keeping the other 198 just to get to those 2 seems silly.

 

The only thing sillier would be to keep all 200 micros in your PQ and then complain in the forums about all the lame micros that you can't get away from.

 

You'd think, wouldn't you?

 

I was always humored by my PQ's when I lived in NC - there were 500 caches (the ones with logbooks - i.e. no events, virts, blah blah blah) within a 10 mile radius from my house, but when I pulled out the micro's and unknown's, and the hides from a few cachers I just wasn't feelin' the love for, my radius bumped me up to a whopping 65-ish miles.

 

BIG difference.

 

michelle

[+Team GeoBlast]

... But sometimes in something as counter intuitive as geocaching, people need a little help getting started before they can start to develop that. ...

I think our basic disconnect may be that you find geocaching to be counterintuitive.

 

Step one: Hide something

Step two: Record the hide on-line.

 

It's not difficult.

 

Yes, I agree 100%. it's probably an inherent difference in the way we approach life in general. I'll concede to that with no hard feelings towards you at all. In a lot of ways I envy you.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I still fail to understand why those that feel 99% of all micro hides are lame don't just filter out micros.

 

If there are 200 micros in the area, and 2 are good, keeping the other 198 just to get to those 2 seems silly.

 

The only thing sillier would be to keep all 200 micros in your PQ and then complain in the forums about all the lame micros that you can't get away from.

 

You'd think, wouldn't you?

 

I was always humored by my PQ's when I lived in NC - there were 500 caches (the ones with logbooks - i.e. no events, virts, blah blah blah) within a 10 mile radius from my house, but when I pulled out the micro's and unknown's, and the hides from a few cachers I just wasn't feelin' the love for, my radius bumped me up to a whopping 65-ish miles.

 

BIG difference.

 

michelle

 

Michelle, I've been meaning to ask you this for awhile now...would you please put that tongue away? It's going to get all dry and attract bugs if you don't.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I still fail to understand why those that feel 99% of all micro hides are lame don't just filter out micros.

 

If there are 200 micros in the area, and 2 are good, keeping the other 198 just to get to those 2 seems silly.

 

The only thing sillier would be to keep all 200 micros in your PQ and then complain in the forums about all the lame micros that you can't get away from.

 

But, how could I sleep thinking about all those amazing and exceptional micros I missed?

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

I still fail to understand why those that feel 99% of all micro hides are lame don't just filter out micros.

 

If there are 200 micros in the area, and 2 are good, keeping the other 198 just to get to those 2 seems silly.

 

The only thing sillier would be to keep all 200 micros in your PQ and then complain in the forums about all the lame micros that you can't get away from.

 

You'd think, wouldn't you?

 

I was always humored by my PQ's when I lived in NC - there were 500 caches (the ones with logbooks - i.e. no events, virts, blah blah blah) within a 10 mile radius from my house, but when I pulled out the micro's and unknown's, and the hides from a few cachers I just wasn't feelin' the love for, my radius bumped me up to a whopping 65-ish miles.

 

BIG difference.

 

michelle

 

Michelle, I've been meaning to ask you this for awhile now...would you please put that tongue away? It's going to get all dry and attract bugs if you don't.

 

You think it's time to put it away?

 

*grumble*

 

 

michelle

[+Team GeoBlast]

I still fail to understand why those that feel 99% of all micro hides are lame don't just filter out micros.

 

If there are 200 micros in the area, and 2 are good, keeping the other 198 just to get to those 2 seems silly.

 

The only thing sillier would be to keep all 200 micros in your PQ and then complain in the forums about all the lame micros that you can't get away from.

 

You'd think, wouldn't you?

 

I was always humored by my PQ's when I lived in NC - there were 500 caches (the ones with logbooks - i.e. no events, virts, blah blah blah) within a 10 mile radius from my house, but when I pulled out the micro's and unknown's, and the hides from a few cachers I just wasn't feelin' the love for, my radius bumped me up to a whopping 65-ish miles.

 

BIG difference.

 

michelle

 

Michelle, I've been meaning to ask you this for awhile now...would you please put that tongue away? It's going to get all dry and attract bugs if you don't.

 

You think it's time to put it away?

 

*grumble*

 

 

michelle

 

Funny, of all the responses that come immediately to mind, I cannot type one of them.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ah. I think the problem here is 'paperless' caching. Load the GPS and PDA with everything, and wander about aimlessly from cache to cache. No cure for paperless caching!

My brother, from the 'other' coast came for a visit, and loaded every cache within 75 miles of the dolphinarium. That's about 5000 caches! We wandered aimlessly from cache to cache. I am not impressed with this way of geocaching, but I'm not a numbers person.

I took a trip to Maine last year. I planned my route and driving times, and picked twice as many caches as I thought I could possibly find. Then I printed out the pages for caches that I was interested in finding. (And, of course benchmarks.) Added Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts to my my maps. Had a great time. Found nice caches.

OP is not approaching this right. He's not having fun. Me, I had a great time! (Okay, I had already found caches in NH, and did not find any bencharks in Mass...)

[+TrailGators]

Ah. I think the problem here is 'paperless' caching. Load the GPS and PDA with everything, and wander about aimlessly from cache to cache. No cure for paperless caching!

My brother, from the 'other' coast came for a visit, and loaded every cache within 75 miles of the dolphinarium. That's about 5000 caches! We wandered aimlessly from cache to cache. I am not impressed with this way of geocaching, but I'm not a numbers person.

I took a trip to Maine last year. I planned my route and driving times, and picked twice as many caches as I thought I could possibly find. Then I printed out the pages for caches that I was interested in finding. (And, of course benchmarks.) Added Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts to my my maps. Had a great time. Found nice caches.

OP is not approaching this right. He's not having fun. Me, I had a great time! (Okay, I had already found caches in NH, and did not find any bencharks in Mass...)

This is true. People also do it to be sure that they clear out an area. Also some people have so dependent on hints that they'll save up every past log and load all those into their PDA. I've been blowing off using my PDA lately and just loading up my GPS and heading out to a target area where I'm pretty sure I won't find YNWs. If I don't find the cache, it's no biggie. On to the next one on an enjoyable hike.

[Mushtang]

I still fail to understand why those that feel 99% of all micro hides are lame don't just filter out micros.

 

If there are 200 micros in the area, and 2 are good, keeping the other 198 just to get to those 2 seems silly.

 

The only thing sillier would be to keep all 200 micros in your PQ and then complain in the forums about all the lame micros that you can't get away from.

 

You'd think, wouldn't you?

 

I was always humored by my PQ's when I lived in NC - there were 500 caches (the ones with logbooks - i.e. no events, virts, blah blah blah) within a 10 mile radius from my house, but when I pulled out the micro's and unknown's, and the hides from a few cachers I just wasn't feelin' the love for, my radius bumped me up to a whopping 65-ish miles.

 

BIG difference.

 

michelle

Is this not the same situation people had during the first years of geocaching? I hear a lot of people in the forums talk about how wonderful it was back then, when the caches were quality, and the containers were large.

 

Well, the caches were also few, and the containers were also far apart.

 

It's an option.

[+TrailGators]

I still fail to understand why those that feel 99% of all micro hides are lame don't just filter out micros.

 

If there are 200 micros in the area, and 2 are good, keeping the other 198 just to get to those 2 seems silly.

 

The only thing sillier would be to keep all 200 micros in your PQ and then complain in the forums about all the lame micros that you can't get away from.

 

You'd think, wouldn't you?

 

I was always humored by my PQ's when I lived in NC - there were 500 caches (the ones with logbooks - i.e. no events, virts, blah blah blah) within a 10 mile radius from my house, but when I pulled out the micro's and unknown's, and the hides from a few cachers I just wasn't feelin' the love for, my radius bumped me up to a whopping 65-ish miles.

 

BIG difference.

 

michelle

Is this not the same situation people had during the first years of geocaching? I hear a lot of people in the forums talk about how wonderful it was back then, when the caches were quality, and the containers were large.

 

Well, the caches were also few, and the containers were also far apart.

 

It's an option.

The difference these days is that the good ones are still just as far apart, but there are zillions of tiny red herrings in between the good ones.

[+The Jester]

When does a cache become "lame"? I don't think any cache started off "lame" - only OUR perception of the cache changed. (I'm going to skip trying to quote every comment that's been made, you've read the thread, you've seen them.) LPC's - the poster child of the "lame" cache - were "cutting edge" at one time (and to some people still are), has the hide changed? Nope, but because some one is bored with it they scream "LAME!" Just remember, the new people hiding/copying them don't see them as "lame", they see a cool hide. But then comes along Joe Cacher, with hundreds and hundreds of finds, and complains that all they hide are "lame" caches and wants to instruct them in how to hide "better" caches.

 

I really don't like labelling any cache as "lame" (hence the quotes around said label). I just did a 4.5-5 mile loop up and around a mountain (really a large hill, but what's in a name) park, and found 10 caches. Most were regular size and none had much creativity to the hide - base of a tree/log/stump covered (or not) with wood or leaves. Man, how many times have I seen that around here! Several of the ammo cans still had the military markings. Most of them were walk up, look for geo-trail, follow to "odd" lump and grab cache. I even was able to spot where one was going to be hidden a couple of hundred feet away - should I have just skipped it because it was just like those LPC's? All of them shared something in common with the "dreaded" LPC, in one way or another, so should we stand up and call "lame"? Just because something been done over and over and over doesn't make it bad - except in YOUR opinion.

[+TrailGators]

Just because something been done over and over and over doesn't make it bad - except in YOUR opinion.

Exactly! It's my opinion and there's nothing wrong with having one!

 

P.S. I don't use the "L" word anymore...

Edited July 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+The Jester]

I hear a lot of people in the forums talk about how wonderful it was back then, when the caches were quality, and the containers were large.

 

Well, the caches were also few, and the containers were also far apart.

Ahh! Back in the good old days -

 

when caches were quality - when anything could and would be used as a container: coffee cans, buckets, pencil boxes, candy dispensers and other wonderful, leaky tubs. That's why I still carry a space pen, to sign those wonderfully wet logs (I don't use much these days).

 

when the containers were large - the better to hold more water! It took me over 20 caches in 2001 before I found anything "large".

 

the caches were few - everything was creative back then, nobody had seen any of it. "Wow! No wonder I didn't see it, they covered it with sticks!" Nobody call them "lame" although many would get yawns today.

 

the containers were far apart - I remember a "cache run" I took where I got 23 caches in three days - darn good back then. Now I can get 10 in four hours of hiking...

[Mushtang]

I still fail to understand why those that feel 99% of all micro hides are lame don't just filter out micros.

 

If there are 200 micros in the area, and 2 are good, keeping the other 198 just to get to those 2 seems silly.

 

The only thing sillier would be to keep all 200 micros in your PQ and then complain in the forums about all the lame micros that you can't get away from.

 

You'd think, wouldn't you?

 

I was always humored by my PQ's when I lived in NC - there were 500 caches (the ones with logbooks - i.e. no events, virts, blah blah blah) within a 10 mile radius from my house, but when I pulled out the micro's and unknown's, and the hides from a few cachers I just wasn't feelin' the love for, my radius bumped me up to a whopping 65-ish miles.

 

BIG difference.

 

michelle

Is this not the same situation people had during the first years of geocaching? I hear a lot of people in the forums talk about how wonderful it was back then, when the caches were quality, and the containers were large.

 

Well, the caches were also few, and the containers were also far apart.

 

It's an option.

The difference these days is that the good ones are still just as far apart, but there are zillions of tiny red herrings in between the good ones.

Umm... yeah. If only someone had already said that.

[Pacific NW]

As a new cacher I'll throw my $0.02 in here. I've bypassed more caches than I've found, especially when traveling.

 

I wish some folks would put a little more thought into their hides, especially with safety in mind. If you wouldn't want your own family or friends in a certain area looking for a cache, maybe it's not the best spot.

 

In particular: along busy highways and roads, buried in poison plants and/or berry bushes, co-mingled in popular trash dumping areas, and near obvious homeless encampments.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not going to sift through garbage or get hit at 65mph just for a find.

[+The Jester]

Just because something been done over and over and over doesn't make it bad - except in YOUR opinion.

Exactly! It's my opinion and there's nothing wrong with having one!

 

P.S. I don't use the "L" word anymore...

Nope, nothing wrong with having one - until you claim that everyone argrees with it. It's been expressed here many times that "everyone knows/agrees LPC's are lame" for one example.

[+TrailGators]

Just because something been done over and over and over doesn't make it bad - except in YOUR opinion.

Exactly! It's my opinion and there's nothing wrong with having one!

 

P.S. I don't use the "L" word anymore...

Nope, nothing wrong with having one - until you claim that everyone agrees with it. It's been expressed here many times that "everyone knows/agrees LPC's are lame" for one example.

I can't even get my wife to agree with me all the time. Anyhow, my opinion is that it is impossible for everyone to agree. I think I could get everyone to agree with that.

[+Snoogans]

The difference these days is that the good ones are still just as far apart, but there are zillions of tiny red herrings in between the good ones.

 

 

Well then. It appears all the good caches that are going to be hidden have already been hidden. We should all stop hiding caches and start the important CITO work of getting rid of all the lame ones. /sarcasm

 

 

If ANYONE really and truly BELIEVES that the ratio of subjective good caches to subjective lame caches is roughly 2 parts per "zillion," I have one question for them. Why the heck do you even bother?

 

 

I promise the community that if I ever adopt this mentality, I will fade so quickly from geocaching that you wouldn't even hear the door slam shut. It wouldn't eeeven rate a geocide. People tend to geocide over things they care about. If I thought cachin' was that bad I wouldn't give a flip about it or waste my time on it.

[+TrailGators]

The difference these days is that the good ones are still just as far apart, but there are zillions of tiny red herrings in between the good ones.

Well then. It appears all the good caches that are going to be hidden have already been hidden. We should all stop hiding caches and start the important CITO work of getting rid of all the lame ones. /sarcasm

If ANYONE really and truly BELIEVES that the ratio of subjective good caches to subjective lame caches is roughly 2 parts per "zillion," I have one question for them. Why the heck do you even bother?

I promise the community that if I ever adopt this mentality, I will fade so quickly from geocaching that you wouldn't even hear the door slam shut. It wouldn't eeeven rate a geocide. People tend to geocide over things they care about. If I thought cachin' was that bad I wouldn't give a flip about it or waste my time on it.

 

Relax dude, I was joking about zillions.....It is more like hundreds. Anyhow, the reality is that I typically cache away from urban areas where the ratio of YNWs is very low. Caching is like fishing. You learn where the big fish are and you also learn the spots where all you catch are guppies. Edited July 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+fizzymagic]

When does a cache become "lame"? I don't think any cache started off "lame" - only OUR perception of the cache changed.

Sorry, I disagree. The very first cache I found in a trash-strewn area next to a dumpster behind a shopping mall was lame. It started off lame, and (were it still there) it would remain lame to this very day.

[+TrailGators]

When does a cache become "lame"? I don't think any cache started off "lame" - only OUR perception of the cache changed.

Sorry, I disagree. The very first cache I found in a trash-strewn area next to a dumpster behind a shopping mall was lame. It started off lame, and (were it still there) it would remain lame to this very day.

Do you mean to tell me that the emperor is really not wearing any clothes... Edited July 7, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Snoogans]

If ANYONE really and truly BELIEVES

 

Relax dude, I was joking about zillions.....It is more like hundreds.

 

 

I am relaxed dood. I didn't use one "!" or or in my post.

 

 

I just felt your point illustration to be over the top. You know, Arguespew. That's why I qualified my remark and didn't quote YOU by name.

Edited July 7, 2007 by Snoogans

[CoyoteRed]

I promise the community that if I ever adopt this mentality, I will fade so quickly from geocaching that you wouldn't even hear the door slam shut. It wouldn't eeeven rate a geocide. People tend to geocide over things they care about. If I thought cachin' was that bad I wouldn't give a flip about it or waste my time on it.

This is an interesting notion. From this I can infer you like an activity as long as it is the way you like it, but it is starts becoming something you don't like you simply abandon it. No effort to bring it back on track to the way you like it. No effort to make it better.

[CoyoteRed]

I still fail to understand why those that feel 99% of all micro hides are lame don't just filter out micros.

I'm sure many of them do. I personally know of folks who filter micros and only hunt those that get word of mouth attention.

 

However, many don't feel "micro" is synonymous with "lame." Size has less to do with lack of satisfaction than intended purpose.

 

Also, the problem isn't in every area. Some areas you find yourself you can be perfectly happy with the vast majority of the caches even with a healthy sprinkling of micros. Other areas are pretty much just made for cache runs--micros and smalls (though I've been told one area is calling film cans "small") as drive-bys with little to no thought to the location.

 

When a cache's intended purpose is primarily to provide a smilie and someone comes along who doesn't care about that smilie there is little else for him--regardless of size.

[+Snoogans]

I promise the community that if I ever adopt this mentality, I will fade so quickly from geocaching that you wouldn't even hear the door slam shut. It wouldn't eeeven rate a geocide. People tend to geocide over things they care about. If I thought cachin' was that bad I wouldn't give a flip about it or waste my time on it.

This is an interesting notion. From this I can infer you like an activity as long as it is the way you like it, but it is starts becoming something you don't like you simply abandon it. No effort to bring it back on track to the way you like it. No effort to make it better.

 

 

Absolutely not. I expected to see this response BTW.

 

 

At a ratio of roughly 2 parts per zillion good to lame, geocaching would be far too gone to benefit from my brand of tired wisdom. I'd just fade away quietly.

 

 

Right now. Geocaching from the way I see it and practice it IS the way I like it. It ain't broke and when my needs aren't met on THIS listing service, there are ALWAYS others.

 

 

When I see people wanting to fix what ain't broke to suit their OWN aesthetic, I DO chime in.

 

 

What needs fixin'?

[Clan Riffster]

***WARNING!!!***

The preceding post contains opinions. Those who cannot tolerate opinions, should probably skip this post for their own good.

 

When does a cache become "lame"?

When it's a container that doesn't adequately protect its contents, hidden in an uninspired location, employing an uninspired hide technique, and a 5 word write up.

 

I don't think any cache started off "lame"

Ah contraire! (No, I can't spell in French any better than I do in English) A film canister plopped off in the shrubbery of a Burger King starts off lame.

 

LPC's - the poster child of the "lame" cache - were "cutting edge" at one time (and to some people still are)

The first LPC I found was lame. As were all the ones after that.

 

Nope, but because some one is bored with it they scream "LAME!"

If typing in all caps is defined as shouting in an internet forum, the only one screaming "lame" is you.

 

It's been expressed here many times that "everyone knows/agrees LPC's are lame" for one example.

Really? Maybe my eye sight's going. I can't seem to find "many" references dictating that. Got a link? Help a brother out? Perhaps we disagree on what constitutes "many"? Perhaps you were exaggerating? Heck, I don't know. For the record, my stance is that, not everyone knows/agrees LPC's are lame. If there is anyone in here that honestly believes that "everyone" thinks LPC's are lame, they haven't been paying attention. This thread seems to have many supporters of LPC's.

[CoyoteRed]

I promise the community that if I ever adopt this mentality, I will fade so quickly from geocaching that you wouldn't even hear the door slam shut. It wouldn't eeeven rate a geocide. People tend to geocide over things they care about. If I thought cachin' was that bad I wouldn't give a flip about it or waste my time on it.

This is an interesting notion. From this I can infer you like an activity as long as it is the way you like it, but it is starts becoming something you don't like you simply abandon it. No effort to bring it back on track to the way you like it. No effort to make it better.

Absolutely not. I expected to see this response BTW.

Then you should expect the following, as well:

 

At a ratio of roughly 2 parts per zillion good to lame, geocaching would be far too gone to benefit from my brand of tired wisdom. I'd just fade away quietly.

And closing your eyes and mouth to let it get to that point you've done the same thing--not done something about the down hill slide of your hobby. Doing so pretty much shows your lack of interest in the hobby and thusly your opinion carries less weight.

 

Right now. Geocaching from the way I see it and practice it IS the way I like it. It ain't broke and when my needs aren't met on THIS listing service, there are ALWAYS others.

 

When I see people wanting to fix what ain't broke to suit their OWN aesthetic, I DO chime in.

It ain't broke in your opinion. Obviously, others feel differently. Otherwise these threads wouldn't keep popping up.

 

Additionally, we're not talking about simply aesthetics. It's not about puzzles versus hikes. It's about the lack of quality and satisfaction.

 

What needs fixin'?

We're discussing it right now.

 

As I see it, pretty much it boils down to two sides. One group wants to advocate raising the overall quality of the geocaching experience and the other wants to keep it low.