I almost don't want to admit this..

[+sbell111]

... How would people feel about an individual cache limit (perhaps graduated with find count). It would prevent someone from spewing 100's of lame micro caches, reduce the problem of over-extended owners who perform no maintenance, and force owners to make quality choices (which of my existing caches should I archive so I can place a better cache).

Occasionally, someone starts a thread which advocates hiding limits for maintenance reasons. NORMally, the response is that each cache owner's abilities are different and that while some people have trouble owning one or two good caches, other players can manage hundreds. Edited July 8, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

Your 'raising expectations' seems to be code for 'stop hiding caches that CoyoteRed doesn't like.'

I think someone just had a "Duh!" moment. Given the massive latitude of caches I actually like, I suspect, and it's been my experience, that a massive percentage of folks would concur.

That is not what I have seen. What I see is arguments against the elimination of caches that some believe are 'lame' but others enjoy.

Do they enjoy each of those caches? Or do they enjoy the ability to claim that smilie? I dare say some, especially non-PMs, enjoy getting that piece of junk off their nearest list.

If anything, the problem is that CoyoteRed's expectations have been artificially raised to too high of a level and it is affecting his fun.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I got ruined when I was able to simply go blindly from cache to cache and by the end of the day have but a few stinkers. Yeah, somehow my expectations got artificially raised.

It's not affecting my fun, however, so I would respectfully request that he doesn't argue for changes that could have a detrimental affect on my fun.

Are you telling me that if all of the lame caches were some how turned into decent caches overnight you would miss the lameness or it would adversely affect your fun?

 

Huh! Interesting.

• In many areas where there is a preponderance of lame caches the hobby is getting hurt.
  

I don't for a second believe that this is true and I've seen absolutely no evidence of it.

"I've seen..." Are you looking. Do you just dismiss it when it's put in front of your face? I think so.

 

However, CoyoteRed's definition of lame is clearly different from the general populous.

Do you even know what my definition of lame is?

 

...in an effort to shorten this mess, one last quote...

 

I believe what you are saying is that in some areas, some vocal cachers have cowed others into not hiding caches that those cachers wouldn't enjoy. I hope that behaviour doesn't catch on as I believe that it is very bad for the game.

Funny. That's the very impression I get from a few vocal cachers other areas. It seems as though they've cowed others into keeping quiet about the spew. Heck, it seems I'm responding to one right now.

[+geomann1]

... How would people feel about an individual cache limit (perhaps graduated with find count). It would prevent someone from spewing 100's of lame micro caches, reduce the problem of over-extended owners who perform no maintenance, and force owners to make quality choices (which of my existing caches should I archive so I can place a better cache).

Occasionally, someone starts a thread which advocates hiding limits for maintenance reasons. NORMally, the response is that each cache owner's abilities are different and that while some people have trouble owning one or two good caches, other players can manage hundreds.

 

By limiting numbers though one would force each owner to make quality choices. And by have a graduated scale, one would tie number of hides with experience.

[+sbell111]

Your 'raising expectations' seems to be code for 'stop hiding caches that CoyoteRed doesn't like.'

I think someone just had a "Duh!" moment. Given the massive latitude of caches I actually like, I suspect, and it's been my experience, that a massive percentage of folks would concur.

Why do you get to decide what other cachers get to enjoy?

That is not what I have seen. What I see is arguments against the elimination of caches that some believe are 'lame' but others enjoy.

Do they enjoy each of those caches? Or do they enjoy the ability to claim that smilie? I dare say some, especially non-PMs, enjoy getting that piece of junk off their nearest list.

I've given plenty of log examples which clearly showed that people enjoyed caches that you would do away with. Before you even go there, let me say that their reasons for enjoying those caches have no relevence to whether they should exist. They like them; you don't. You want to do away with caches that others enjoy. Why do you get to decide what caches are available for other to hunt?

If anything, the problem is that CoyoteRed's expectations have been artificially raised to too high of a level and it is affecting his fun.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I got ruined when I was able to simply go blindly from cache to cache and by the end of the day have but a few stinkers. Yeah, somehow my expectations got artificially raised.

I don't know how it happend or why, nor do I care. Perhaps, you've always had unrealistic expectations regarding the game.

 

The fact is, if you want to find 'good' caches, go do it. If you don't want to find 'lame' caches, do a little work and avoid the bulk of them. Don't try to change everyone else's fun just to make your experience easier.

It's not affecting my fun, however, so I would respectfully request that he doesn't argue for changes that could have a detrimental affect on my fun.

Are you telling me that if all of the lame caches were some how turned into decent caches overnight you would miss the lameness or it would adversely affect your fun?

 

Huh! Interesting.

I'm saying that your definition of 'decent' caches would greatly change the in which many people are able to enjoy the game. Making the changes that you fight for to simplify your game play at the detriment of others is wrong.

 

<to be continued...>

Edited July 8, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

<continued from above>

• In many areas where there is a preponderance of lame caches the hobby is getting hurt.
  

I don't for a second believe that this is true and I've seen absolutely no evidence of it.

"I've seen..." Are you looking. Do you just dismiss it when it's put in front of your face? I think so.

As I explained in my previous post but you deleted from your reply, I don't believe that the hobby has been damaged because it continues to grow. New players take it on constantly. There continues to be loads of new caches hidden (both that meet CoyoteRed's standards and those that don't). I have seen no evidence that the hobby is in any danger.

However, CoyoteRed's definition of lame is clearly different from the general populous.

Do you even know what my definition of lame is?

I think I do, but why don't you lay it out so we can gaze upon it's splendor.

...in an effort to shorten this mess, one last quote...

I believe what you are saying is that in some areas, some vocal cachers have cowed others into not hiding caches that those cachers wouldn't enjoy. I hope that behaviour doesn't catch on as I believe that it is very bad for the game.

Funny. That's the very impression I get from a few vocal cachers other areas. It seems as though they've cowed others into keeping quiet about the spew. Heck, it seems I'm responding to one right now.

You and others have loudly proclaimed that it is your duty to speak out when they see something that is 'damaging to the game'. Well, I believe that the actions you propose are damaging to the game and I am, therefore, speaking out. Edited July 8, 2007 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

Of course, places like this are meccas for those who chase the smilie. They don't care about quality in the least. They're just after the smilie. They rave about the number of caches they can hit in a day. Some in the community encourage this and promote it. "Come on over to our area. You can rack up huge numbers!" From this point of view, there is no harm. But then again, they wouldn't see the harm in maximum cache saturation or power trails. The faster they can rack up smilies the better regardless of the consequences.

I'd guess that nearly 100% of these caches have a 1/1 rating.

If it follows my experience you'd guess wrong. Very wrong. In fact, 100% of these caches closest to me are not 1/1 micros--they're not 1/1 anything. The previous holder of "Charleston's Lamest Cache" was a one shot wonder who owned a 1/1 regular. Fortunately, he didn't create spew and fell out of the hobby.

So you're saying that 100% of the caches near you are not 1/1s, but the example you hold up as the lamest cache is a 1/1. Perhaps it's been archived and now no longer counts as being closest to you? I'm not sure what your point was by mentioning it. Please clarify.

 

So if 100% of the lame caches closest to you are not 1/1s, does that mean that 100% of the 1/1s near you are not lame? I'm pretty sure that's what you're saying.

 

It's my experience many, if not most, lame caches are not 1/1s. Neither are they exclusively micros. Spew is most likely micros simply because the cheapest form of cache happens to be a micro, it's easier to hide a micro, and it's as if these caches are rubber-stamp approved. However, many owners of these lame caches fancy them as a bit "tricky" and rate them higher than 1/1.

I've never said that eliminating micros from your PQs would rid you of your lame caches, I'm suggesting that this would get rid of a LOT of them, and seriously increase the percentage of caches you do like.

 

You don't have to stop at eliminating 1/1s if the lame hiders in your area have upped their difficulty level because they see them as tricky. Eliminate caches that have a terrain rating of 3 or less and I'm sure you'll really enjoy the results. Play around with the filters and find a number that seems to get rid of most of them in your area. It's not impossible to take a little effort to avoid most of these that you don't like.

 

The ones you avoid, that you don't like, will continue to be logged by a lot of people that are having a lot of fun, even if you don't agree with them.

[+KBI]

Every time this chronic topic comes up there are two claims that get repeated over and over by the usual suspects. The exact wording varies, but they generally go something like this:

 

• There are forum posters who actually prefer lame micros over more interesting and creative hides, and these people actively promote mediocrity over creativity.
  
• Lame micros are hurting the game.
  

"Something like this" is true...

 

A LOT of people prefer to avoid urban micros. That fact is not in dispute. What I'm asking is for someone to explain how this harms or damages the game.

Hmmm... I know of folks who won't travel to certain areas because of the high number of lame caches....

 

Let’s be clear about something, CoyoteRed:

 

In case you’ve forgotten, there is currently no need for you to attempt to debate me any further in these forums.

 

A short while back you accused me of not believing in my own position; you effectively called me a troll and a liar. You even reiterated the point when I asked for an apology – you refused to apologize, and stood by your accusation that I was being "disingenuous" in my stance on defending lameness.

 

Logic now tells me that you apparently don’t actually believe the accusation; otherwise, why would you attempt to resume debate with someone you think is merely stirring the pot and playing devil’s advocate just for the fun of it?

 

I even gave you another chance very recently to take back your strange accusation. You decided to pass on it that time as well.

 

Whenever you DO get around to apologizing, I’ll be happy to rebut those very interesting points you’ve raised today. Until then, I will not debate someone who has thrown around repeated accusations that I am a troll. I mean really, what would be the point ... for either of us?

 

Now that you appear to want to debate me again, you evidently do not actually believe that I am a troll ... so let's go ahead and get this apology thing out of the way so we can resume discussion on the issue.

[+TrailGators]

... How would people feel about an individual cache limit (perhaps graduated with find count). It would prevent someone from spewing 100's of lame micro caches, reduce the problem of over-extended owners who perform no maintenance, and force owners to make quality choices (which of my existing caches should I archive so I can place a better cache).

Occasionally, someone starts a thread which advocates hiding limits for maintenance reasons. NORMally, the response is that each cache owner's abilities are different and that while some people have trouble owning one or two good caches, other players can manage hundreds.

By limiting numbers though one would force each owner to make quality choices. And by have a graduated scale, one would tie number of hides with experience.

I agree and I like that idea! These guys can argue until the cows come home but most of the problems with YNWs is disproportionately generated by a handful of people. Please give me the power to wipe out all their caches from my online nearest cache lists maps with one click per cacher! Edited July 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

Let’s be clear about something, CoyoteRed...

 

Now that you appear to want to debate me again, you evidently do not actually believe that I am a troll ... so let's go ahead and get this apology thing out of the way so we can resume discussion on the issue.

Further:

 

I rarely get personally offended at the things people say about me in these debates, but a direct attack on the integrity of my character comes pretty close – close enough that I’m not going to ignore it. I wouldn't even think the mods would allow it – it surprises me that they do.

 

I debate from a position of deeply held personal principles. By calling me a liar you have insulted those principles. I would think that someone like yourself who regularly presumes to speak for the "mores of the caching community" would have more respect for another person’s mores than you seem to have for mine.

 

I do not defend made-up opinions merely for the fun of debating. If it’s not something I truly believe in, it’s too difficult for me to believably fake it – that’s not a talent I possess. Neither do I generally chime in to argue when my strongly held opinions happen to be in line with the majority of posters in a thread – that would be redundant, and only add to the clutter.

 

I therefore only dive into a discussion whenever a personal and strongly held principle puts me in the minority. The fact that I strongly believe in the principles I state is therefore the very reason I say those things (that happen to amaze you) in the first place.

 

I'll be waiting ...

[CoyoteRed]

Your 'raising expectations' seems to be code for 'stop hiding caches that CoyoteRed doesn't like.'

I think someone just had a "Duh!" moment. Given the massive latitude of caches I actually like, I suspect, and it's been my experience, that a massive percentage of folks would concur.

Why do you get to decide what other cachers get to enjoy?

I'll simply respond to a few quotes as it is indicative to the rest of your arguments.

 

Who said I get to decide? I never said that. My opinion of a quality cache simply coincides with a lot of other folks' opinions. I didn't give them their opinion.

 

Your assertion would mean if I change my mind on what is a quality cache then others would have to fall in line. I dare say that would not be the case in the least.

 

The argument strategy of trying to individualize an opinion and then challenge them for daring to hold that lone opinion is really old, tiresome, and transparent. I don't hold my opinion alone nor do I form opinion for others. I voice my opinion and am buoyed when I receive positive feedback because I voiced it.

 

I think I do, but why don't you lay it out so we can gaze upon it's splendor.

In other words you don't know what the definition is yet you used it in an argument.

 

I don't know how it happend or why, nor do I care. Perhaps, you've always had unrealistic expectations regarding the game.

It almost seems as though you didn't know it happened. Maybe you've never had the same experiences I had. Maybe you've always had to put up with crappy caches, I don't know. Regardless, I wouldn't know how "unrealistic expectations" could be satisfied for so long without it being, in fact, realistic.

 

I'm saying that your definition of 'decent' caches would greatly change the in which many people are able to enjoy the game. Making the changes that you fight for to simplify your game play at the detriment of others is wrong.

It's interesting you didn't answer the question of how it would be a detriment to the hobby or take away from anyone's fun if all lame cache were magically changed to not lame. You make it sound as if a not lame cache couldn't take the place of a lame one.

[+Renegade Knight]

...So, you can't be creative and have high standards? I don't get that.

 

As for having fewer caches, I don't see that as a bad thing. I mean it's not as if every book gets published, only the better ones. Yet, I have no lack to something to read.

 

Of course you can be creative and have high standards. What you can't do is define what are high standards and low standards let alone what creativity is.

 

Your book analogy is a good one. Not every book gets published. Only the ones that meet the standards that the book publishing company has decided upon. Which may very well rule out some great books that we would all like to read if given a chance. Yes it also keeps books with the literary value of bathroom wall graffiti. But if you have never chuckled over a piece of bathroom wit (even if most of it makes you cringe) then...you would never understand the concept that greatness sometimes just happens.

[+Renegade Knight]

...In general it is a good idea to try to raise the bar for most activities, but it is hard to see a practical solution in which the cure is not worse than the problem....

 

Excellent Summary.

Coyote Red is 100% right in what he's trying to accomplish. It's a worthy goal and if we could actually accomplish it without exacting the price I fear we would pay the geocaching world would be better off.

[CoyoteRed]

I wouldn't even think the mods would allow it – it surprises me that they do.

Don't worry. The mods aren't shy about contacting me when they think it is necessary.

 

I'll be waiting ...

Waiting for me to seriously respond to this yet another attempt to sling mud? Get real.

 

In case you’ve forgotten, there is currently no need for you to attempt to debate me any further in these forums.

If you're going to bring up points that I point out or initiate then expect a response. You don't get to debate me directly or indirectly without response.

[+sbell111]

... How would people feel about an individual cache limit (perhaps graduated with find count). It would prevent someone from spewing 100's of lame micro caches, reduce the problem of over-extended owners who perform no maintenance, and force owners to make quality choices (which of my existing caches should I archive so I can place a better cache).

Occasionally, someone starts a thread which advocates hiding limits for maintenance reasons. NORMally, the response is that each cache owner's abilities are different and that while some people have trouble owning one or two good caches, other players can manage hundreds.

By limiting numbers though one would force each owner to make quality choices. And by have a graduated scale, one would tie number of hides with experience.

I agree and I like that idea! These guys can argue until the cows come home but most of the problems with YNWs is disproportionately generated by a handful of people. Please give me the power to wipe out all their caches from my online nearest cache lists maps with one click per cacher!

Of course, you've known for some time that you can do that easily enough through GSAK, but you still beg for the ability.

[+TrailGators]

...In general it is a good idea to try to raise the bar for most activities, but it is hard to see a practical solution in which the cure is not worse than the problem....

Excellent Summary.

Coyote Red is 100% right in what he's trying to accomplish. It's a worthy goal and if we could actually accomplish it without exacting the price I fear we would pay the geocaching world would be better off.

I think inspire anyone to hide better caches instead of YNWs is a victory. I seriously doubt you will ever have to worry about all of them ever going away.

[+KBI]

In case you’ve forgotten, there is currently no need for you to attempt to debate me any further in these forums.

If you're going to bring up points that I point out or initiate then expect a response. You don't get to debate me directly or indirectly without response.

What makes you think I was responding to you at all? There are many, many people who regularly repeat those pronouncements.

 

You're not the only one who makes those indefensible claims I listed while failing to defend them, not by a long shot. None of those other folks, however, has ever abandoned their argument in favor of calling me a troll. You're unique in that tactic so far.

 

I'll be waiting ...

Waiting for me to seriously respond to this yet another attempt to sling mud? Get real.

I guess I've got my answer then.

 

"Slinging mud" is as good a term as any. If you're willing to "sling mud" by calling other people names and attacking their honesty, while refusing to take responsibility for doing so, that's your choice.

 

Just don't expect me to debate with you any more. It serves no purpose.

[+TrailGators]

... How would people feel about an individual cache limit (perhaps graduated with find count). It would prevent someone from spewing 100's of lame micro caches, reduce the problem of over-extended owners who perform no maintenance, and force owners to make quality choices (which of my existing caches should I archive so I can place a better cache).

Occasionally, someone starts a thread which advocates hiding limits for maintenance reasons. NORMally, the response is that each cache owner's abilities are different and that while some people have trouble owning one or two good caches, other players can manage hundreds.

By limiting numbers though one would force each owner to make quality choices. And by have a graduated scale, one would tie number of hides with experience.

I agree and I like that idea! These guys can argue until the cows come home but most of the problems with YNWs is disproportionately generated by a handful of people. Please give me the power to wipe out all their caches from my online nearest cache lists maps with one click per cacher!

Of course, you've known for some time that you can do that easily enough through GSAK, but you still beg for the ability.

Beg.. You can't help but be your normal rude self can you? Anyhow, I am now reading through caches using the online maps and using the cool new download to my GPS feature. I would like to ignore the huge proliferators caches so I don't have to see their cachers when I go through this process, which I never had to do before..... Is that OK with you?

[+sbell111]

Your 'raising expectations' seems to be code for 'stop hiding caches that CoyoteRed doesn't like.'

I think someone just had a "Duh!" moment. Given the massive latitude of caches I actually like, I suspect, and it's been my experience, that a massive percentage of folks would concur.

Why do you get to decide what other cachers get to enjoy?

I'll simply respond to a few quotes as it is indicative to the rest of your arguments.

 

Who said I get to decide? I never said that. My opinion of a quality cache simply coincides with a lot of other folks' opinions. I didn't give them their opinion.

 

Your assertion would mean if I change my mind on what is a quality cache then others would have to fall in line. I dare say that would not be the case in the least.

 

The argument strategy of trying to individualize an opinion and then challenge them for daring to hold that lone opinion is really old, tiresome, and transparent. I don't hold my opinion alone nor do I form opinion for others. I voice my opinion and am buoyed when I receive positive feedback because I voiced it.

When you try to do away with caches that others like, you are trying to decide for them what is acceptable.

I think I do, but why don't you lay it out so we can gaze upon it's splendor.

In other words you don't know what the definition is yet you used it in an argument.

I asked you for your definition and you refused to give it. Here's what I believe it to be: You believe that every cache that you don't like is lame and you want those caches to go away. If I'm incorrect, please explain.

I don't know how it happend or why, nor do I care. Perhaps, you've always had unrealistic expectations regarding the game.

It almost seems as though you didn't know it happened. Maybe you've never had the same experiences I had. Maybe you've always had to put up with crappy caches, I don't know. Regardless, I wouldn't know how "unrealistic expectations" could be satisfied for so long without it being, in fact, realistic.

I firmly believe taht we all have experienced caches that didn't 'wow' us right from the beginning. If your position is that you did not, you were either really lucky or you are misremembering as many are prone to do when looking back at 'the good old days'.

I'm saying that your definition of 'decent' caches would greatly change the in which many people are able to enjoy the game. Making the changes that you fight for to simplify your game play at the detriment of others is wrong.

It's interesting you didn't answer the question of how it would be a detriment to the hobby or take away from anyone's fun if all lame cache were magically changed to not lame. You make it sound as if a not lame cache couldn't take the place of a lame one.

I thought the nswer to that was self-evident, but here goes: Many people are 'opportunity' cachers. They fit geocaching into their every day lives without much disruption. They happily log LPCs at the local Wal-Mart. As I understand it, you believe that such LPCs are lame and should go away. This would damamge the enjoyment of those people that like those caches. I sincerely hope that I've now made this clear. Edited July 8, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team GeoBlast]

If a new people try caching and get turned off by finding mainly YNWs and then quit, is that good for the game? If many oldbies get tired of an over-abundance of YNWs and quit is that good for the game?

Sorry. I see that as arguespew. (thanks for that word btw, I revel in the irony quite often) SHOW SOME PROOF for these claims since you seem to know so much about what drives folks from caching.

 

In my local area a few of the best of the best hiders are now mostly terracachers. They became terracachers mainly for the leaderboard and they quickly moved to the top of the heap.

So you really think that people have not quit because of YNWs? IMHO you are being naive.

am i............... prove your point...........

My own family is proof. They all think urban caching is stupid. They rarely come with me. Do you need them to sign affidavits? What proof do you need?

 

Howz absolutely never grab ya?

 

Other than the three or four people that have become famous for promoting status quo in this forum, I have NEVER met anyone (read not one person) who would take their position. I have NEVER seen someone get jacked up about their 3rd+ YNW find. Sure, I've seen one line positive lines on logs before but I'd really have to have a conversation with that person to understand the circumstances (feeling sorry for the hider or being sarcastic) before I count them as true members of the YKW lovers club.

 

We can take the present as a good example. Go ahead and count the people that have dropped in and said that they think geocaching is fine and that suggesting change is wrong. I don't get past one hand. Take the fearsome foursome out of this thread and we've got a civil productive discussion on how geocaching could possibly improve and how people would enjoy it more.

 

But wow, what a surprise, here we are again teetering on the cusp of nonproductive and angst producing arguespew (#2 TGism hope there is no copywright). It seems to me that this topic keeps being brought up by -different- people pretty regularly in this forum is pretty good proof that there's plenty of people (different people) that want to discuss how geocaching can improve? How many threads keep popping up about wanting to make no changes?

 

I'm not sure why the FF feels like they have to even participate in a thread like this and drag another one of these threads into the ground. Is it possible to just ignore the topic and let -the others- discuss it?

[+TrailGators]

If a new people try caching and get turned off by finding mainly YNWs and then quit, is that good for the game? If many oldbies get tired of an over-abundance of YNWs and quit is that good for the game?

Sorry. I see that as arguespew. (thanks for that word btw, I revel in the irony quite often) SHOW SOME PROOF for these claims since you seem to know so much about what drives folks from caching.

 

In my local area a few of the best of the best hiders are now mostly terracachers. They became terracachers mainly for the leaderboard and they quickly moved to the top of the heap.

So you really think that people have not quit because of YNWs? IMHO you are being naive.

am i............... prove your point...........

My own family is proof. They all think urban caching is stupid. They rarely come with me. Do you need them to sign affidavits? What proof do you need?

 

Howz absolutely never grab ya?

 

Other than the three or four people that have become famous for promoting status quo in this forum, I have NEVER met anyone (read not one person) who would take their position. I have NEVER seen someone get jacked up about their 3rd+ YNW find. Sure, I've seen one line positive lines on logs before but I'd really have to have a conversation with that person to understand the circumstances (feeling sorry for the hider or being sarcastic) before I count them as true members of the YKW lovers club.

 

We can take the present as a good example. Go ahead and count the people that have dropped in and said that they think geocaching is fine and that suggesting change is wrong. I don't get past one hand. Take the fearsome foursome out of this thread and we've got a civil productive discussion on how geocaching could possibly improve and how people would enjoy it more.

 

But wow, what a surprise, here we are again teetering on the cusp of nonproductive and angst producing arguespew (#2 TGism hope there is no copywright). It seems to me that this topic keeps being brought up by -different- people pretty regularly in this forum is pretty good proof that there's plenty of people (different people) that want to discuss how geocaching can improve? How many threads keep popping up about wanting to make no changes?

 

I'm not sure why the FF feels like they have to even participate in a thread like this and drag another one of these threads into the ground. Is it possible to just ignore the topic and let -the others- discuss it?

 

Great points TGB! This topic does keep getting brought up by different people. I'm not sure why these few have to keep attacking. "The Force" must feel very strong to them so they feel very threatened. "The Force" of course is the that which promotes more variation, more fun and more creativity. Edited July 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

I think you guys doing the name calling really need to re-read the forum guidelines. Stick to the topic, and drop the personal attacks.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I think you guys doing the name calling really need to re-read the forum guidelines. Stick to the topic, and drop the personal attacks.

 

Word.

[+TrailGators]

I think you guys doing the name calling really need to re-read the forum guidelines. Stick to the topic, and drop the personal attacks.

May "The Force" be with you.

[Mushtang]

I think you guys doing the name calling really need to re-read the forum guidelines. Stick to the topic, and drop the personal attacks.

 

Word.

You too TGB.

[CoyoteRed]

I thought the nswer to that was self-evident, but here goes: Many people are 'opportunity' cachers. They fit geocaching into their every day lives without much disruption. They happily log LPCs at the local Wal-Mart. As I understand it, you believe that such LPCs are lame and should go away. This would damamge the enjoyment of those people that like those caches. I sincerely hope that I've now made this clear.

(This about the only thing I could pull out of that mess.)

 

Now you're equating opportunity or convenience with lame. No, I'm not meaning a convenient cache is lame. In fact, I don't think the two are even related. The problem arises when you realize that in order for a cache to be convenient it has to fit within someone's daily schedule. Doing so will mean these caches would quickly be exhausted unless the daily schedule and routes are constantly changing. Then in the course of daily activity said person would have to hunt caches that are less convenient.

 

Realizing this one would see this argument of uber convenience as reason for such caches to exist fails utterly.

 

Wal-mart and almost all parking lot caches are "destination caches" in the sense you get to find a cache upon your destination when you go shopping. It's kind of hard to argue against said convenience if you cater to the notion of destination cache. However, because once you found that cache it no longer serves a purpose for you because destination caches is history as far as you hunting it is concerned.

 

However, I'm not seeing these caches as actually being destination caches and are, in fact, mostly drive-by caches meaning most often than not the finder doesn't visit the anchor, the store in whose parking lot the cache resides. Continuing this logic--if you don't simply reject it out of hand as you normally do--then any drive-by will do. Heck, even ones in interesting locations like parks and greenspaces where they can serve the exact same purpose for the convenience cachers, though not destination cachers, and appeal to a wider audience.

 

There you go. The same number of caches. Similar convenience. More people happy.

[+TrailGators]

There you go. The same number of caches. Similar convenience. More people happy.

"The Force" is strong with you CR...

Edited July 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Team GeoBlast]

I think you guys doing the name calling really need to re-read the forum guidelines. Stick to the topic, and drop the personal attacks.

 

Word.

You too TGB.

[+sbell111]

I'm not sure why the FF feels like they have to even participate in a thread like this and drag another one of these threads into the ground. Is it possible to just ignore the topic and let -the others- discuss it?

 

Great points TGB! This topic does keep getting brought up by different people. I'm not sure why these few have to keep attacking. "The Force" must feel very strong to them so they feel very threatened. "The Force" of course is the that which promotes more variation, more fun and more creativity.

Wait a minute. You guys keep jumping into every one of these threads arguing that change must occur. Why is it wrong for others to argue that there is nothing wrong? (Other than because if people didn't oppose you, it would appear as if everyone agreed with you.)

[+sbell111]

I thought the nswer to that was self-evident, but here goes: Many people are 'opportunity' cachers. They fit geocaching into their every day lives without much disruption. They happily log LPCs at the local Wal-Mart. As I understand it, you believe that such LPCs are lame and should go away. This would damamge the enjoyment of those people that like those caches. I sincerely hope that I've now made this clear.

(This about the only thing I could pull out of that mess.)

Yup, I broke the quoty thing pretty good and then left. It's fixed now, please read my post at your leasure.

 

Now you're equating opportunity or convenience with lame. No, I'm not meaning a convenient cache is lame. In fact, I don't think the two are even related. ...

By golly, you missed my point, again. I am not equating your definition of 'lame' with anything. I am simply stating that those caches that you beliee are lame are enjoyed by others for any number of reasons. If you were to do away with those, you would certainly not be able to replace them for each person who enjoys them. Therefore, you would be detracting from other people's enjoyment of the game.

However, I'm not seeing these caches as actually being destination caches and are, in fact, mostly drive-by caches meaning most often than not the finder doesn't visit the anchor, the store in whose parking lot the cache resides. Continuing this logic--if you don't simply reject it out of hand as you normally do--then any drive-by will do. Heck, even ones in interesting locations like parks and greenspaces where they can serve the exact same purpose for the convenience cachers, though not destination cachers, and appeal to a wider audience.

I can (and have) give plenty of examples of people visiting caches while on an errand. I do it. Lot's of cachers do. Therefore, I disagree with your argument that there is no substance to the theory of 'destination caching'. Replacing those caches that you find lame with drive-by caches in parks and greenspaces would not replace these caches. You would be reducing the enjoyment of other cachers.

 

BTW, if you know of a park or greenspace that would be a good spot for a cache, feel free to hide one there. The existance of a LPC at the Wal-Mart across town doesn't mean that a cache can't be hidden elsewhere.

[+sbell111]

There you go. The same number of caches. Similar convenience. More people happy.

"The Force" is strong with you CR...

It's too bad his argument was inherently flawed. He assumed that everyone caches like he does and it negatively affected his conclusion.

Edited July 8, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

There you go. The same number of caches. Similar convenience. More people happy.

"The Force" is strong with you CR...

It's too bad his argument was inherently flawed. He assumed that everyone caches like he does and it negatively affected his conclusion.

It wasn't flawed because he didn't say "everyone." You should really try to provide quotes of these things that you claim people are saying... So you are implying that more people would prefer a finding a cache in a Wal-Mart parking lot versus finding the exact same cache in a cool POI/park/greenspace? I have never seen a thread complaining about caches hidden in a cool POI/park/greenspace. There are volumes of threads from volumes of people complaining about YNWs.

[Mushtang]

There are volumes of threads from volumes of people complaining about YNWs.

I've got to ask, since I don't know.... what is a "YNW"?

 

I've know I've seen you use those letters quite a lot in this thread, and I know it probably stands for something that somehow means micros are lame.

[+TrailGators]

There are volumes of threads from volumes of people complaining about YNWs.

I've got to ask, since I don't know.... what is a "YNW"?

 

I've know I've seen you use those letters quite a lot in this thread, and I know it probably stands for something that somehow means micros are lame.

 

You-know-what. It is my new "politically correct" way of talking about YNWs.

[Mushtang]

There are volumes of threads from volumes of people complaining about YNWs.

I've got to ask, since I don't know.... what is a "YNW"?

 

I've know I've seen you use those letters quite a lot in this thread, and I know it probably stands for something that somehow means micros are lame.

 

You-know-what. It is my new "politically correct" way of talking about YNWs.

Then why isn't it YKW?????

 

I guess it's because YCS?

[Clan Riffster]

In my local area a few of the best of the best hiders are now mostly terracachers. They became terracachers mainly for the leaderboard

Kewl! I'm glad some folks at TC are in it for the numbers. Every single Terracacher I've talked with joined those ranks due to the perception of more quality hides/less lame hides, not the stats. I've only done two TC's, and only read the cache pages for a few dozen, which is hardly a reasonable indicator, but compared to the percentage of lame caches on GC, it surprised me that there didn't appear to be any at TC. I wonder why that is? I wonder how far I'd have to extend my TC search before I found a film canister in some Burger King shrubbery? Are the folks at TC repressing all those poor, unfortunate film canister hiders? Shame on them!

 

How would people feel about an individual cache limit (perhaps graduated with find count). It would prevent someone from spewing 100's of lame micro caches, reduce the problem of over-extended owners who perform no maintenance, and force owners to make quality choices (which of my existing caches should I archive so I can place a better cache).

Could we make it retroactive?

 

By limiting numbers though one would force each owner to make quality choices.

A dullard is still a dullard, regardless of what limitations are placed on them. Instead of owning 100 film canisters tossed into Burger King shrubbery, they would only own 10. While the 90% decrease in lameness would be a good thing, in my opinion, the quality wouldn't change.

 

I don't believe that the hobby has been damaged because it continues to grow.

Much wisdom in your words there is, young Jedi.

I would argue that the "damage" includes the growth. I see an increase in the per capita number of lame caches, which I feel are detrimental to the game. (No, I don't have any evidence. ) I think the best argument you've made against my belief is that the actual number of lame caches hasn't increased, per say, and that it is really my expectations and perceptions that have changed. (I think it was you who alluded to such) This may very well be true. I'll have to ponder this awhile. In the interim, I hope to be able to continue expressing hate & discontent for film canisters everywhere.

[+sbell111]

There you go. The same number of caches. Similar convenience. More people happy.

"The Force" is strong with you CR...

It's too bad his argument was inherently flawed. He assumed that everyone caches like he does and it negatively affected his conclusion.

It wasn't flawed because he didn't say "everyone." You should really try to provide quotes of these things that you claim people are saying... So you are implying that more people would prefer a finding a cache in a Wal-Mart parking lot versus finding the exact same cache in a cool POI/park/greenspace? I have never seen a thread complaining about caches hidden in a cool POI/park/greenspace. There are volumes of threads from volumes of people complaining about YNWs.

Please don't twist my position. I am not implying anything. I am stating that people enjoy finding the caches you don't like. If you were to do away with those, you could not replce them with caches hidden elsewhere because the caches placed elsewhere would not be an acceptable substitute. I gave an example of why I believe that this is true.

[+sbell111]

I don't believe that the hobby has been damaged because it continues to grow.

Much wisdom in your words there is, young Jedi.

I would argue that the "damage" includes the growth. I see an increase in the per capita number of lame caches, which I feel are detrimental to the game. (No, I don't have any evidence. ) I think the best argument you've made against my belief is that the actual number of lame caches hasn't increased, per say, and that it is really my expectations and perceptions that have changed. (I think it was you who alluded to such) This may very well be true. I'll have to ponder this awhile. In the interim, I hope to be able to continue expressing hate & discontent for film canisters everywhere.

Don't get me wrong. I certainly think that the number of caches that many in this thread find to be 'lame' has increased. I just don't believe that the percentage of them has increased.

[+Snoogans]

... How would people feel about an individual cache limit (perhaps graduated with find count). It would prevent someone from spewing 100's of lame micro caches, reduce the problem of over-extended owners who perform no maintenance, and force owners to make quality choices (which of my existing caches should I archive so I can place a better cache).

Occasionally, someone starts a thread which advocates hiding limits for maintenance reasons. NORMally, the response is that each cache owner's abilities are different and that while some people have trouble owning one or two good caches, other players can manage hundreds.

 

By limiting numbers though one would force each owner to make quality choices. And by have a graduated scale, one would tie number of hides with experience.

 

 

"Enforced Quality" there's an oxymoron.

 

 

durn popcorn kernel, flick, flick, flick

[+Team GeoBlast]

I'm not sure why the FF feels like they have to even participate in a thread like this and drag another one of these threads into the ground. Is it possible to just ignore the topic and let -the others- discuss it?

 

Great points TGB! This topic does keep getting brought up by different people. I'm not sure why these few have to keep attacking. "The Force" must feel very strong to them so they feel very threatened. "The Force" of course is the that which promotes more variation, more fun and more creativity.

Wait a minute. You guys keep jumping into every one of these threads arguing that change must occur. Why is it wrong for others to argue that there is nothing wrong? (Other than because if people didn't oppose you, it would appear as if everyone agreed with you.)

 

Look at the original post and if you can, imagine that there's something, anything, that could be improved about geocache hides somewhere in the world. (If you can't see my post questioning why you can't walk away and not say anything).

 

But if you can manage to accept that there is in fact some worth to what the vast majority of the people are saying this thread could have generated a productive discussion about it. This would be a place where this could be discussed and perhaps something could have been learned. Instead we are once again debating the validity of the original opinion of the OP and the vast majority of the posters have posted here.

 

I will make you this promise, if you want to start a thread on how geocaching is perfect, not broken, and doesn't need to be changed, I won't come in and challenge your basic premise. In fact, I promise to only lurk and let you have your say.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Now you're equating opportunity or convenience with lame. No, I'm not meaning a convenient cache is lame. In fact, I don't think the two are even related. The problem arises when you realize that in order for a cache to be convenient it has to fit within someone's daily schedule. Doing so will mean these caches would quickly be exhausted unless the daily schedule and routes are constantly changing. Then in the course of daily activity said person would have to hunt caches that are less convenient.

 

Realizing this one would see this argument of uber convenience as reason for such caches to exist fails utterly.

 

Wal-mart and almost all parking lot caches are "destination caches" in the sense you get to find a cache upon your destination when you go shopping. It's kind of hard to argue against said convenience if you cater to the notion of destination cache. However, because once you found that cache it no longer serves a purpose for you because destination caches is history as far as you hunting it is concerned.

 

However, I'm not seeing these caches as actually being destination caches and are, in fact, mostly drive-by caches meaning most often than not the finder doesn't visit the anchor, the store in whose parking lot the cache resides. Continuing this logic--if you don't simply reject it out of hand as you normally do--then any drive-by will do. Heck, even ones in interesting locations like parks and greenspaces where they can serve the exact same purpose for the convenience cachers, though not destination cachers, and appeal to a wider audience.

 

There you go. The same number of caches. Similar convenience. More people happy.

 

I read this twice and I'm not sure what you said or what you are driving at. What I do know is that urban caches have more churn. I enjoy seeing what the new guy did with the old spot. My "quickie lunch cache" radius is about 5 miles give or take. Churn and my limited time keep things available.

 

If I live long enough I'll see the same churn on the more remote caches.

[+sbell111]

I'm not sure why the FF feels like they have to even participate in a thread like this and drag another one of these threads into the ground. Is it possible to just ignore the topic and let -the others- discuss it?

 

Great points TGB! This topic does keep getting brought up by different people. I'm not sure why these few have to keep attacking. "The Force" must feel very strong to them so they feel very threatened. "The Force" of course is the that which promotes more variation, more fun and more creativity.

Wait a minute. You guys keep jumping into every one of these threads arguing that change must occur. Why is it wrong for others to argue that there is nothing wrong? (Other than because if people didn't oppose you, it would appear as if everyone agreed with you.)

 

Look at the original post and if you can, imagine that there's something, anything, that could be improved about geocache hides somewhere in the world. (If you can't see my post questioning why you can't walk away and not say anything).

 

But if you can manage to accept that there is in fact some worth to what the vast majority of the people are saying this thread could have generated a productive discussion about it. This would be a place where this could be discussed and perhaps something could have been learned. Instead we are once again debating the validity of the original opinion of the OP and the vast majority of the posters have posted here.

 

I will make you this promise, if you want to start a thread on how geocaching is perfect, not broken, and doesn't need to be changed, I won't come in and challenge your basic premise. In fact, I promise to only lurk and let you have your say.

I read the original post and responded to it way back then.

[+sbell111]

...

Now you're equating opportunity or convenience with lame. No, I'm not meaning a convenient cache is lame. In fact, I don't think the two are even related. The problem arises when you realize that in order for a cache to be convenient it has to fit within someone's daily schedule. Doing so will mean these caches would quickly be exhausted unless the daily schedule and routes are constantly changing. Then in the course of daily activity said person would have to hunt caches that are less convenient.

 

Realizing this one would see this argument of uber convenience as reason for such caches to exist fails utterly.

 

Wal-mart and almost all parking lot caches are "destination caches" in the sense you get to find a cache upon your destination when you go shopping. It's kind of hard to argue against said convenience if you cater to the notion of destination cache. However, because once you found that cache it no longer serves a purpose for you because destination caches is history as far as you hunting it is concerned.

 

However, I'm not seeing these caches as actually being destination caches and are, in fact, mostly drive-by caches meaning most often than not the finder doesn't visit the anchor, the store in whose parking lot the cache resides. Continuing this logic--if you don't simply reject it out of hand as you normally do--then any drive-by will do. Heck, even ones in interesting locations like parks and greenspaces where they can serve the exact same purpose for the convenience cachers, though not destination cachers, and appeal to a wider audience.

 

There you go. The same number of caches. Similar convenience. More people happy.

 

I read this twice and I'm not sure what you said or what you are driving at. What I do know is that urban caches have more churn. I enjoy seeing what the new guy did with the old spot. My "quickie lunch cache" radius is about 5 miles give or take. Churn and my limited time keep things available.

 

If I live long enough I'll see the same churn on the more remote caches.

 

I read your post as 'chum', instead of 'churn'. Strangely, it still kinda made sense to me.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Look at the original post and if you can, imagine that there's something, anything, that could be improved about geocache hides somewhere in the world....

 

But if you can manage to accept that there is in fact some worth to what the vast majority of the people are saying this thread could have generated a productive discussion about it. This would be a place where this could be discussed and perhaps something could have been learned. Instead we are once again debating the validity of the original opinion of the OP and the vast majority of the posters have posted here. ...

 

You have couple of things here.

 

First ignoring this thread and the debate, virtually everyone here on both sides can agree that virtually every cache can be improved in some way. That's not the discussion that I'm seeing though.

 

This has been a productive discussion. Productive does not mean that your side won and a list of key improvements is ready for pinning on the door of Groundspeak. Nor does it mean that 'my side' won and you all will enjoy lame caches from now on.

 

The original posters opinion is perfectly valid. Everybody here has done a cache they have not enjoyed. They can't all be winners. Nobody is saying there are no lame caches. I know what you CR and others are working for and I've said the goal is worthy but the solution is the problem.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I read your post as 'chum', instead of 'churn'. Strangely, it still kinda made sense to me.

Chum has a lot of potential in the caching world. Used right you could have a lot of fun.

[+Snoogans]

 

I don't believe that the hobby has been damaged because it continues to grow.

Much wisdom in your words there is, young Jedi.

I would argue that the "damage" includes the growth. I see an increase in the per capita number of lame caches, which I feel are detrimental to the game. (No, I don't have any evidence. ) I think the best argument you've made against my belief is that the actual number of lame caches hasn't increased, per say, and that it is really my expectations and perceptions that have changed. (I think it was you who alluded to such) This may very well be true. I'll have to ponder this awhile. In the interim, I hope to be able to continue expressing hate & discontent for film canisters everywhere.

 

 

*yawwwn*

[+Snoogans]

So you really think that people have not quit because of YNWs? IMHO you are being naive.

am i............... prove your point...........

My own family is proof. They all think urban caching is stupid. They rarely come with me.

A LOT of people prefer to avoid urban micros. That fact is not in dispute. What I'm asking is for someone to explain how this harms or damages the game.

 

This cacher isn't part of this discussion but their opinion on another thread is quite valid here since they are responding to someone who is:

 

My number one favorite thing is being in on a secret, and going to find something that many people may pass by all day long without realizing it, and I'm on a mission to retrieve it.

Isnt it amazing? This is one of the reasons that I also enjoy urban caches. They may be in an area where there is no new area to explore but the thrill of searching without "getting caught" is exhilirating. Depending on the time of the day, these caches can be either the easiest find or the most difficult!

 

I think the reason these discussions can get so angsty is because one or both parties don't/won't realize they are opposite faces of the same coin and that the coin itself is just fine as it is.

 

I'm not sure why the FF feels like they have to even participate in a thread like this and drag another one of these threads into the ground. Is it possible to just ignore the topic and let -the others- discuss it?

 

Great points TGB! This topic does keep getting brought up by different people. I'm not sure why these few have to keep attacking. "The Force" must feel very strong to them so they feel very threatened. "The Force" of course is the that which promotes more variation, more fun and more creativity.

Wait a minute. You guys keep jumping into every one of these threads arguing that change must occur. Why is it wrong for others to argue that there is nothing wrong? (Other than because if people didn't oppose you, it would appear as if everyone agreed with you.)

 

Edited July 8, 2007 by Snoogans

[+TrailGators]

There you go. The same number of caches. Similar convenience. More people happy.

"The Force" is strong with you CR...

It's too bad his argument was inherently flawed. He assumed that everyone caches like he does and it negatively affected his conclusion.

It wasn't flawed because he didn't say "everyone." You should really try to provide quotes of these things that you claim people are saying... So you are implying that more people would prefer a finding a cache in a Wal-Mart parking lot versus finding the exact same cache in a cool POI/park/greenspace? I have never seen a thread complaining about caches hidden in a cool POI/park/greenspace. There are volumes of threads from volumes of people complaining about YNWs.

Please don't twist my position. I am not implying anything. I am stating that people enjoy finding the caches you don't like. If you were to do away with those, you could not replce them with caches hidden elsewhere because the caches placed elsewhere would not be an acceptable substitute. I gave an example of why I believe that this is true.

I didn't twist anything. I asked you a simple question which you did not answer. You are now twisting my position saying that I "want to do away with all caches I don't like." Care to back up that with a quote where I said that? Are you arguing with some fantasy or with us? Read what we are actually saying and respond to that. We are simply asking that people not place hundreds of the same exact kind of parking lot cache at banal locations. I think we have enough of those.

[+Snoogans]

I call doody on this thread.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2007 by Snoogans

[Mushtang]

I call doody on this thread.

 

 

Careful, someone will probably come back with a post that equates the doody to some sort of cache. Maybe a "YNW", or a Darth Vader, or whatever the new insult of the week is.

[+sbell111]

There you go. The same number of caches. Similar convenience. More people happy.

"The Force" is strong with you CR...

<snip>

It's too bad his argument was inherently flawed. He assumed that everyone caches like he does and it negatively affected his conclusion.

It wasn't flawed because he didn't say "everyone." You should really try to provide quotes of these things that you claim people are saying... So you are implying that more people would prefer a finding a cache in a Wal-Mart parking lot versus finding the exact same cache in a cool POI/park/greenspace? I have never seen a thread complaining about caches hidden in a cool POI/park/greenspace. There are volumes of threads from volumes of people complaining about YNWs.

Please don't twist my position. I am not implying anything. I am stating that people enjoy finding the caches you don't like. If you were to do away with those, you could not replce them with caches hidden elsewhere because the caches placed elsewhere would not be an acceptable substitute. I gave an example of why I believe that this is true.

I didn't twist anything. I asked you a simple question which you did not answer. You are now twisting my position saying that I "want to do away with all caches I don't like." Care to back up that with a quote where I said that? Are you arguing with some fantasy or with us? Read what we are actually saying and respond to that. We are simply asking that people not place hundreds of the same exact kind of parking lot cache at banal locations. I think we have enough of those.

I hope this helps. Edited July 9, 2007 by sbell111