Micro Mania

[+sbell111]

I just have to do this (sorry)

 

Micro spew: Placed within 50 feet of parking spot, near a major highway, in urban center. Park, with thousands of muggles often. rated 1/1. ...

I'm glad you gave this definition. I've asked a few other cachers to define what they don't like and I haven't received a response.

 

I suspect that your definition may, actually, be too broad for many of the people currently clamoring about the 'problem' because it could define every urban cache. While this does appear to be Brian's definition of 'lame', I suspect that TrailGators and CoyoteRed would disagree.

 

Either way, let's imagine a cache that fit's your definition, but that CoyoteRed and TrailGators will also agree is 'lame'. I'm thinking of a micro in a grocery store parking lot under a lamp post cover, two or three spots from a cart corral.

 

I believe that they would hate this hypothetical cache. Some would even take no steps to hide their actions when logging it; in hopes that it get muggled.

 

Personally, I would love this hypothetical cache. It would give me a chance to take a break from errands to find a cache and it would be very fun to carefully find it without any other shoppers having a clue.

 

That would be a very good geocache, in my opinion.

Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

Personally, I would love this hypothetical cache. It would give me a chance to take a break from errands to find a cache and it would be very fun to carefully find it without any other shoppers having a clue.

Oh, yeah. Satisfying in the extreme.

 

I guess you only get that break once unless you have a lot of different stores you have to go to while running your errands.

[+sbell111]

However the gripe is that they have to work harder to sort out the wheat from the chaff. That resembles work and work is what they are trying not to do when caching because when you add work to caching, it's no longer so much fun as it is work.

As I was sitting here composing this reply, I go to wondering; what effect did PQs have on the population of caches?

 

The reason this popped up is PQs are a heaven send to getting out and caching. No more printing out page after page of descriptions or hand entering coordinates. Getting into the field with GPS and PDA loaded with coordinates and descriptions is a cinch.

 

...only to be confronted by a cache that makes one shake their head wondering what the hider was thinking.

 

Ironically, PQs serve numbers chasers better than those looking for a quality hunt. It's fairly trivial to filter to only 2/2 or less traditionals. It's impossible to filter on "junk." Even in GSAK you can run a macro to develop cache-runs to make your smilie gathering more efficient.

 

Has the bulk load of caches changed the hobby to what we see today?

Hold on to your hat:

 

I agree with you.

 

Sort of. PQs have certainly changed the game play. I just don't think they changed it the way you propose.

 

Before PQs, we would we would read through each cache page in the area we were interested in. If we were interested in a cache, we would print the page off. If we were not interested, we'd leave that cache be and look at the next cache page.

 

Pocket Queries were introduced and many people stopped reading the cache pages to ensure that they were interested in the cache. They merely ran a PQ, dumped the results into their PDAs and GPSrs and headed out. Unfortunately, since they stopped doing their homework, they were not always satisfied with what they found.

[+sbell111]

If you don't want them banned, then I don't understand your posts.

Sure you do. You just don't have a valid argument against my position while pretending to not have been a participant when this was discussed several times before. This is a subject you simply can't keep you nose out of so I call shenanigans back on you for feigning to not remember it.

As I understand your position, you want these caches that you don't like to go away, but not be banned. You want them to no longer exist, even though they meet the guidelines and other people enjoy them.

 

If that is not your position, please correct me. Also, if you could please define lame for me and all the players at home, since you didn't do it when asked in the other thread or this one.

[+sbell111]

Personally, I would love this hypothetical cache. It would give me a chance to take a break from errands to find a cache and it would be very fun to carefully find it without any other shoppers having a clue.

Oh, yeah. Satisfying in the extreme.

 

I guess you only get that break once unless you have a lot of different stores you have to go to while running your errands.

Like most people, my errands take me all over the area.

 

The argument that I should not find the cache acceptable because I'll only find it once is seriously flawed. A cache isn't placed to be found by just me. Lot's of people will have the opportunity to find it over it's lifetime.

 

Also, how many times do you think I'm going to visit a cache that you would enjoy, on average? (I'll give you a hint, the correct answer is very, very close to 1.)

Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

Hold on to your hat:

 

I agree with you.

Then my position is obviously seriously flawed and must be re-examined.

 

J/K

 

Before PQs, we would we would read through each cache page in the area we were interested in. If we were interested in a cache, we would print the page off. If we were not interested, we'd leave that cache be and look at the next cache page.

 

Pocket Queries were introduced and many people stopped reading the cache pages to ensure that they were interested in the cache. They merely ran a PQ, dumped the results into their PDAs and GPSrs and headed out. Unfortunately, since they stopped doing their homework, they were not always satisfied with what they found.

This is kind of what I was thinking.

 

Back when we were paperless--"we" as in Sissy and I--we did screen caches fairly carefully. It's a lot more work doing everything manually. Today, a "cheap" cache is just a blip on the screen and folks can simply say "let's stop and grab that cache." There's little investment in the preparation of the hunt. Back in the day before automation you'd have a bit more serious investment. You'd probably ask yourself if the cache was worth printing out and hand entering into the GPS. If that blip wasn't on the screen as you drove by that Wal-mart you weren't tempted to stop. As a consequence there was little incentive to place such a cache and there were fewer.

 

Then as automation came along one could simply attempt every cache in their path as most were worth the time to do it manually.

 

But, the "impulse find" was made more viable, the "impulse hide" became more prevalent thus producing what we have today.

 

It should be noted that the cache criteria is very similar for both the numbers chasers and the impulse finders, but in many way are counter to those that require some substance to their hunts. Automation has been good for one group and not so good for the other.

[CoyoteRed]

If you don't want them banned, then I don't understand your posts.

Sure you do. You just don't have a valid argument against my position while pretending to not have been a participant when this was discussed several times before. This is a subject you simply can't keep you nose out of so I call shenanigans back on you for feigning to not remember it.

As I understand your position, you want these caches that you don't like to go away, but not be banned. You want them to no longer exist, even though they meet the guidelines and other people enjoy them.

 

If that is not your position, please correct me.

By making a cache "not lame" doesn't ban the cache. Of course, by making all caches "not lame" then there would no longer be any lame caches, so in that sense you are correct, but not in the sense the cache itself no longer exists--it was made better.

 

You stand corrected.

 

Also, if you could please define lame for me and all the players at home, since you didn't do it when asked in the other thread or this one.

Oh, don't act like I've not ever made my position perfectly clear. You just want to try to goad me into giving a position that you can attack. "Lame" is in the dictionary. That's my definition of "lame."

 

Oh, and don't try to claim the cache that we all can point to and laugh as not-lame by the very notion that we can point and laugh as entertainment. That won't fly either.

[CoyoteRed]

Like most people, my errands take me all over the area.

That's a lot of errands. It's a wonder that you have a life other than errands.

 

Oh, wait, "errand boy." <--couldn't resist.

Edited July 23, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+sbell111]

Hold on to your hat:

 

I agree with you.

Then my position is obviously seriously flawed and must be re-examined.

 

J/K

 

Before PQs, we would we would read through each cache page in the area we were interested in. If we were interested in a cache, we would print the page off. If we were not interested, we'd leave that cache be and look at the next cache page.

 

Pocket Queries were introduced and many people stopped reading the cache pages to ensure that they were interested in the cache. They merely ran a PQ, dumped the results into their PDAs and GPSrs and headed out. Unfortunately, since they stopped doing their homework, they were not always satisfied with what they found.

This is kind of what I was thinking.

 

Back when we were paperless--"we" as in Sissy and I--we did screen caches fairly carefully. It's a lot more work doing everything manually. Today, a "cheap" cache is just a blip on the screen and folks can simply say "let's stop and grab that cache." There's little investment in the preparation of the hunt. Back in the day before automation you'd have a bit more serious investment. You'd probably ask yourself if the cache was worth printing out and hand entering into the GPS. If that blip wasn't on the screen as you drove by that Wal-mart you weren't tempted to stop. As a consequence there was little incentive to place such a cache and there were fewer.

 

Then as automation came along one could simply attempt every cache in their path as most were worth the time to do it manually.

 

But, the "impulse find" was made more viable, the "impulse hide" became more prevalent thus producing what we have today.

 

It should be noted that the cache criteria is very similar for both the numbers chasers and the impulse finders, but in many way are counter to those that require some substance to their hunts. Automation has been good for one group and not so good for the other.

I don't think I agree with any of that post, except the stuff from me that you quoted.

[+sbell111]

Also, if you could please define lame for me and all the players at home, since you didn't do it when asked in the other thread or this one.

Oh, don't act like I've not ever made my position perfectly clear. You just want to try to goad me into giving a position that you can attack. "Lame" is in the dictionary. That's my definition of "lame."

 

Oh, and don't try to claim the cache that we all can point to and laugh as not-lame by the very notion that we can point and laugh as entertainment. That won't fly either.

Fine. Here it is:

 

1. crippled or physically disabled, esp. in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.

2. impaired or disabled through defect or injury: a lame arm.

3. weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy: a lame excuse.

4. Slang. out of touch with modern fads or trends; unsophisticated.

 

I assume that you are going with definition #3. As such, I don't think that I've ever found a lame cache.

Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

If you don't want them banned, then I don't understand your posts.

Sure you do. You just don't have a valid argument against my position while pretending to not have been a participant when this was discussed several times before. This is a subject you simply can't keep you nose out of so I call shenanigans back on you for feigning to not remember it.

As I understand your position, you want these caches that you don't like to go away, but not be banned. You want them to no longer exist, even though they meet the guidelines and other people enjoy them.

 

If that is not your position, please correct me.

By making a cache "not lame" doesn't ban the cache. Of course, by making all caches "not lame" then there would no longer be any lame caches, so in that sense you are correct, but not in the sense the cache itself no longer exists--it was made better.

 

You stand corrected.

Please tell me how you would alter my hypothetical cache in order to make it not 'lame'. How will you make it better and yet allow it to exist for those that enjoy it, as is?

[+sbell111]

Like most people, my errands take me all over the area.

That's a lot of errands. It's a wonder that you have a life other than errands.

 

Oh, wait, "errand boy." <--couldn't resist.

What in the world are you talking about? Did I ever say that huge parts of all of my days are spent running errands?

 

Even if I were to spend my life running errands, how would that further your argument?

 

The bottom line is that people enjoy caches that you don't. You might need to change your behavior to allow for that reality. You can choose not to, if you like. At the end of the day, your happiness makes little difference to me.

Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[Trinity's Crew]

I have found a few "lame" caches. Of course they were only lame because I viewed them as such. Many others enjoyed those very same caches.

 

I think I'll keep my opinion about what constitutes "lame" where it belongs... private.

[+briansnat]

I see that you ignored my previos couple of posts.

Usually I do. I don't know what got into me in this thread.

It's easy to be forthright when you ignore everyone who disagrees with you, I suppose.

Tell me about it:

No response to the questions at the end of this post, then?

 

In an earlier post I carefully described my method for detecting the caches that I believe are "worthless for anyone but numbers hounds." I referred to it as the "ten second plan." As I said, it works for me with a very high degree of dependability, and it would seem to be an easy no-brainer for anyone with even a little bit of caching experience. I have asked you a couple of times why you believe it wouldn't work for you. You still haven't responded.

 

My desire to help you is genuine. My curiosity as to why my suggestion is being ignored is growing.

 

If you choose to ignore my question yet again I will conclude that you would rather complain than seek solutions to your frustration.

 

[silence from Briansnat ]

 

 

I guess you want me to address your so-called 10 second plan. Here is how I always enjoyed caching when I traveled to a new area. I run a PQ of the closest 50-100 caches to where I am staying, filtering out puzzles (not a fan). Since I got Cachemate and a PDA I also load the pages to my PDA.

 

As I'm driving around an area I have the GPS on the dashboard and I look for the treasure chest icons in the area I targeted. When I see one, I take a look at the cache page. This is not always helpful. Some owners make the cache sound way more inviting than it actually is. Anyway, when I see the text that says nothing more than "An easy grab", "another quick find" or a name like "Wally World" or anything that tells me it's probably a mall, skirt lifter I will skip it and go to the next one. Your 10 second plan is working great so far.

 

So I continue driving and look for the next closest and read the page. Nope, pass on that one. Then I head to the next one. Pass again. Then the next one. Nah. Then the next one. Another skirt lifter, forget it. Next one too. Oh, this one looks good. I get there and the GPS is pointing to an air conditioning unit behind the strip mall. No thanks, on to the next. Finally, there is one in a nice little park. I get out make the find. OK, on to the next one. It's called "Wally World". How about the next one? Nope. Oh, well that's it for the area. So much for my afternoon of geocaching in this town. Therein lies the problem (the preceding actually happened to me not long ago).

 

Yeah, in some instances your 10 second plan can help me avoid some lame caches, but it doesn't place ones I like for me to find.

[+sbell111]

... Yeah, in some instances your 10 second plan can help me avoid some lame caches, but it doesn't place ones I like for me to find.

That may be the funniest post ever, but not how you meant it to be.

 

Perhaps you would be happier if you didn't load micros when you traveled.

[+briansnat]

... Yeah, in some instances your 10 second plan can help me avoid some lame caches, but it doesn't place ones I like for me to find.

That may be the funniest post ever, but not how you meant it to be.

 

Perhaps you would be happier if you didn't load micros when you traveled.

 

Being that I enjoy many micros why would I want to do that?

[+sbell111]

... Yeah, in some instances your 10 second plan can help me avoid some lame caches, but it doesn't place ones I like for me to find.

That may be the funniest post ever, but not how you meant it to be.

 

Perhaps you would be happier if you didn't load micros when you traveled.

Being that I enjoy many micros why would I want to do that?

Given your previous posts to this thread, I'm very surprised to read this response.

 

While the simple answer to your question is 'to avoid not having fun like in your example', clearly, that's not the advice that you want.

 

Instead, I'll offer this advice:

 

You take the good, you take the bad,

you take them both and there you have

The Facts of Life, the Facts of Life.

Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+tozainamboku]

I spent Sunday at an all day geocaching event so it took awhile this morning to catch up on this thread.

 

I thought I would share my experiences from the event. It did not involve any urban micros. How urban could it be when a bear walks down to the beach where we were setup in broad daylight? But since the lake is just off a major interstate less than 1 hour north of Los Angeles its about as urban of a lake as you could imagine.

 

We went looking for several caches hidden around the lake. Most were terrain 5 since you needed a jet ski or other watercraft to get to them. However it felt to me more like an urban numbers run as we sped from cache to cache all of which were no more than a short walk from shore. I remarked that all the caches were park 'n grabs (or perhaps splash 'n grab would be a better description). In addition due to the afermentioned "urban" character of the lake each of the beaches where we beached the jet skis were full of litter - plasitc bottles, plastic bags, beer cans, etc. No dumster needed - it sometimes seemed like the lake was a dumpster. At one cache on a island in the lake we had to step carefully through bushes to avoid the toilet paper and human feces of the improvised restroom. Alll in all, I had a great time. Just wanted to point out that the problems of urban micros aren't limited to urban micros.

[+TrailGators]

... Yeah, in some instances your 10 second plan can help me avoid some lame caches, but it doesn't place ones I like for me to find.

That may be the funniest post ever, but not how you meant it to be.

 

Perhaps you would be happier if you didn't load micros when you traveled.

 

Being that I enjoy many micros why would I want to do that?

Given your previous posts to this thread, I'm very surprised to read this response.

 

In that case, I offer this advice:

 

You take the good, you take the bad,

you take them both and there you have

The Facts of Life, the Facts of Life.

I never watched that TV show. Anyhow, I'm glad you guys finally acknowledge that the "easy peasy" method is really not that effective. Also people aren't going to assign attributes to help us identify some of these ahem caches (I was being sarcastic earlier). It still blows my mind on some of the spots that some people hide caches. Anyhow, this situation isn't going to change as long as people continue to condone even the extremely distasteful caches. So my method now is to avoid urbans altogether unless hear about a good one. If they ever come up with an awards system, that will really help spotlight the super fun ones. In the meantime all we can do is share info on the better caches and avoid the others.

[+briansnat]

... Yeah, in some instances your 10 second plan can help me avoid some lame caches, but it doesn't place ones I like for me to find.

That may be the funniest post ever, but not how you meant it to be.

 

Perhaps you would be happier if you didn't load micros when you traveled.

Being that I enjoy many micros why would I want to do that?

Given your previous posts to this thread, I'm very surprised to read this response.

 

While the simple answer to your question is 'to avoid not having fun like in your example', clearly, that's not the advice that you want.

 

Instead, I'll offer this advice:

 

You take the good, you take the bad,

you take them both and there you have

The Facts of Life, the Facts of Life.

 

So we're back to tough cookies.

[+sbell111]

I never watched that TV show.

What TV show?

Anyhow, I'm glad you guys finally acknowledge that the "easy peasy" method is really not that effective.

I haven't acknowledged that, at all. Brian is clearly not using the mothod correctly. The first step was to filter out all the caches that you're pretty sure that you won't like. He never did that and ended up with a bunch that he didn't enjoy. Don't blame Piper every time a pilot flies his tomahawk into the trees.

Also people aren't going to assign attributes to help us identify some of these ahem caches (I was being sarcastic earlier).

Ummm, if you were being sarcastic, how come you insisted that we respond to your post? Needy much?

It still blows my mind on some of the spots that some people hide caches. Anyhow, this situation isn't going to change as long as people continue to condone even the extremely distasteful caches. So my method now is to avoid urbans altogether unless hear about a good one. If they ever come up with an awards system, that will really help spotlight the super fun ones. In the meantime all we can do is share info on the better caches and avoid the others.

I'm glad that you have a way that works for you and still allows other cachers to hide and find caches that they enjoy. Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

... Yeah, in some instances your 10 second plan can help me avoid some lame caches, but it doesn't place ones I like for me to find.

That may be the funniest post ever, but not how you meant it to be.

 

Perhaps you would be happier if you didn't load micros when you traveled.

Being that I enjoy many micros why would I want to do that?

Given your previous posts to this thread, I'm very surprised to read this response.

 

While the simple answer to your question is 'to avoid not having fun like in your example', clearly, that's not the advice that you want.

 

Instead, I'll offer this advice:

 

You take the good, you take the bad,

you take them both and there you have

The Facts of Life, the Facts of Life.

So we're back to tough cookies.

Sort of. We are back to 'If a cacher is truly bothered by some caches, but isn't willing to do all of the work necessary to avoid that which he/she doesn't like, then "tough nuts".' Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Anyhow, I'm glad you guys finally acknowledge that the "easy peasy" method is really not that effective.

I haven't acknowledged that, at all. Brian is clearly not using the mothod correctly. The first step was to filter out all the caches that you're pretty sure that you won't like. He never did that and ended up with a bunch that he didn't enjoy. Don't blame Piper every time a pilot flies his tomahawk into the trees.

I've been screening caches that way and it doesn't work over half the time. Most cache pages and logs just aren't that helpful.

 

Also people aren't going to assign attributes to help us identify some of these ahem caches (I was being sarcastic earlier).

Ummm, if you were being sarcastic, how come you insisted that we respond to your post?

To prove that if people aren't proud of some their own caches because they won't provide relevant info about the cache location in the cache page. If it's in a trashy smelly area then say so. What's wrong with asking people to at least do this?

[+sbell111]

Anyhow, I'm glad you guys finally acknowledge that the "easy peasy" method is really not that effective.

I haven't acknowledged that, at all. Brian is clearly not using the mothod correctly. The first step was to filter out all the caches that you're pretty sure that you won't like. He never did that and ended up with a bunch that he didn't enjoy. Don't blame Piper every time a pilot flies his tomahawk into the trees.

I've been screening caches that way and it doesn't work over half the time. Most cache pages and logs just aren't that helpful.

It's possible that you are also skipping the first step.

Also people aren't going to assign attributes to help us identify some of these ahem caches (I was being sarcastic earlier).

Ummm, if you were being sarcastic, how come you insisted that we respond to your post?

To prove that if people aren't proud of some their own caches because they won't provide relevant info about the cache location in the cache page. If it's in a trashy smelly area then say so. What's wrong with asking people to at least do this?

Now I'm confused again. Were you being sarcastic, or were you serious. If you were serious, I agree with the previous posts regarding the suggestion. If you were not serious, why are you still discussing it? Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+Renegade Knight]

....Ironically, PQs serve numbers chasers better than those looking for a quality hunt. It's fairly trivial to filter to only 2/2 or less traditionals. It's impossible to filter on "junk." Even in GSAK you can run a macro to develop cache-runs to make your smilie gathering more efficient.

 

Has the bulk load of caches changed the hobby to what we see today?

 

I doubt the PQ has changed the hides. I certainly don't think in tems of a PQ when hiding a cache. As for making it easier to focus on easy caches than good ones, I'm not so sure about that. You can load your PQ in a map and focus on whatever you are looking for. Locally the difficulty rating doesn't really have a lot to do with the cache. More 1/1's get me than 4/4's.

 

The key thing that has changed is that with more people placing more caches, the best locations are taken first. It's like parking at the mall. You can always find a new spot in the back 40. Seldom by the door. Caching's not so much different. That waterfall hidden behind home depot that everone forgets is there because it's so hidden...It got the cache first. There is only so many great spots to go around before you have to settle for good spots, and so on until you are left faced with the choice of which of the remaining bad spots do I use if I'm going to place a cache at all?

[+TrailGators]

Also people aren't going to assign attributes to help us identify some of these ahem caches (I was being sarcastic earlier).

Ummm, if you were being sarcastic, how come you insisted that we respond to your post?

To prove that if people aren't proud of some their own caches because they won't provide relevant info about the cache location in the cache page. If it's in a trashy smelly area then say so. What's wrong with asking people to at least do this?

Now I'm confused again. Were you being sarcastic, or were you serious. If you were serious, I agree with the preious posts regarding the suggestion. If you were not serious, why are you still discussing it?

My way of joking is to tell the truth. It is the funniest joke in the world.

George Bernard Shaw, John Bull's Other Island (1907) act 2

Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950)

[+sbell111]

Also people aren't going to assign attributes to help us identify some of these ahem caches (I was being sarcastic earlier).

Ummm, if you were being sarcastic, how come you insisted that we respond to your post?

To prove that if people aren't proud of some their own caches because they won't provide relevant info about the cache location in the cache page. If it's in a trashy smelly area then say so. What's wrong with asking people to at least do this?

Now I'm confused again. Were you being sarcastic, or were you serious. If you were serious, I agree with the preious posts regarding the suggestion. If you were not serious, why are you still discussing it?

My way of joking is to tell the truth. It is the funniest joke in the world.

George Bernard Shaw, John Bull's Other Island (1907) act 2

Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950)

mk

Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+Renegade Knight]

...You miss the point. The cache is designed with simply the end of logging online to get a smilie and to increment the find count as the primary reason to exist. These are called "gifts," as in "here, have a smilie." I've heard it more than a few times, some right in the description.

 

You know the finders' smilie are foremost in the hider's mind when they would rather hide a series of caches in a small area than make it a multi cache. The reasoning is folks will get a smilie for each find when the reality is the finding of the caches in the real world amounts to the exact same thing. This desire is so strong in some people that Groundspeak had to make a policy. There's been plenty of threads about it.

 

That must be a local thing. I haven't really seen variations of "here's a quick one for your find count" in the cache description in my area. As for the multi cache logic, that's neither here nor there. I hate multi's I won't hide one because yes all other things being equil I'd rather find the cache than not find one. So given a 5 part multi and going home with a DNF I'd rather find 4 out of 5 caches. I've done too many multi's only to have something go wrong and I may never coming back to ever want to bother with them again.

 

I can see your point when the locals say it's for the smilies in the description. You still give to much power to the smilie in other things. Especially when even most folks would prefer a to a whatever cache they are looking to find.

 

Keep in mind that even though people say "I love the new places I find" they could have been lookign for those places before caching and weren't. There is a draw and part of that draw is the find.

[+TrailGators]

Also people aren't going to assign attributes to help us identify some of these ahem caches (I was being sarcastic earlier).

Ummm, if you were being sarcastic, how come you insisted that we respond to your post?

To prove that if people aren't proud of some their own caches because they won't provide relevant info about the cache location in the cache page. If it's in a trashy smelly area then say so. What's wrong with asking people to at least do this?

Now I'm confused again. Were you being sarcastic, or were you serious. If you were serious, I agree with the preious posts regarding the suggestion. If you were not serious, why are you still discussing it?

My way of joking is to tell the truth. It is the funniest joke in the world.

George Bernard Shaw, John Bull's Other Island (1907) act 2

Irish dramatist & socialist (1856 - 1950)

mk

The situation is a joke. You are telling us to read cache pages to try to filter out caches that are located in disgusting places. But the cache pages are no help because nobody would ever admit that their cache is hidden in a disgusting place. The logs are no help unless one of "us" (location is important types) gets to experience one of these caches and then also writes a very honest log about it to help out our fellow cachers. So let the honesty begin!

[+sbell111]

The situation is a joke. You are telling us to read cache pages to try to filter out caches that are located in disgusting places. But the cache pages are no help because nobody would ever admit that their cache is hidden in a disgusting place. The logs are no help unless one of "us" (location is important types) gets to experience one of these caches and then also writes a very honest log about it to help out our fellow cachers. So let the honesty begin!

Reading the cache page was not the first step of the 'easy peasey' method. The first step was running your PQs so you are pretty sure that you are going to like the caches in them. You then take a look at the cache pages on the fly to see if a stinker snuck in. After you have found (or ignored) all of those, you go back to the well.

[+KBI]

WARNING: LOOOOOONG POST

 

I guess you want me to address your so-called 10 second plan....

Thanks for the reasoned and well thought-out response, Brian.

 

I was beginning to wonder if you were becoming the same as most of the other Complainers, making regular yet questionable claims while being unwilling – or unable – to defend them. I know you well enough from other forum discussions to know that you are much more rational than that, but your temporary non-response to my question had me confused.

 

 

... Here is how I always enjoyed caching when I traveled to a new area. I run a PQ of the closest 50-100 caches to where I am staying, filtering out puzzles (not a fan). Since I got Cachemate and a PDA I also load the pages to my PDA.

 

As I'm driving around an area I have the GPS on the dashboard and I look for the treasure chest icons in the area I targeted. When I see one, I take a look at the cache page. This is not always helpful. Some owners make the cache sound way more inviting than it actually is. Anyway, when I see the text that says nothing more than "An easy grab", "another quick find" or a name like "Wally World" or anything that tells me it's probably a mall, skirt lifter I will skip it and go to the next one. Your 10 second plan is working great so far.

 

So I continue driving and look for the next closest and read the page. Nope, pass on that one. Then I head to the next one. Pass again. Then the next one. Nah. Then the next one. Another skirt lifter, forget it. Next one too. Oh, this one looks good. I get there and the GPS is pointing to an air conditioning unit behind the strip mall. No thanks, on to the next. Finally, there is one in a nice little park. I get out make the find. OK, on to the next one. It's called "Wally World". How about the next one? Nope. Oh, well that's it for the area. So much for my afternoon of geocaching in this town. Therein lies the problem (the preceding actually happened to me not long ago).

 

Yeah, in some instances your 10 second plan can help me avoid some lame caches, but it doesn't place ones I like for me to find.

I understand completely, and I can see that you are frustrated, but – I have some further questions about your response:

 

As I'm driving around an area I have the GPS on the dashboard and I look for the treasure chest icons in the area I targeted. When I see one, I take a look at the cache page. This is not always helpful. Some owners make the cache sound way more inviting than it actually is.

This does not square with my own experience. As I explained before, I have had very good success detecting the likely-to-disappoint hides with a quick glance at cache descriptions and logs. Of course I always like to err on the side of putting it on my to-do list anyway if I'm not certain, but that's a personal preference. What's worse: finding a few stinkers or missing out on a few boffos? That's a decision you must make for yourself. Either way it's not perfect – but of course such is life. Is it reasonable to demand any more than that from life?

 

If my 10-second scan fails me, as it does at times, and for the reason you accurately describe (some owners make the cache sound way more inviting than it actually is), I can usually also find satisfactory success using the "Trailgators Filter:" After finding two or three lame-os by the same hider I am very likely to avoid seeking anything else hidden by that same person. Assuming there are enough caches available to be picky, that is. It is my opinion that any cache is better than no cache. Your preference may well differ.

 

With all that available to you, if you still find yourself facing cache after cache that snuck through the defenses only to leave you more and more frustrated, then I think it is reasonable to conclude that you simply don’t enjoy this hobby as much as I do. There is nothing wrong with that. Only you can decide whether Geocaching is providing you with enough entertainment to make it worth your while. Blaming others for your disappointment, however, is neither reasonable nor fair.

 

So I continue driving and look for the next closest and read the page. Nope, pass on that one. Then I head to the next one. Pass again. Then the next one. Nah. Then the next one. Another skirt lifter, forget it. Next one too. Oh, this one looks good. I get there and the GPS is pointing to an air conditioning unit behind the strip mall. No thanks, on to the next. Finally, there is one in a nice little park. I get out make the find. OK, on to the next one. It's called "Wally World". How about the next one? Nope. Oh, well that's it for the area. So much for my afternoon of geocaching in this town. Therein lies the problem (the preceding actually happened to me not long ago).

Again, based on my experience that sounds like quite an exaggeration. I have been caching for roughly five years, and through my travels with my job I have found hundreds of caches in dozens of urban and suburban areas. (See my CaptRussell profile for details.) In my experience the caches which I would consider "lame" seem to make up a much smaller fraction of the whole than you describe. In all that time I have only found one area that I would describe as a "pocket of concentrated lameness," but even then there were enough interesting hides mixed in among the disappointing ones to make my outing – including the mildly increased research required – worthwhile.

 

Either:

(1) Your minimum-required level of entertainment required to satisfy you is much higher than mine, or

(2) You are unlucky enough to consistently find yourself in the very rare pockets of concentrated lameness, AND at a statistically unlikely rate ... or

(3) Both.

 

I find (1) much easier to believe than (2) or (3). You regularly describe your frustration with disappointing caches by lamenting the lack of scenic view, historical relevance or other associated or coincidental location-based interest. You have made it clear that, if there is no such associated interest to be found, you would simply prefer not go caching at all rather than take your chances that you might enjoy the other, non-scenic or non-historically-relevant elements of the game. If that is not accurate, please correct my understanding.

 

If reason (1) is, in fact, true, then maybe your dependence on geocaching as a local-interest tour guide is misplaced – maybe you should accept the fact that playing tour guide is neither a stated nor a guaranteed function of this hobby. Blaming others for your disappointment is neither reasonable nor fair -- caches are sometimes hidden to take seekers to interesting places, but they are also frequently placed for a variety of OTHER reasons which are equally valid.

 

 

Yeah, in some instances your 10 second plan can help me avoid some lame caches, but it doesn't place ones I like for me to find.

I don't think you really need anyone to place more caches like the ones you like to find. You frequently lament the fact that caching has changed from the “old days,” but don’t forget: back in the pre-skirt-lifter days the really fun caches – ALL caches, for that matter – tended to be 50 miles apart or more. If you could actually go back in time, is that what you would REALLY be happy with: a total removal of lame micros, along with the removal of 99.9% of all other caches? Maybe your answer is yes, but for me that’s a bit too much overkill. Things aren’t perfect, but I’m happy with the way the game is today. I like the variety, the diversity, and the sheer volume of caches to choose from. If you're boarding up a time machine for an expedition back to 2001 I think I'll just stay right here in 2007 where there is MUCH more caching available to entertain me, thank you very much.

 

 

You are simultaneously asking for two things that are not compatible: You demand convenience, yet you also demand a guarantee not to miss out on anything good. You can have one or the other, but not both.

 

If you insist upon skimping on your research, you are just about guaranteed to be disappointed – based on your stated requirements for minimum acceptable entertainment, that is. If you want a guarantee that you’re not going to inadvertently bypass any of the truly great caches, on the other hand, then you are simply going to have to be more patient and learn to tolerate either more homework or more disappointments. But of course, such is life. Is it reasonable to demand any more than that from life? Geocaching is 100% populated by volunteer, amateur cache hiders. Is it reasonable to demand any more than that from volunteer, amateur cache hiders?

 

You described the game as having been "hijacked." Your use of that word, among other things, implies ownership: That something of yours has been taken away by someone else for that person's use. Geocaching is not yours, Brian. It belongs to all of us. You can't claim ownership of the game any more than I can. The so-called "hijacking" you are experiencing is not nearly as bad for you as what your time-machine-good-old-days-throwback-conversion would do to the folks who enjoy all those hides you dislike.

 

You and all the other Complainers seem to demand a certain level consideration for yourselves from other players in the way they hide caches. Some of those players simply have different preferences. Where is your consideration for them? Would you really want to convert this game back to the 2001 version if you had the power to do so?

[+TrailGators]

The situation is a joke. You are telling us to read cache pages to try to filter out caches that are located in disgusting places. But the cache pages are no help because nobody would ever admit that their cache is hidden in a disgusting place. The logs are no help unless one of "us" (location is important types) gets to experience one of these caches and then also writes a very honest log about it to help out our fellow cachers. So let the honesty begin!

Reading the cache page was not the first step of the 'easy peasey' method. The first step was running your PQs so you are pretty sure that you are going to like the caches in them. You then take a look at the cache pages on the fly to see if a stinker snuck in. After you have found (or ignored) all of those, you go back to the well.

I guess don't understand the first step. I enjoy any cache type/size/rating provided that it is hidden in either a clever way or a cool location. So can you clarify?

[+KBI]

Don't blame Piper every time a pilot flies his tomahawk into the trees.

 

Try telling that to Piper's legal department or the folks who pay for Piper's liability insurance.

 

We live in a modern, 21st century version of Western culture where everyone is a victim and "personal responsibility" is a taboo subject. Hence the outright demands of the Complainer-types that they be consistently and adequately entertained by their fellow players.

 

(It's almost as if they want to claim some kind of breach of contract every time someone else fails to wow them. I don't remember signing any Minimum Creativity Agreement when I opened my Groundspeak account, do you?)

[+KBI]

Before PQs, we would we would read through each cache page in the area we were interested in. If we were interested in a cache, we would print the page off. If we were not interested, we'd leave that cache be and look at the next cache page.

 

Pocket Queries were introduced and many people stopped reading the cache pages to ensure that they were interested in the cache. They merely ran a PQ, dumped the results into their PDAs and GPSrs and headed out. Unfortunately, since they stopped doing their homework, they were not always satisfied with what they found.

I have seen many, many people make the claim that "I cache paperless, therefore It's not my fault if I don't read the cache page."

 

The cache page description and other information is available in many convenient formats, paperless and otherwise. The decision to ignore that information is always voluntary.

 

One can enjoy time-saving convenience as certain electronic tools provide the means to skip all that reading, or one can enjoy the benefits of a little preparation and homework -- but one can't have both.

 

Whether one caches paperless or not, one CHOOSES how much research to apply in advance of a cache hunt.

Edited July 23, 2007 by KBI

[+sbell111]

The situation is a joke. You are telling us to read cache pages to try to filter out caches that are located in disgusting places. But the cache pages are no help because nobody would ever admit that their cache is hidden in a disgusting place. The logs are no help unless one of "us" (location is important types) gets to experience one of these caches and then also writes a very honest log about it to help out our fellow cachers. So let the honesty begin!

Reading the cache page was not the first step of the 'easy peasey' method. The first step was running your PQs so you are pretty sure that you are going to like the caches in them. You then take a look at the cache pages on the fly to see if a stinker snuck in. After you have found (or ignored) all of those, you go back to the well.

I guess don't understand the first step. I enjoy any cache type/size/rating provided that it is hidden in either a clever way or a cool location. So can you clarify?

Sure.

 

You have X amount of time to look for caches. In that amount of time, you can find Y caches. There are Z total caches. Z is made up of A caches that you enjoy and B caches that you don't enjoy. If you filter your PQs to exclude most B caches to obtain PQ C, it doesn't matter how many A caches that you filter out as long as C>Y.

 

If C<Y, you end up with Brian's 'The way it used to be'. You can still cache in this area, as long as C>0. At which time, you have to take a closer look at Z-C to identify the A caches that were filtered out.

Edited July 23, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

The situation is a joke. You are telling us to read cache pages to try to filter out caches that are located in disgusting places. But the cache pages are no help because nobody would ever admit that their cache is hidden in a disgusting place. The logs are no help unless one of "us" (location is important types) gets to experience one of these caches and then also writes a very honest log about it to help out our fellow cachers. So let the honesty begin!

Reading the cache page was not the first step of the 'easy peasey' method. The first step was running your PQs so you are pretty sure that you are going to like the caches in them. You then take a look at the cache pages on the fly to see if a stinker snuck in. After you have found (or ignored) all of those, you go back to the well.

I guess don't understand the first step. I enjoy any cache type/size/rating provided that it is hidden in either a clever way or a cool location. So can you clarify?

Sure.

 

You have X amount of time to look for caches. In that amount of time, you can find Y caches. There are Z total caches. This is made up of A caches that you enjoy and B caches that you don't enjoy. If you filter your PQs to exclude most B caches to obtain PQ C, it doesn't matter how many A caches that you filter out as long as C>Y.

How would I know if I enjoy "A" or not enjoy "B" if I haven't found them?

[+sbell111]

The situation is a joke. You are telling us to read cache pages to try to filter out caches that are located in disgusting places. But the cache pages are no help because nobody would ever admit that their cache is hidden in a disgusting place. The logs are no help unless one of "us" (location is important types) gets to experience one of these caches and then also writes a very honest log about it to help out our fellow cachers. So let the honesty begin!

Reading the cache page was not the first step of the 'easy peasey' method. The first step was running your PQs so you are pretty sure that you are going to like the caches in them. You then take a look at the cache pages on the fly to see if a stinker snuck in. After you have found (or ignored) all of those, you go back to the well.

I guess don't understand the first step. I enjoy any cache type/size/rating provided that it is hidden in either a clever way or a cool location. So can you clarify?

Sure.

 

You have X amount of time to look for caches. In that amount of time, you can find Y caches. There are Z total caches. This is made up of A caches that you enjoy and B caches that you don't enjoy. If you filter your PQs to exclude most B caches to obtain PQ C, it doesn't matter how many A caches that you filter out as long as C>Y.

How would I know if I enjoy "A" or not enjoy "B" if I haven't found them?

You know what broad categories of caches that you tend to enjoy.

[+tozainamboku]

The situation is a joke. You are telling us to read cache pages to try to filter out caches that are located in disgusting places. But the cache pages are no help because nobody would ever admit that their cache is hidden in a disgusting place. The logs are no help unless one of "us" (location is important types) gets to experience one of these caches and then also writes a very honest log about it to help out our fellow cachers. So let the honesty begin!

Reading the cache page was not the first step of the 'easy peasey' method. The first step was running your PQs so you are pretty sure that you are going to like the caches in them. You then take a look at the cache pages on the fly to see if a stinker snuck in. After you have found (or ignored) all of those, you go back to the well.

I guess don't understand the first step. I enjoy any cache type/size/rating provided that it is hidden in either a clever way or a cool location. So can you clarify?

In my experience using the "easy-peasy" method, I first decide what kind of caching I want to do that that day. So if I decide to go urban caching since I'm visiting a new area and have limited time to cache, I might in fact set my filter in such a way as to increase the chance of finding "lame" hides. There's no guarantee just using the PQ filters to avoid "lame" caches - see my earlier post. I'll adjust my expectation. I know that some places I'll just not want to spend much time looking or I'll decide to keep driving past certain caches. I then try to have fun with the caches I do find. Usually I find a few surprise - either a real nice little park I wouldn't have stopped at or some master of camouflage that is challengning or perhaps humorous. I may find one or two disappointments, an LPC in a trashy area or a hide in a thorny bush where I can't avoid getting poked. And a lot of so-so caches - not lame, but not memorable either. If I stop having fun, I'll stop.

 

If you want every cache to be above average, you need to cache in Lake Wobegon But since I have trouble whenever I cache in a fictional area, I just try to have as much fun as I can. I don't waste too much time if I don't like the locations - either drive on or just stop looking sooner. And I'll spend more time looking if the area is nice or if the prior logs indicate that the hide might be special. At the end of the day I spent more time having fun than not having fun. Easy-peasy.

[+KBI]

Still no response to my question, Trailgators?

 

Still no response to my request, CoyoteRed?

 

I think I see a trend here.

 

This debate is very frustrating, and I think I’ve been very slow to realize why: There are some folks involved who are simply not debating in good faith.

 

The Chronic Complainers don’t want to be bothered by actually having to defend their positions – they seem to only want to whine their whine: “Sometimes I find caches I don’t enjoy! The world’s just not FAIR!! People who hide those caches are doing it WRONG!!!”

 

Dare to question their claim to victimhood, however, and the response is either:

 

(1) Some flawed emotion-based logic like “I don’t care if other people are enjoying playing the game differently – I was here first, and if they are not going to do it right then they should just LEAVE so that we Proper Cachers can pull up the ladder!!!”

–or–

(2) They ignore the challenge to their victimhood altogether, with occasional obfuscation thrown in just for style, and resume complaining:

 

"So, CoyoteRed, do you care to back off your claim that I’m just a noisemaking troll, and to respond instead, in some rational way, to the points I made challenging your position – or do you prefer to avoid such inconvenient discussions in favor of more complaining?"

 

<crickets, crickets, crickets>

 

"So, Trailgators, do you care to defend you position, which you describe as a ‘solid rock,’ and answer simple questions which are intended to clarify that position – or do you prefer to avoid such inconvenient discussions in favor of more complaining?"

 

<crickets, crickets, crickets>

 

"So, Briansnat, do you care to respond to the question I posed asking why my own method I described for avoiding undesired caches won’t work for you – or do you prefer to avoid such inconvenient discussions in favor of more complaining?"

 

<crickets, crickets, crickets>

 

[Edit to add: I wrote this up before Briansnat responded. He finally responded, but only after repeated requests to do so. Once he did it was a fairly reasonable statement. It remains to be seen how long he sticks with his defense of his argument, however. For now I’m cautiously optimistic.]

 

The last time this discussion came up I posed what I thought was a fair challenge. I did this in an attempt to hopefully bring a conclusive finality, yay or nay, to certain unsettled elements of this “debate.” I listed a couple of the claims that the Complainers regularly make, and I invited them – or anyone else, for that matter – to (1) defend either (or both) of them, or (2) stop making the claims. It should have been a simple matter for anyone whose position hinges on either of those claims to prove one or both of them conclusively.

 

The response:

 

CoyoteRed elected to stick with his accusation that I am debating for my own mysterious, evil and dishonest reasons, not honest personal opinion. Obfuscation.

 

Trailgators made a weak attempt to support one of the listed claims by saying that good cachers are leaving the game in waves, but was only able to produce one example – only one cacher – and even at that it was only third-hand anecdotal evidence, as he refused to provide any further details. Obfuscation, followed by Ignore.

 

The others all remained silent. Ignore, ignore, ignore.

 

Yet the complaining continues.

 

When folks keep making questionable claims but won’t (or can’t) defend those claims, that’s not much of a debate, is it?

 

I’m going to go ahead and admit that my own continued participation in this non-debate therefore represents very poor judgment on my part. I guess I just keep hoping that someone on the Complainer side will come up with something to convince me of the validity and soundness of their claims and opinions. Maybe someday ...

 

[Edit to add: Briansnat just might be on the right track. Stay tuned ... ]

[+TrailGators]

The situation is a joke. You are telling us to read cache pages to try to filter out caches that are located in disgusting places. But the cache pages are no help because nobody would ever admit that their cache is hidden in a disgusting place. The logs are no help unless one of "us" (location is important types) gets to experience one of these caches and then also writes a very honest log about it to help out our fellow cachers. So let the honesty begin!

Reading the cache page was not the first step of the 'easy peasey' method. The first step was running your PQs so you are pretty sure that you are going to like the caches in them. You then take a look at the cache pages on the fly to see if a stinker snuck in. After you have found (or ignored) all of those, you go back to the well.

I guess don't understand the first step. I enjoy any cache type/size/rating provided that it is hidden in either a clever way or a cool location. So can you clarify?

Sure.

 

You have X amount of time to look for caches. In that amount of time, you can find Y caches. There are Z total caches. This is made up of A caches that you enjoy and B caches that you don't enjoy. If you filter your PQs to exclude most B caches to obtain PQ C, it doesn't matter how many A caches that you filter out as long as C>Y.

How would I know if I enjoy "A" or not enjoy "B" if I haven't found them?

You know what broad categories of caches that you tend to enjoy.

I don't need any method to sort hiking caches. They are all decent and I rarely if ever have an issue with one of those. However, sometimes it's blazing hot outside and so hiking is not an option so that means urban caching. Anyhow, it's the urban ones that I need an "easy peasy" method for. So what broad category would I use for urbans? Edited July 23, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

Still no response to my question, Trailgators?

I already said I was being sarcastic. We know that people that hide those types of caches would never divulge the truth about the cons of location of their cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...How would I know if I enjoy "A" or not enjoy "B" if I haven't found them?

You can't and that in part is why every argument about making the game better by upping the quality and, and how if only there were enough attributes to go around we could sort out the A's from the B's..all fail.

 

Nobody ever really knows if they will like A or B until they found it. They only suspect and they can only skew the odds.

 

The only real solution is the affinity rating system with some opt in buddies. Then you can see what folks with similar taste (whatever that taste is) liked. Filter those in your PQ. Done. Or you can know that your buddy likes the same kinds of caches and just search out the ones he rated well. The thing about a thread like this is that a lot of people know what they don't like but alas it's not enough to just say that.

 

It's like my kids. "You guys want a Milk Shake?" "They say, yes but I hate Peanut Butter, I don't want Peanut Butter"... to which I say, "That doesn't help me any, I'm trying to buy you something you do like, so tell me what you want, that I can do, I don't have any control over what you don't want". They don't get it yet.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+TrailGators]

Trailgators made a weak attempt to support one of the listed claims by saying that good cachers are leaving the game in waves, but was only able to produce one example – only one cacher – and even at that it was only third-hand anecdotal evidence, as he refused to provide any further details. Obfuscation, followed by Ignore.

This is a flat out lie so I won't respond. So stop being a pest and stop bugging me to answer. Edited July 23, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

...How would I know if I enjoy "A" or not enjoy "B" if I haven't found them?

You can't and that in part is why every argument about making the game better by upping the quality and, and how if only there were enough attributes to go around we could sort out the A's from the B's..all fail.

 

Nobody ever really knows if they will like A or B until they found it. They only suspect and they can only skew the odds.

 

The only real solution is the affinity rating system with some opt in buddies. Then you can see what folks with similar taste (whatever that taste is) liked. Filter those in your PQ. Done. Or you can know that your buddy likes the same kinds of caches and just search out the ones he rated well. The thing about a thread like this is that a lot of people know what they don't like but alas it's not enough to just say that.

 

It's like my kids. "You guys want a Milk Shake?" "They say, yes but I hate Peanut Butter, I don't want Peanut Butter"... to which I say, "That doesn't help me any, I'm trying to buy you something you do like, so tell me what you want, that I can do, I don't have any control over what you don't want". They don't get it yet.

This is an excellent suggestion RK!

[loba2007]

?????? I am really surprised that nobody talked about ....... NANO caches !!!!!!

They also exist and are being used occasionally ... not that often I concede but nevertheless .....

-----------------------------------------

All that to say to all of the above that ...... It could be worse !!!!!!!!

------------------------------------------

Be happy and go hunt what you like !!

[+KBI]

Still no response to my question, Trailgators?

I already said I was being sarcastic. We know that people that hide those types of caches would never divulge the truth about the cons of location of their cache.

Sarcastic? Are we talking about the same thing? Did you even click the link?

 

Here is is again: the link to my question.

 

Will you try to answer it this time, or can I expect even more obfuscation?

[+KBI]

Trailgators made a weak attempt to support one of the listed claims by saying that good cachers are leaving the game in waves, but was only able to produce one example – only one cacher – and even at that it was only third-hand anecdotal evidence, as he refused to provide any further details. Obfuscation, followed by Ignore.

This is a flat out lie ...

I lied?

 

Please review the conversation, starting with this post and the following one where you began your attempt to defend the claim that easy micros are damaging the game, and tell me exactly what part I lied about.

[+TrailGators]

Trailgators made a weak attempt to support one of the listed claims by saying that good cachers are leaving the game in waves, but was only able to produce one example – only one cacher – and even at that it was only third-hand anecdotal evidence, as he refused to provide any further details. Obfuscation, followed by Ignore.

This is a flat out lie ...

I lied?

 

Please review the conversation, starting with this post and the following one where you began your attempt to defend the claim that easy micros are damaging the game, and tell me exactly what part I lied about.

Start by providing the quote where I said "cachers are leaving the game in waves."

[+TrailGators]

Still no response to my question, Trailgators?

I already said I was being sarcastic. We know that people that hide those types of caches would never divulge the truth about the cons of location of their cache.

Sarcastic? Are we talking about the same thing? Did you even click the link?

 

Here is is again: the link to my question.

 

Will you try to answer it this time, or can I expect even more obfuscation?

I already said I was being sarcastic. Do you want me to phase in it French for you? Look I'm not going to let you drag another thread down the gutter with your BS. So this is the last time I will respond to you. Bon Jour!

[+KBI]

Trailgators made a weak attempt to support one of the listed claims by saying that good cachers are leaving the game in waves, but was only able to produce one example – only one cacher – and even at that it was only third-hand anecdotal evidence, as he refused to provide any further details. Obfuscation, followed by Ignore.

This is a flat out lie ...

I lied?

 

Please review the conversation, starting with this post and the following one where you began your attempt to defend the claim that easy micros are damaging the game, and tell me exactly what part I lied about.

Start by providing the quote where I said "cachers are leaving the game in waves."

Fair enough. I wan't quoting your actual words, I was interpreting your argument. If youre saying that I shouldn't have used quotes around those particular words, you're right -- I'll concede that point.

 

Accurately restating your position in my own words while using quotes is a mistake, but it hardly constitutes a lie.

 

You want accurate quotes? Fine. Please accept these direct quotes from the afore-linked conversation that you have apparently forgotten.

 

TG: 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? We have lost some very creative hiders. I would have paid to find more of their caches.

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

KBI: I haven't seen this myself, nor have I ever heard about it anywhere other than from you. If I remember correctly you once made that claim in another thread, and I asked you to give specifics, which you were unable to do. Can you now provide evidence that lame micros are causing a troubling number of creative cachers to quit the game?

TG: I just told you that we lost out best hider in my town.

KBI: What I'm asking is for someone to explain how this harms or damages the game.

TG: So how about the fact that some of these people get fed up and quit?

Still think I lied? I think it's more accurate to say that these quotes represent your failed attempt to defend one of your frequent claims, as I have already explained.