Lame First Hides

[CoyoteRed]

... The beauty of a log-based ratings scheme is the data is already there and folks don't have to do anything they're not already doing.

 

The drawback is if the scheme goes mainstream then folks will try to game the system.

What system?

 

You think that if people find out that CoyoteRed is choosing caches by average log length that they will start writing long logs for caches that they hate and tiny logs for caches that they love? Certainly, you don't believe that people are that interested in what you do.

Now, I have an excuse for missing part of the discussion as it was on a different page of posts and I'm only scanning the thread. You missed part that was in the post you quoted. I highlighted it for you. Now, if you think about what I said, hopefully, you'll understand.

I was tempted to just ignore your post because it is too much trouble to try to keep you up to speed when you choose to simply post and run, rather than actually read the thread to which you are posting. Still, I can't help but ask you to actually answer my question. I went back and looked at your referenced post and I have no clue how (or why) you think someone will 'game the system' if they realize that you pick caches based on the average log length.

I did answer it, but hopefully this is clearer for you: the system will not be gamed because I use it, it will be gamed because a lot of folks use it.

 

You know:

• Only CoyoteRed uses it: not mainstream.
  
• A large portion of the caching population uses it: mainstream.
  

The part about being mainstream is important.

[CoyoteRed]

What would you say if someone started a thread criticizing the super duper really hard caches... The true 5/5 caches that are just so hard it takes a couple of days, special equipment, a hard puzzle to solve, a difficult find to overcome, etc.?

 

Suppose they came in and said "Hey, there's NO reason to hide caches this hard. They're supposed to be FOUND people!! C'mon! We're only hiding them to begin with because the muggles would take them otherwise, we're not supposed to make them THIS hard to find!!! When you play hide and seek you expect to be able to find the person, so caches are also supposed to be findable."

...

5) If you don't want to find the really difficult caches, just filter them out with difficulty and terrain ratings.

Your analog breaks in that there is a way to filter out harder caches. There is no way available on this site to easily filter less memorable or enjoyed caches. That's what a rating system is for. ...

Actually, a method was mentioned in this very thread. Had you read the thread, you would have known that.

Yeah, I know. You are actively pooh-poohing the idea. Go figure.

[+sbell111]

... The beauty of a log-based ratings scheme is the data is already there and folks don't have to do anything they're not already doing.

 

The drawback is if the scheme goes mainstream then folks will try to game the system.

What system?

 

You think that if people find out that CoyoteRed is choosing caches by average log length that they will start writing long logs for caches that they hate and tiny logs for caches that they love? Certainly, you don't believe that people are that interested in what you do.

Now, I have an excuse for missing part of the discussion as it was on a different page of posts and I'm only scanning the thread. You missed part that was in the post you quoted. I highlighted it for you. Now, if you think about what I said, hopefully, you'll understand.

I was tempted to just ignore your post because it is too much trouble to try to keep you up to speed when you choose to simply post and run, rather than actually read the thread to which you are posting. Still, I can't help but ask you to actually answer my question. I went back and looked at your referenced post and I have no clue how (or why) you think someone will 'game the system' if they realize that you pick caches based on the average log length.

I did answer it, but hopefully this is clearer for you: the system will not be gamed because I use it, it will be gamed because a lot of folks use it.

 

You know:

• Only CoyoteRed uses it: not mainstream.
  
• A large portion of the caching population uses it: mainstream.
  

The part about being mainstream is important.

Perhaps now you can answer the actual question. How do you believe the 'system' would be 'gamed'?

[+sbell111]

What would you say if someone started a thread criticizing the super duper really hard caches... The true 5/5 caches that are just so hard it takes a couple of days, special equipment, a hard puzzle to solve, a difficult find to overcome, etc.?

 

Suppose they came in and said "Hey, there's NO reason to hide caches this hard. They're supposed to be FOUND people!! C'mon! We're only hiding them to begin with because the muggles would take them otherwise, we're not supposed to make them THIS hard to find!!! When you play hide and seek you expect to be able to find the person, so caches are also supposed to be findable."

...

5) If you don't want to find the really difficult caches, just filter them out with difficulty and terrain ratings.

Your analog breaks in that there is a way to filter out harder caches. There is no way available on this site to easily filter less memorable or enjoyed caches. That's what a rating system is for. ...

Actually, a method was mentioned in this very thread. Had you read the thread, you would have known that.

Yeah, I know. You are actively pooh-poohing the idea. Go figure.

If you are not going to read the thread, at least read the post you are responding to. Better yet, if you are not going to read the thread, please do not try to participate. It is rude to everyone that is actually participating in the thread.

[Mushtang]

What would you say if someone started a thread criticizing the super duper really hard caches... The true 5/5 caches that are just so hard it takes a couple of days, special equipment, a hard puzzle to solve, a difficult find to overcome, etc.?

 

Suppose they came in and said "Hey, there's NO reason to hide caches this hard. They're supposed to be FOUND people!! C'mon! We're only hiding them to begin with because the muggles would take them otherwise, we're not supposed to make them THIS hard to find!!! When you play hide and seek you expect to be able to find the person, so caches are also supposed to be findable."

...

5) If you don't want to find the really difficult caches, just filter them out with difficulty and terrain ratings.

Your analog breaks in that there is a way to filter out harder caches. There is no way available on this site to easily filter less memorable or enjoyed caches. That's what a rating system is for.

 

Give us a workable rating system and the analogy works great! Only want to find caches most folks will enjoy? Filter out the rest! Simple.

But it doesn't break, because the analogy is speaking to those complaining of really easy hides, not hides that CoyoteRed doesn't like. Really easy hides can be filtered out really easily.

 

You keep complaining that filtering out 1/1 micros to eliminate LPCs would also eliminate a few caches you'd like. This is a gut reaction, and if you ever really thought about it you'd realize it's a method that will increase your ratio of enjoyable caches.

 

BTW, what if they released a filter on PQs that would filter out "caches most folks will enjoy" as you mentioned you'd want in the quote above? Would you use it or would you complain that there are still some caches being filtered out that you would like because your preferences aren't exactly the same as "most folks"? It's the same thing.

 

Either way you're going to remove a HUGE number of caches you don't like, along with a few that you would. But you'll be left with a HUGE number of caches you would like, along with a few that you wouldn't.

[CoyoteRed]

You keep complaining that filtering out 1/1 micros to eliminate LPCs would also eliminate a few caches you'd like. This is a gut reaction, and if you ever really thought about it you'd realize it's a method that will increase your ratio of enjoyable caches.

Actually, you're wrong. A major portion of the lame hides I don't like aren't 1/1s. Your system breaks before it even gets off the ground.

 

It's quite obvious you've not done any serious investigation into the subject and are arguing from a standpoint with no data.

[+XopherN71]

Wow, we're getting 'techincal' on lame caches... y'all really have too much time on your hands

 

It's a cache... most likely a plastic box with a Spiderman ring in it and a piece of paper and pencil if you're lucky.

 

Can we get on with life or is this really a serious issue for some people?

 

Yes, I know... I can skip this thread, but it just amazes me how upset people get over this - I just HAVE TO read it!

 

That said, I have to make sure to mention I am in no way dogging on anyone who is trying to make the hobby better. Yes, quality caches with some time and effort put into them are nicer to find and generally better taken care of. I just don't see the point in any enforcement of one persons idea of an ideal starting point with the hide itself. It's obvious the only right cache is your own, perhaps you should start 'The School of Geocache' and only 'hunt' for your graduates caches, if you like them they graduate - if not send them to the masses!

 

Edited April 16, 2008 by XopherN71

[Mushtang]

You keep complaining that filtering out 1/1 micros to eliminate LPCs would also eliminate a few caches you'd like. This is a gut reaction, and if you ever really thought about it you'd realize it's a method that will increase your ratio of enjoyable caches.

Actually, you're wrong. A major portion of the lame hides I don't like aren't 1/1s. Your system breaks before it even gets off the ground.

 

It's quite obvious you've not done any serious investigation into the subject and are arguing from a standpoint with no data.

You're right, I have NO idea what kinds of caches CoyoteRed doesn't like, nor do I care. I shouldn't have spoken to your preferences. I was mostly speaking of all the complaints in this thread about the nanos and the LPCs. Most of those ARE 1/1s, and the method to eliminate them works just fine.

 

So what kinds of lame hides is it you're trying to avoid? LPCs? No views? Wet logs?

[+softball29]

Wow, we're getting 'techincal' on lame caches... y'all really have too much time on your hands

 

It's a cache... most likely a plastic box with a Spiderman ring in it and a piece of paper and pencil if you're lucky.

 

Can we get on with life or is this really a serious issue for some people?

 

Yes, I know... I can skip this thread, but it just amazes me how upset people get over this - I just HAVE TO read it!

 

That said, I have to make sure to mention I am in no way dogging on anyone who is trying to make the hobby better. Yes, quality caches with some time and effort put into them are nicer to find and generally better taken care of. I just don't see the point in any enforcement of one persons idea of an ideal starting point with the hide itself. It's obvious the only right cache is your own, perhaps you should start 'The School of Geocache' and only 'hunt' for your graduates caches, if you like them they graduate - if not send them to the masses!

 

 

RE: Skipping the thread: It's like an accident. You HAVE to look. I said to myself yesterday I was done with it. Came home from work, caught up. Woke up today, caught up with it.

 

Sheesh.

 

The realization is that some people think one way, some another. No matter if it's about log length or LPCs or 1/1s -- people have their opinion and that's a final verdict.

 

It's not even worth arguing about or trying to show another side, because though some claim they "understand" what you are saying, they keep blasting.

 

My final thoughts (and I'm sure I'll keep reading the thread, but I've stated my opinions before and don't need to continually say them over and over): It's a game. Play it as you want and enjoy it. Stop worrying about how others play or what they enjoy. The filtering system and searching system is what it is. If Groundpeak changes it, so be it. If not, play the game and have fun the best you can.

 

We all do things differently with geocaching. Do your thing and have fun.

[+TrailGators]

Most of those ARE 1/1s, and the method to eliminate them works just fine.

Your method is like giving up eating at all fast food restaurants just because you keep getting badly undercooked burgers from many of the fast-food restaurants in your town. Sure, I like getting a good steak now and then, but I still like fast-food. I also never go back to those restaurants that served burgers that were badly undercooked. It's like they took the burger straight from the frig, tossed it on the bun and served it to me.

[+XopherN71]

I'll just 'ditto' this and be done as well, sums it up exactly how I see it

 

My final thoughts (and I'm sure I'll keep reading the thread, but I've stated my opinions before and don't need to continually say them over and over): It's a game. Play it as you want and enjoy it. Stop worrying about how others play or what they enjoy. The filtering system and searching system is what it is. If Groundpeak changes it, so be it. If not, play the game and have fun the best you can.

 

We all do things differently with geocaching. Do your thing and have fun.

[Mushtang]

Most of those ARE 1/1s, and the method to eliminate them works just fine.

Your method is like giving up eating at all fast food restaurants just because you keep getting badly undercooked burgers from many of the fast-food restaurants in your town. Sure, I like getting a good steak now and then, but I still like fast-food. I also never go back to those restaurants that served burgers that were badly undercooked. It's like they took the burger straight from the frig, tossed it on the bun and served it to me.

YES!!! YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!!! It seems like you're finally seeing the light.

 

This method is EXACTLY like giving up eating at all fast food restaurants because you're getting bad food from many of them. If you've gotten enough undercooked meat you'd want to just avoid them all. You know when you do this you'll also avoid some food you might like, but as you're eating your steak you're enjoying your meal, and the meat is cooked.

 

If, however, you decide that you want a properly cooked burger from a fast food restaurant, you're going to have to remove your filter and start taking chances again. There's no way to filter out just the fast food restaurants that serve undercooked meat.

 

So you have a choice - filter your restaurant choices and enjoy good food almost every time you eat, or don't filter them and have mixed results. There are so many non-fast food restaurants you'll be able to eat all kinds of different meals and never eat at all of them.

 

If you're eating good meals every time, with a limitless supply, but you're still complaining about the fast food burgers you're not getting that are properly cooked, it just sounds like you'll never be satisfied.

 

Of course in this analogy there would have to be a lot of people that enjoy the undercooked meat, and there's other problems, but no analogy is completely applicable, I understand that.

[+tozainamboku]

Wow, we're getting 'techincal' on lame caches... y'all really have too much time on your hands

 

It's a cache... most likely a plastic box with a Spiderman ring in it and a piece of paper and pencil if you're lucky.

 

Can we get on with life or is this really a serious issue for some people?

 

Yes, I know... I can skip this thread, but it just amazes me how upset people get over this - I just HAVE TO read it!

 

That said, I have to make sure to mention I am in no way dogging on anyone who is trying to make the hobby better. Yes, quality caches with some time and effort put into them are nicer to find and generally better taken care of. I just don't see the point in any enforcement of one persons idea of an ideal starting point with the hide itself. It's obvious the only right cache is your own, perhaps you should start 'The School of Geocache' and only 'hunt' for your graduates caches, if you like them they graduate - if not send them to the masses!

 

XopherN71, you are right on. But every person is looking for ways to have more fun geocaching. Some change their attitude and accept that not every cache is above average. If they find a cache they think didn't have much thought put into it they just move to the next cache or they enjoy it for the 'kitsch'. Others look for ways to increase the ratio of hunting caches they like over cache they don't like.

 

GPS-Hermit, in the OP, is looking for ways to encourage new hiders to hide more of the cache he likes and fewer of the caches he thinks are lame. He gives a list of things he feels makes a good cache. Perhaps there are some newbies who have not figured out yet what makes a good cache. They may look at GPS-Hermit's list and decide to adopt some or all of his points. That may result in more of the cache GPS-Hermit likes and fewer that he doesn't like. In an old thread, that I'm not going to look up, I gave a list of suggestions for people placing their first cache that wasn't all that different from GPS-Hermit's. Of course, I then stated that as you both gained experience and a reputation for hiding good caches, you could ignore my list and hide what you like. I have no objection to people posting what they think makes a good cache and encouraging people to consider their points when hiding a cache.

 

Since many people complain that the 'lame' cache are the urban parking lot hides, sbell111 has proposed a method where you don't look for terrain 1 traditional caches. That way you won't find many LPCs. Of course it means skipping the low terrain urban caches hidden in an unusual way or hidden somewhere more interesting than a parking lot. So one would add to the list any terrain 1 caches that get recommended to you or where you see a cache page that looks interesting. This method typically gets rejected by those who feel the need for a tool that would entail less work.

 

In this thread we have seen some people have proposed that the length of the online log is a good indication of how much they would enjoy a cache. Certainly there are some people who enjoy just finding a cache and don't really care to write much. They may find the log length meaningless in selecting a cache. And it may be that the length of the log has more to do with the experience one had on the way to or from the cache rather than the cache itself. People write logs about the deer they saw on the way to the cache, or the car wreck they had to get around to get into the parking lot. You may not see the deer or the car wreck when you visit. But if some people feel the length of the log is indicative of how much they would enjoy the cache, why not let them filter on this? My suspicion is that they really mean that caches they consider "lame" have high percentage of short logs, especially TNLNSL, TFTC, or DPM. Average length is useless since you could have a cache with one very long log and all the rest are one word. If you are going to use log length, at least use the median instead of the average.

[+TrailGators]

There's no way to filter out just the fast food restaurants that serve undercooked meat.

I've noticed that the fast-food restaurants that serve good or great burgers have longer positive customers reviews (on average). I've been studying this for awhile since I still want to eat at fast-food restaurants. I did find a long negative review about a customer spilling hot coffee on herself and suing the restaurant, but those kinds of negative reviews are rare. So if I search for fast-food restaurants that have longer reviews (on average) because of all the positive things people write about them, then the restaurants that serve undercooked burgers almost always end up on the bottom of that list.

[+TrailGators]

If you are going to use log length, at least use the median instead of the average.

You could do that or you could add standard deviation! But I don't know how to do that, so someone that does know how would have to write an improved macro for GSAK... Edited April 16, 2008 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

There's no way to filter out just the fast food restaurants that serve undercooked meat.

I've noticed that the fast-food restaurants that serve good or great burgers have longer positive customers reviews (on average). I've been studying this for awhile since I still want to eat at fast-food restaurants. I did find a long negative review about a customer spilling hot coffee on herself and suing the restaurant, but those kinds of negative reviews are rare. So if I search for fast-food restaurants that have longer reviews (on average) because of all the positive things people write about them, then the restaurants that serve undercooked burgers almost always end up on the bottom of that list.

I would think people who ate undercooked burgers and got sick would have a lot more to write about then the ones who simply ate a great burger. You really should use ice cream for you analogies

[+Renegade Knight]

...Put another way. I'm planning a hunt. I've hiked the area, know the elk, know their habits. Then the day of the hunt I go, get in my spot overlooking where I know the elk will be at the time I know they will be there. I put the rifle up, look in the scope and there is an elk, exactly positioned for a perfect shot so I pull the trigger and bag my elk. Yes that was a hunt.

 

When you hiked the area and worked hard with many considerations and much effort to find the right spot - you finished the hunt. You weren't hunting the deer you were hunting the spot. I will bet you didn't have a way too easy time of choosing it either. If you knew the deer where coming for sure - you were not hunting....

 

Very nice comeback.

 

What you are saying is this: If I do the work, I've hunted. If I bring my buddy and he's the one who takes the shot, he hasn't hunted.

 

I'm saying both are hunting. The first is your fun. The second is just my buddy's good luck. When it comes to caches, maybe you don't like the obvious. That's fine. It's your fun. However drop the GPS, use maps instead and now maybe it's a hunt even for you. You have the tools to make your hunt fun while allowing people like my buddy to tag along and have a good time as well.

[+KBI]

The one thing I can't understand -- the more I read the forums -- is that people don't seem to understand or don't want to accept that people play this game differently. Just because I don't play it the same way you do doesn't mean I'm not right or am doing it wrong. People jump to too many conclusions on this board, it seems. It's unfortunate, too, because this is a great hobby. But if too many "newbies" come on here and see discussions like this and think it's the norm, that type of stuff will chase more people away even moreso than too many LPCs.

 

Again, just my two cents, but every person is different. I'm just happy that there is something that gets me off my duff, away from the computer and outside, exercising and out on a hunt. In the end, I'm happy that I've spent several hours outside, even if it's a day of finding 10 micros or nanos.

Tread carefully, Softball. Anyone who so much as hints that the tiniest, easiest and simplest caches are just as enjoyable (to some) and therefore worthy of existence as any other hide are typically thrashed by the Complainers. It ain't pretty.

Nobody ever said anything about getting rid of any caches.

 

Care to provide a quote?

Sure!

 

How about the Original Post of this thread? The OP clearly believes that there are some caches which never should have been placed. Further, he/she clearly believes that such caches should NOT be placd in the future. That sure sounds like like "getting rid of caches" to me. Nevermind that those hides he/she describes are comfortably compliant with the guidelines. Nevermind that those hides he/she describes are regularly found and enjoyed by thousands of cachers who don't happen to share his/her aesthetic, or who are happy to hunt any cache. The OP believes they are less than worthy simply because he/she doesn't happen to like them, and therefore wants them gone.

 

There. I answered your question. Care to reconsider answering mine?

So you would like the discussion to regress back to a point that none of us still discussing the issue are making? I thought all of us had gotten past that already since nobody seems to be agreeing with it.

Let's back up a moment here and untangle your obfuscation.

 

You challenged me to show where someone said they wanted to get rid of caches. I wasn't sure why you made that challenge, since my post addressed only the usual consternation expressed by the Complainers whenever the idea of tolerance is raised, and NOT any related demands for bans -- but I answered your challenge all the same.

 

I, on the other hand, have once again asked you a very clear and reasonable question. You have once again demonstrated your refusal to defend your statements by ignoring the question.

 

Nobody said anything about "regressing" anything. I am discussing the topic of the thread, which is the OPs desire to see certain caches go away. If you do not wish to discuss that topic, then what off-topic topic is it that you DO wish to discuss?

 

And BTW: Do you think you'll ever seriously consider answering my question?

[+TrailGators]

And BTW: Do you think you'll ever seriously consider answering my question?

We've moved on and you are still beating a dead horse. I don't know what question you asked me, but my position is very clear. Just read my past few posts if you forgot what my position was.

[+KBI]

I don't agree that any cache is acceptable, just because someone is having fun. No way!

Assuming we're only talking about guideline-compliant caches here: You and I apparently have very different reasons for participating in this hobby.

 

I do it for fun. Why do you do it?

[+KBI]

Ok, I'll try this one again, I lost the network when I was waiting for it to post.

 

I save the 1/1 caches for when I'm out with my gf, who is handicapped. She had corrective surgery on her foot and ankle for a deformaty she has had since birth. She is just now learning to walk again. Without those in your face "supposedly lame" caches, the sport would be ruined for her before she even started.

For the 15 billionith time....Nobody is talking about getting rid of any caches. Comprende?

For the third time: The OP has made it clear that some caches are unacceptable to him/her, purely because those caches do not meet his/her personal minimum standard of preferred difficulty.

 

Understandie?

[+sbell111]

Wow, we're getting 'techincal' on lame caches... y'all really have too much time on your hands

 

It's a cache... most likely a plastic box with a Spiderman ring in it and a piece of paper and pencil if you're lucky.

 

Can we get on with life or is this really a serious issue for some people?

 

Yes, I know... I can skip this thread, but it just amazes me how upset people get over this - I just HAVE TO read it!

 

That said, I have to make sure to mention I am in no way dogging on anyone who is trying to make the hobby better. Yes, quality caches with some time and effort put into them are nicer to find and generally better taken care of. I just don't see the point in any enforcement of one persons idea of an ideal starting point with the hide itself. It's obvious the only right cache is your own, perhaps you should start 'The School of Geocache' and only 'hunt' for your graduates caches, if you like them they graduate - if not send them to the masses!

 

 

RE: Skipping the thread: It's like an accident. You HAVE to look. I said to myself yesterday I was done with it. Came home from work, caught up. Woke up today, caught up with it.

 

Sheesh.

 

The realization is that some people think one way, some another. No matter if it's about log length or LPCs or 1/1s -- people have their opinion and that's a final verdict.

 

It's not even worth arguing about or trying to show another side, because though some claim they "understand" what you are saying, they keep blasting.

 

My final thoughts (and I'm sure I'll keep reading the thread, but I've stated my opinions before and don't need to continually say them over and over): It's a game. Play it as you want and enjoy it. Stop worrying about how others play or what they enjoy. The filtering system and searching system is what it is. If Groundpeak changes it, so be it. If not, play the game and have fun the best you can.

 

We all do things differently with geocaching. Do your thing and have fun.

From now on, you both are going to be lumped into the group of people who supposedly don't support improvement and only want lame caches. Edited April 16, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Most of those ARE 1/1s, and the method to eliminate them works just fine.

Your method is like giving up eating at all fast food restaurants just because you keep getting badly undercooked burgers from many of the fast-food restaurants in your town. Sure, I like getting a good steak now and then, but I still like fast-food. I also never go back to those restaurants that served burgers that were badly undercooked. It's like they took the burger straight from the frig, tossed it on the bun and served it to me.

You're still missing the mark.

 

If you filtered out all fast food restaurants, but still looked at reviews of new restaurants, you'd be able to add the good fast food restaurants to your list, as they came. If you ever ran out of all of the restaurants in your list, you could go back to the filtered out ones to find the pearls. Of course, in reality you will never run out of the restaurants in your list because the list is long and keeps growing.

Edited April 16, 2008 by sbell111

[+XopherN71]

So... let's say I have 3 hamburgers and want cheese on 2 of them. But still want fries with all 3, a diet Coke with 1, Sprite with another and Root Beer for the third, plus an extra side of onion rings.

 

How am I supposed to go Geocaching and carry all that crap in my backpack without getting soda (pop), ketchup, mustard and grease all over everything?

 

I suppose one could use Lock & Lock containers... but then what do you use for a cache?

 

Certainly not the empty cups.

 

Hmmm....

 

Edited April 16, 2008 by XopherN71

[+TrailGators]

Ok, I'll try this one again, I lost the network when I was waiting for it to post.

 

I save the 1/1 caches for when I'm out with my gf, who is handicapped. She had corrective surgery on her foot and ankle for a deformaty she has had since birth. She is just now learning to walk again. Without those in your face "supposedly lame" caches, the sport would be ruined for her before she even started.

For the 15 billionith time....Nobody is talking about getting rid of any caches. Comprende?

For the third time: The OP has made it clear that some caches are unacceptable to him/her, purely because those caches do not meet his/her personal minimum standard of preferred difficulty.

 

Understandie?

Yes I "understandie." Now I've answered your question. Are you happy? Are we having fun yet?

[+tozainamboku]

So... let's say I have 3 hamburgers and want cheese on 2 of them. But still want fries with all 3, a diet Coke with 1, Sprite with another and Root Beer for the third, plus an extra side of onion rings.

 

How am I supposed to go Geocaching and carry all that crap in my backpack without getting soda (pop), ketchup, mustard and grease all over everything?

 

I suppose one could use Lock & Lock containers... but then what do you use for a cache?

 

Certainly not the empty cups.

 

Hmmm....

 

Stop trying to ban using empty cups from fast food restaurants as cache containers. Somebody has fun looking for these.

Edited April 16, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+TrailGators]

Most of those ARE 1/1s, and the method to eliminate them works just fine.

Your method is like giving up eating at all fast food restaurants just because you keep getting badly undercooked burgers from many of the fast-food restaurants in your town. Sure, I like getting a good steak now and then, but I still like fast-food. I also never go back to those restaurants that served burgers that were badly undercooked. It's like they took the burger straight from the frig, tossed it on the bun and served it to me.

You're still missing the mark.

 

If you filtered out all fast sood restaurants, but still looked at reviews of new restaurants, you'd be able to add the good fast food restaurants to your list, as they came. If you ever ran out of all of the restaurants in your list, you could go back to the filtered out ones to find the pearls. Of course, in reality you will never run out of the restaurants in your list because the list is long and keeps growing.

So when I travel and I have a free hour to cache, I'm supposed to read a bunch of reviews? I want to cache for an hour and not read for an hour. The method I suggested would take a few minutes and the restaurants that serve undercooked hamburgers would end up at the bottom of that list everytime. Edited April 16, 2008 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

Everyone calls geocaching hunting but it's nothing like hunting. It is a game of hide n' seek. If you enjoy hide n' seek then you will not enjoy finding caches that you can spot from 200 feet away.

Please speak only for yourself. Your personal preferences are showing. Me, I kinda like those hides sometimes. Who are you to tell me what I will enjoy? Who am I to tell you what you will enjoy?

 

Just because you or I can spot a cache from 200 feet away doesn’t mean everyone can. In fact, it is frequently ME who is the dunce, logging a DNF on a 1/1 hide that everyone else calls easy. It's still fun -- and it is all the more fun because I never really know for certain what adventure each cache holds until I attempt it. Makes the occasional disappointments all the more worthwhile, if you ask me.

 

So please speak only for yourself when telling us which caches are no fun.

 

People that hide their first cache need to decide if they enjoy the hide n' seek aspect or if they want to put a logbook in a very obvious place for people to sign.

People who take it upon themselves to publicly criticize other people’s caches need to keep in mind that hiders enjoy placing caches for a wide variety of different reasons, and that seekers enjoy seeking caches for a wide variety of different reasons as well.

 

I agree with what Miragee said about preferring low difficulty caches on hikes. I'm not out there to spend an hour looking for a cache. I'm out there to enjoy a hike and later log my journey with photos on a few trailside caches.

EXACTLY! You don’t want a difficult-to-find hide at the end of a long or strenuous hike because you already made a significant effort just to get to the cache site. No problem -- that is a very understandable preference.

 

If you understand that concept, then why can’t you accept that some people maybe don’t want to expend any effort at all? Why can’t you also accept that, for some people, merely getting themselves to a simple drive up lamp post is a significant effort and strain?

[+XopherN71]

You take the good.

You take the bad.

You take them both and then you have the facts of life.

The facts of life.

[+TrailGators]

People that hide their first cache need to decide if they enjoy the hide n' seek aspect or if they want to put a logbook in a very obvious place for people to sign.

People who take it upon themselves to publicly criticize other people's caches need to keep in mind that hiders enjoy placing caches for a wide variety of different reasons, and that seekers enjoy seeking caches for a wide variety of different reasons as well.

It's funny how you took that as a criticism. Did I use any derogatory adjectives? You are just not happy unless you can start a fight. Sorry but I'm not fighting and deciding the difficulty level is what the hider has to decide... Edited April 16, 2008 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

There's no way to filter out just the fast food restaurants that serve undercooked meat.

I've noticed that the fast-food restaurants that serve good or great burgers have longer positive customers reviews (on average). I've been studying this for awhile since I still want to eat at fast-food restaurants. I did find a long negative review about a customer spilling hot coffee on herself and suing the restaurant, but those kinds of negative reviews are rare. So if I search for fast-food restaurants that have longer reviews (on average) because of all the positive things people write about them, then the restaurants that serve undercooked burgers almost always end up on the bottom of that list.

Hey, if that works for you I'm happy to hear it! I've never wanted you to not be able to eat the burgers you enjoy, and avoid the ones you don't. If you've figured out a way to get more of what you like and less of what you don't like, then I'm thrilled.

 

From my chair it looks like the other way will bring you the same amount of enjoyable meals and is easier, but I'm not willing to tell you how to pick a restaurant if the way you're doing it makes you happy.

 

What I WILL say is, good job!

 

I wonder if The Complainers will continue to bash the kinds of caches they don't like now that someone's come up with an acceptable way to avoid those caches?

[+XopherN71]

I wonder if The Complainers will continue to bash the kinds of caches they don't like now that someone's come up with an acceptable way to avoid those caches?

 

Yes.

Edited April 16, 2008 by XopherN71

[+TrailGators]

I wonder if The Complainers will continue to bash the kinds of caches they don't like now that someone's come up with an acceptable way to avoid those caches?

 

Yes.

Oh stop your complaining...

[+XopherN71]

Sorry.. I thought that's what the forums were for

[+KBI]

And BTW: Do you think you'll ever seriously consider answering my question?

I don't know what question you asked me, but my position is very clear. Just read my past few posts if you forgot what my position was.

I am painfully familiar with your position on the subject. It is a position I am struggling to understand, hence my question.

 

No problem – you put off answering for so long you forgot the question. I understand.

 

I’ll repeat it.

 

You, me, the OP and others were discussing whether extremely easy and common hides are worthy of existence.

 

You made a point about log length not being a true measure of the "success," or worthiness, of a cache. I agreed with your point ... and then I posted this:

 

A cacher who cares litle about numbers, who takes his time and savors each cache experience, and who prefers doing fewer finds which require more time and effort is likely to spend more time at writing up each of his very wordy logs.

 

This cacher will have enjoyed the hobby a great deal.

 

Another cacher, one who loves running up his find count, who races from one hide to the next, who doesn't really care how creative, challenging, beautiful or amazing each hide is, and who has dozens - if not hundreds - of finds to log at the end of each caching day is likely to spend very little time writing up each of his very short logs.

 

This cacher will have ALSO enjoyed the hobby a great deal.

 

You are therefore correct, TG: The fact that you might find yourself squarely in one category does not provide any basis to conclude that those in another category are enjoying Geocaching any less than you.

 

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

The question is in bold. Remember it now?

 

Wanna take a crack at it this time?

[+KBI]

Ok, I'll try this one again, I lost the network when I was waiting for it to post.

 

I save the 1/1 caches for when I'm out with my gf, who is handicapped. She had corrective surgery on her foot and ankle for a deformaty she has had since birth. She is just now learning to walk again. Without those in your face "supposedly lame" caches, the sport would be ruined for her before she even started.

For the 15 billionith time....Nobody is talking about getting rid of any caches. Comprende?

For the third time: The OP has made it clear that some caches are unacceptable to him/her, purely because those caches do not meet his/her personal minimum standard of preferred difficulty.

 

Understandie?

Yes I "understandie." Now I've answered your question. Are you happy? Are we having fun yet?

That was a new question, not the one you've been avoiding.

 

But thanks for clearing up that point. You and I now agree that some people, including the the OP and some others in this thread, are in fact calling for the elimination of certain caches that don't hapen to enjoy.

 

Now that we've established that, maybe we can move on and go back to the OP's topic?

[+sbell111]

Most of those ARE 1/1s, and the method to eliminate them works just fine.

Your method is like giving up eating at all fast food restaurants just because you keep getting badly undercooked burgers from many of the fast-food restaurants in your town. Sure, I like getting a good steak now and then, but I still like fast-food. I also never go back to those restaurants that served burgers that were badly undercooked. It's like they took the burger straight from the frig, tossed it on the bun and served it to me.

You're still missing the mark.

 

If you filtered out all fast sood restaurants, but still looked at reviews of new restaurants, you'd be able to add the good fast food restaurants to your list, as they came. If you ever ran out of all of the restaurants in your list, you could go back to the filtered out ones to find the pearls. Of course, in reality you will never run out of the restaurants in your list because the list is long and keeps growing.

So when I travel and I have a free hour to cache, I'm supposed to read a bunch of reviews? I want to cache for an hour and not read for an hour. The method I suggested would take a few minutes and the restaurants that serve undercooked hamburgers would end up at the bottom of that list everytime.

I'm pretty sure that you either didn't actually read my post (or the previous ones regarding this method or simply decided to ignore them). Let's see if I can make myself understood.

 

Let's imagine for a moment that I hated LPC's. I want to take steps to avoid them. Here's what I'll do:

 

First, I'm going to set up PQs to return all traditional caches except for micros with terrain and difficulty ratings less than 1.5. This will filter out 95% of all LPCs. I can live with the remaining 5%. I'll hold my nose as a log the find and it will all be done with in less than ten seconds.

 

This will leave me with a ton of caches to search from that I am likely to enjoy.

 

When I am traveling, I won't do anything else because I'll have PLENTY to find without caring about any good ones that I sorted out with the LPCs. However, for my home area, I'm going to add a step. I'm going to keep a watch list of 1/1 micros that I would like to find. If someone tells me of a good one, I'll add it to the list. As I receive notifications of new caches in my area, I'll take a look at the caches and add any that look interesting to my watchlist. I'll run a PQ of my watchlist so these caches get added to my GSAK database for me to find.

 

If I were to ever run out of caches in my GSAK database, I would run a PQ of 1/1 micros to try to find winners among the rejects. The truth is, however, that this will never, ever be necessary. There are a honking lot of caches out there to find.

 

People who reject my easy peasy method tend to concentrate on two issues:

 

First, they are upset because it filters out some non-LPCs with the LPCs. This doesn't bother me since it returns a huge number of caches that have a high chance of being enjoyed. It also allows for the 'good' 1/1 micros to be added to my GSAK database as they are found.

 

Second, they focus on the fact that, if they were to find all the caches in their GSAK database, they would have to do some work to identify 'good' 1/1 micros. This doesn't bother me for two reasons: first, the chance of finding every cache in the GSAK database is very slim. Second, it used to be that there were very few caches to find. We would routinely have found all of the six or eight caches in our area and wait for the next to be hidden. When one was hidden, we'd go out and find it and wait for more. Now there are thousands of caches to find in many areas (such as yours). If you find all of the caches in your GSAK database, take a break for a few moments and you'll have more to find. The 1/1 micros don't have to exist for you, at all.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

I wonder if The Complainers will continue to bash the kinds of caches they don't like now that someone's come up with an acceptable way to avoid those caches?

 

Now Mushtang, I know you are not objecting to someone voicing an opinion, and unfairly labeling them as a Complainer as a result. And I know you are not instructing anyone on "how to cache" or "how to avoid caches" to be more concise. But other than that, I really can't figure out what your doing..

 

[+sbell111]

You take the good.

You take the bad.

You take them both and then you have the facts of life.

The facts of life.

The funny thing is, I made that EXACT post in an LPC thread a year or so ago.

[+TrailGators]

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

Like always you mixed up several points together to try to get a pork-barrel filled bill past me. I'm vetoing this bill because I don't agree that an undercooked burger will be just as successful as a finely cooked burger at pleasing most people. If you have time, you can read the reviews of the fast-food restaurant as Sbell suggested to see what people really think about both restaurants!

[Mushtang]

 

I wonder if The Complainers will continue to bash the kinds of caches they don't like now that someone's come up with an acceptable way to avoid those caches?

Now Mushtang, I know you are not objecting to someone voicing an opinion,

Correct, I'm not objecting to the opinion being stated. I'm just wondering IF the opinion will continue to be stated now that it's been resolved by TrailGators.

 

and unfairly labeling them as a Complainer as a result.

That's not my label. If you think the label "Complainers" is unfair, talk to the guy that came up with "SDOEL". The Complainers and The SDOEL are two groups that often feel differently about many things in these forums. It's weird how it always seems to work in those groups. Maybe not, I guess the mind set a person has is applied to most things in their lives, and often gives the same results.

 

And I know you are not instructing anyone on "how to cache"

Nope. In fact I stated just the opposite in the thread above. If someone wants to cache that way, yippie for them. If they don't, I think there's an easier way to get better results.

 

or "how to avoid caches" to be more concise. But other than that, I really can't figure out what your doing..

I'm discussing the topic of the thread, and trying not to get personal. Maybe you can back off a little yourself.

 

[+tozainamboku]

So when I travel and I have a free hour to cache, I'm supposed to read a bunch of reviews? I want to cache for an hour and not read for an hour. The method I suggested would take a few minutes and the restaurants that serve undercooked hamburgers would end up at the bottom of that list everytime.

I'm pretty sure that you either didn't actually read my post (or the previous ones regarding this method or simply decided to ignore them).

But TrailGators says he likes to look for easy 1/1 hides just not ones hidden in parking lots. When he is traveling and doesn't have time to do high terrain hikes he may want to find some park 'n grabs in an area he is not familiar with. He may even be willing to look for a cache in the Wal*Mart parking lot hidden by some local who is known for really clever cammo. He is unable to accept your method because he would never see any of the caches he wants to do on his trip. He is looking for a way to find those while still eliminating most LPCs. What is so wrong with him getting a PQ of the 1/1's in the area he will be visiting and running a GSAK macro to compute the median log length (If I have time when I get home this evening perhaps I write one for him). He seems to think the the caches he thinks are lame will have lots of short logs compared to the caches he would like to find.

 

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

Like always you mixed up several points together to try to get a pork-barrel filled bill past me. I'm vetoing this bill because I don't agree that an undercooked burger will be just as successful as a finely cooked burger at pleasing most people. If you have time, you can read the reviews of the fast-food restaurant as Sbell suggested to see what people really think about both restaurants!

Some people like raw meat

[+softball29]

You take the good.

You take the bad.

You take them both and then you have the facts of life.

The facts of life.

 

Outstanding.

 

"You take the good, you take the bad,

you take them both and there you have

The facts of life, the facts of life.

 

There’s a time you got to go and show

You’re growin’ now you know about the facts of life,

The facts of life.

 

When the world never seems to be livin up to your dreams

And suddenly you’re finding out

The facts of life are all about you, you.

 

It takes a lot to get ‘em right

When you’re learning the facts of life. (learning the facts of life)

Learning the facts of life (learning the facts of life)

Learning the facts of life."

[+XopherN71]

The funny thing is, I made that EXACT post in an LPC thread a year or so ago. laughing.gif laughing.gif

 

If the song fits...

[+Renegade Knight]

So... let's say I have 3 hamburgers and want cheese on 2 of them. But still want fries with all 3, a diet Coke with 1, Sprite with another and Root Beer for the third, plus an extra side of onion rings....

 

Use ingredients 3x normal size except for the onion rings and soda's. Then take a piece of cheese and put a burger on each side. Then take fries and smush them on the two patties then add a 3rd pattie on top of one of the fries. Put that between a couple of buns. Now cut into 3rds and set each 3rd by your soda of choice. Then enjoy the onion rings. Probably noting at all like what you were thinking, but exactly what you asked for.

 

Coming up with cache filters is like that.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+TrailGators]

Some people like raw meat

That is not a good idea to do at a fast food restaurant!

 

I wonder where those people eat now?

Edited April 16, 2008 by TrailGators

[Clan Riffster]

Certainly not the empty cups.

At least three folks in here would vigorously defend your decision to use your empty paper cup as a cache.

[+sbell111]

Is it not reasonable to conclude, then, that all those bland and easy cache hides you call "lame" are just as worthy, acceptable, valuable, and "successful" as the ones you happen to prefer?

Like always you mixed up several points together to try to get a pork-barrel filled bill past me. I'm vetoing this bill because I don't agree that an undercooked burger will be just as successful as a finely cooked burger at pleasing most people. If you have time, you can read the reviews of the fast-food restaurant as Sbell suggested to see what people really think about both restaurants!

I happen to like my burgers rare and many people love steak tartare.

[+XopherN71]

Lame Cache Haters Reaction After Finding...

 

A LAME CACHE!

 

Edited April 16, 2008 by XopherN71

[+sbell111]

So when I travel and I have a free hour to cache, I'm supposed to read a bunch of reviews? I want to cache for an hour and not read for an hour. The method I suggested would take a few minutes and the restaurants that serve undercooked hamburgers would end up at the bottom of that list everytime.

I'm pretty sure that you either didn't actually read my post (or the previous ones regarding this method or simply decided to ignore them).

But TrailGators says he likes to look for easy 1/1 hides just not ones hidden in parking lots. When he is traveling and doesn't have time to do high terrain hikes he may want to find some park 'n grabs in an area he is not familiar with. He may even be willing to look for a cache in the Wal*Mart parking lot hidden by some local who is known for really clever cammo. He is unable to accept your method because he would never see any of the caches he wants to do on his trip. He is looking for a way to find those while still eliminating most LPCs. What is so wrong with him getting a PQ of the 1/1's in the area he will be visiting and running a GSAK macro to compute the median log length (If I have time when I get home this evening perhaps I write one for him). He seems to think the the caches he thinks are lame will have lots of short logs compared to the caches he would like to find.

My method still allows him to find 1/1s while traveling. It merely limits micros to 1.5/1s or 1/1.5s and up. It also allows him to add caches of any specific person or any caches referred to him to his watch list.