No thought involved!

[+Canadavey]

Ok, I for one am tired of seeing caches being published that resemble this;

 

"A quick micro located in a spot 25m away from the parking area!"

 

WTH?

 

That and people that release batches of these things, 5 or 7 of them every couple of days... ugh!

 

Is there some sort of "crappy cache race" happening that I'm not aware of?

 

Stop it and be friggin' creative!

 

Thank you.

 

[+geezer55]

I'll have to agree with you . . . eg. locating a cache hidden in the plastic/metal sleeve around a guy wire just ups my cache count . . . most of the time I wonder what is so interesting about this place that you wanted me to come and locate this cache. I like caches that take you to a great view, historic site, different park, or an unusual cache, etc..

[+BCandMsKitty]

Yeah .. sometimes these caches leava a lot to be desired, to say the least. I have dome some where the owner states that there is no reason for them other than it is to get people roaming around the county they are placed in. I am ok with these, because there is sort of a purpose to them, and many of them are more creative than most micro hides.

Sometimes I wonder if many of the lame LPC caches are just people wanting to place a cache, but the area is saturated, and they percieve that all of the "Good" spots have been taken. This is almost never the case, and certainly doesn't make them any better, but it might be part of the reason for so many of them.

[+Juicepig]

you think these people read the forums?

 

Unlikely... They probably don't research what we think either

[+Klondike Mike]

you think these people read the forums?

 

Not likely, they're too busy patting themselves on the back and boosting at events about how many caches they've hid

 

I pretty much view these lum caches as "cheap hides by lazy cachers"

[+XopherN71]

I for one am thankful for these easier caches, it helps get my 5 year old involved and it's also good for me being a beginner myself.

 

That is why the ability to view them on the map is there, as well as difficulty, terrain and also to read the description and log entries.

Edited April 2, 2008 by XopherN71

[+Canadavey]

I for one am thankful for these easier caches, it helps get my 5 year old involved and it's also good for me being a beginner myself.

 

That is why the ability to view them on the map is there, as well as difficulty, terrain and also to read the description and log entries.

 

There's a big difference between easy and flat out lame. A cache can still be easy and at the very least have some other benefit to visiting it other then just having another cache under your belt.

[+Canadavey]

you think these people read the forums?

 

Unlikely... They probably don't research what we think either

 

Beautiful! I guess I'm really not offending anyone then!

[Mr.Yuck]

you think these people read the forums?

 

Unlikely... They probably don't research what we think either

 

Beautiful! I guess I'm really not offending anyone then!

 

Not in the Canada forum. But try a "there are too many lame caches being placed in my area" thread in the general forum, and see what happens.

 

It happens. You'll just have to start looking at them on a one by one basis, and use the ignore list. It works great, you'll never see the caches again. I'm up to almost 400 on mine.

[+Keith Watson]

My kids love a cache no matter what it looks like. Remember that this sport is for all ages. Children don’t know what lame is unless an adult tells them it is lame. Maybe Groundspeak can add a “Lame” attribute so people can exclude them from their searches.

[+GeoMeerkats]

What difference does the cache description make or where it is located as long as it is located in a CLEAN, SAFE PLACE (ie: not someplace that is a mini garbage dump and needs a CITO or near where homeless people camp - Calgary cachers are you listening?)

 

How many people read the cache description indepth anyway? I think most cachers download the caches in bulk for a certain area and go out caching without looking at or remembering what the description was for that particular cache.

 

Sometimes we have printouts when we go caching but usually we don't. When we do have printouts, when we are at the site, we just skim through the cache description for the cache size, a possible hint and any other useful info so most of the info contained in the cache desription is irrellevant and ignored anyway.

 

I thought the point of caching was to find caches that someone else has hidden. If nobody hid caches because they were afraid they might be considered "lame" by a judgemental few, you'd be sitting at home every night instead of out caching, having fun, enjoying the season and getting some exercise. As long as the cache location is clean and safe, I'm happy to get another smiley.

 

Cache on! (lame or not!)

[+Canadavey]

My kids love a cache no matter what it looks like. Remember that this sport is for all ages. Children don’t know what lame is unless an adult tells them it is lame.

 

True enough. However, as I said before there is a difference between lame and easy. My entire reason about posting this thread was for the lame aspect of it. "Lame" intails complete and utter laziness on behalf of the person that placed the cache. Not so much on where they placed it, but the write up for the cache itself. It's kind of the same annoyance when someone logs a find and simply puts, "Thanks". That's a different pet peeve in itself though.

[+Juicepig]

It's kind of the same annoyance when someone logs a find and simply puts, "Thanks". That's a different pet peeve in itself though.

 

When i do a cache that requires no thought my log tends to be one letter long. Why put any more effort into my log then the owner put into the hide?

 

I was going to cite examples, but the little reviewer inside me sent an email..

[+Renegade Knight]

.."A quick micro located in a spot 25m away from the parking area!"

 

WTH?...

 

Thoughless owners. Thoughtless finders. There is no lack of either in the world. It takes more work to get a lame cache approved than for someone else to complain about it.

[+Canadavey]

When i do a cache that requires no thought my log tends to be one letter long. Why put any more effort into my log then the owner put into the hide?

 

Good strategy! I may have to follow suit on that one. And I realize it makes me look like a hypocrite for what I said on my last post, but tit for tat eh?

[+Canadavey]

Thoughless owners. Thoughtless finders. There is no lack of either in the world. It takes more work to get a lame cache approved than for someone else to complain about it.

 

I know, I know... Having a complaint, boredom and having access to forums are a dangerous mix!

[+peanutbutterbreadandjam]

Thoughless owners. Thoughtless finders. There is no lack of either in the world. It takes more work to get a lame cache approved than for someone else to complain about it.

 

I know, I know... Having a complaint, boredom and having access to forums are a dangerous mix!

Well there are 10% and 15% clubs where cachers try to hide up to 15%, as a ratio of their finds. Their mandate, it seems, is that if there were not caches, there'd be no hobby. Their MO seems to be to purchase vast quantities of bison tubes- attach magnets, throw in a roll of paper (no Geocache identification, no contact info) and drop off wherever they happen to be that is at least 161m from another cache. I know of one cacher that boasted he travels with 200 of these things in his vehicle- ready to deploy wherever he goes.

 

What they don't understand is that a predominace of thoughtless, unplanned caches makes Geocaching seem uninspired. It becomes repetitive to keep finding lamp-post skirt caches if that is all that is around your neighbourhood, and children become bored more quickly if there is no possibility of trading.

 

Locally, at least, there appears to be little hope in discussing things with them - they pull themselves out of local forums when the topic is broached.

 

Oh well - it gives the rest of us, the opportunity to hide REALLY, REALLY GOOD caches that are the envy of all else!

 

peanutbutterbreadandjam

Edited April 3, 2008 by peanutbutterbreadandjam

[+Canadavey]

Oh well - it gives the rest of us, the opportunity to hide REALLY, REALLY GOOD caches that are the envy of all else!

 

Well said!

[+DelMarNorth]

I see one problem with the lazy, drive up caches just placed because there is 161m of space... It means that a really clever hide from the hill above the parking lot, requiring a decent hike, leading to a fantastic view of the lake can't be placed because it is now 150m from the lamp post as the crow flies.

 

I don't go out to get the numbers, I go out to have a good hike, and see a great view. I find that the south end Walmart parking lot is alot like the north end one...

[+peanutbutterbreadandjam]

I see one problem with the lazy, drive up caches just placed because there is 161m of space... It means that a really clever hide from the hill above the parking lot, requiring a decent hike, leading to a fantastic view of the lake can't be placed because it is now 150m from the lamp post as the crow flies.

 

I don't go out to get the numbers, I go out to have a good hike, and see a great view. I find that the south end Walmart parking lot is alot like the north end one...

I totally agree.

And why copy a basic hide like that - is the hider expecting to get "Great cache" comments from the finders? No. They just want to boost their own numbers. (And if finders do log "Great cache!" they need their head seeing to.)

[Mr.Yuck]

When i do a cache that requires no thought my log tends to be one letter long. Why put any more effort into my log then the owner put into the hide?

 

Good strategy! I may have to follow suit on that one. And I realize it makes me look like a hypocrite for what I said on my last post, but tit for tat eh?

 

OK, now I see the kinds of caches that inspired (pun intended) Canadavey to start the thread. A cache was recently published (no names or locations, of course), with a 9 word cache description, as so: "A nice quick cache on a dead end road." The FFFFFFTTTTTTTFFFFFFF'er of this micro (which figures, but that's not important) reported all sorts of broken glass on this dead end road.

 

All Canadavey, and like-minded individuals (usually labeled as "elitists" or the mythical, non-existant "micro haters") are saying is, can we raise the bar a little? Can we take a little pride in this hobby that we all love so much? Is it really becoming about driving from parking lot to parking lot, to glass-littered dead end road, so we can sign a scrap of paper to increase our score, while leaving our 3 word cut and paste cache logs?

 

I think we need to hire a motivational speaker or something.

 

Edited April 3, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Canadavey]

A cache was recently published (no names or locations, of course), with a 9 word cache description, as so: "A nice quick cache on a dead end road."

I know the one you're speaking of! This came after my initial rant on the boards... When my phone went off with this one I checked the cache page out and just rolled my eyes.

 

The FFFFFFTTTTTTTFFFFFFF'er of this micro (which figures, but that's not important) reported all sorts of broken glass on this dead end road.

ROFL! "which figures"... No kidding eh? I swear that guy just drives around the area waiting for caches to be published. And I read about the broken glass... So in short, the cache provides you with another "one" and also a potential trip to the emergency room for several stitches... yay!

 

I think we need to hire a motivational speaker or something.

How about that Tony Robbins guy? He's pretty good at "neurological (re)programming" from what I read.

 

 

Edit: Nice! I didn't see your picture of Matt Foley there! Perhaps we could set up a cache in a van down by the river in ode to the poor dead soul.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Canadavey

[+Renegade Knight]

I see one problem with the lazy, drive up caches just placed because there is 161m of space... It means that a really clever hide from the hill above the parking lot, requiring a decent hike, leading to a fantastic view of the lake can't be placed because it is now 150m from the lamp post as the crow flies....

 

Can't be listed on this site. I have a cache like that. 528' was a parking lot. 380' a nice climb up a cliff. It's listed elsewhere. I gave this site first shot. That's life. The next time something similer came up I didn't even ask the ansewr would be no so I went straight elsewhere.

[Mr.Yuck]

I see one problem with the lazy, drive up caches just placed because there is 161m of space... It means that a really clever hide from the hill above the parking lot, requiring a decent hike, leading to a fantastic view of the lake can't be placed because it is now 150m from the lamp post as the crow flies....

 

Can't be listed on this site. I have a cache like that. 528' was a parking lot. 380' a nice climb up a cliff. It's listed elsewhere. I gave this site first shot. That's life. The next time something similer came up I didn't even ask the ansewr would be no so I went straight elsewhere.

 

I didn't really think what DelMarNorth mentioned happens too often, but what do I know. If you don't mind, RK, I'm confused by your post. So your cache is 380' (= 116 meters ) from the parking lot cache? I was under the impression such caches were allowed in that sort of case.

[+Juicepig]

I didn't really think what DelMarNorth mentioned happens too often, but what do I know. If you don't mind, RK, I'm confused by your post. So your cache is 380' (= 116 meters ) from the parking lot cache? I was under the impression such caches were allowed in that sort of case.

 

Mr Knight is fond of fluffing other caching websites that are not Groundspeak owned and operated

 

The GC-reviewers can't say anything about caches that aren't listed on this site.

[Mr.Yuck]

I didn't really think what DelMarNorth mentioned happens too often, but what do I know. If you don't mind, RK, I'm confused by your post. So your cache is 380' (= 116 meters ) from the parking lot cache? I was under the impression such caches were allowed in that sort of case.

 

Mr Knight is fond of fluffing other caching websites that are not Groundspeak owned and operated

 

The GC-reviewers can't say anything about caches that aren't listed on this site.

 

Now I'm confusing other people, and hijacking the thread. I was meaning that RK's cache should have been able to be listed on geocaching.com because of the whole top and bottom of a cliff thing, and the 528 foot rule being relaxed in those specific cases, as it would be on opposite sides of a deep, fast-flowing river gorge, for another example. Now a micro in the parking lot blocking another cache in a park, I'm sure it happens, but I'm guessing it's rare.

[+Renegade Knight]

I didn't really think what DelMarNorth mentioned happens too often, but what do I know. If you don't mind, RK, I'm confused by your post. So your cache is 380' (= 116 meters ) from the parking lot cache? I was under the impression such caches were allowed in that sort of case.

 

Mr Knight is fond of fluffing other caching websites that are not Groundspeak owned and operated

 

The GC-reviewers can't say anything about caches that aren't listed on this site.

 

Now I'm confusing other people, and hijacking the thread. I was meaning that RK's cache should have been able to be listed on geocaching.com because of the whole top and bottom of a cliff thing, and the 528 foot rule being relaxed in those specific cases, as it would be on opposite sides of a deep, fast-flowing river gorge, for another example. Now a micro in the parking lot blocking another cache in a park, I'm sure it happens, but I'm guessing it's rare.

 

The top and bottom question didn't come up. I was told that I made a great case but my distance (maybe it was 280')_ was far to close for the exception to apply. If the top/bottom question did come up it was a moot point. Both caches were on top and accessed by climbing up. The only issue was 528' was a parking lot and the next nice spot was too close.

 

To answer the other question. Cache oweners are often faced with a choice. The rules of this site benefit both caching and this site. If they get in the way of a good cache you have a choice. In this case move the cache to the parking lot and list it here and get you cache found. Or place the good cache and see if anyone ever finds it on another site. Think of it as cache integrety vs. Numbers (of finds) for cache owners. As for pimping the other site...did I mention what site? Nope, just that I went with cache integety by the only option avilable. Though I could of made it a letterbox and list it nowhere.

[+peanutbutterbreadandjam]

When i do a cache that requires no thought my log tends to be one letter long. Why put any more effort into my log then the owner put into the hide?

 

Good strategy! I may have to follow suit on that one. And I realize it makes me look like a hypocrite for what I said on my last post, but tit for tat eh?

 

OK, now I see the kinds of caches that inspired (pun intended) Canadavey to start the thread. A cache was recently published (no names or locations, of course), with a 9 word cache description, as so: "A nice quick cache on a dead end road." The FFFFFFTTTTTTTFFFFFFF'er of this micro (which figures, but that's not important) reported all sorts of broken glass on this dead end road.

 

All Canadavey, and like-minded individuals (usually labeled as "elitists" or the mythical, non-existant "micro haters") are saying is, can we raise the bar a little? Can we take a little pride in this hobby that we all love so much? Is it really becoming about driving from parking lot to parking lot, to glass-littered dead end road, so we can sign a scrap of paper to increase our score, while leaving our 3 word cut and paste cache logs?

 

I think we need to hire a motivational speaker or something.

 

Nice one! I may have to quote you one day.

I agree with your sentiments exactly.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I didn't really think what DelMarNorth mentioned happens too often, but what do I know. If you don't mind, RK, I'm confused by your post. So your cache is 380' (= 116 meters ) from the parking lot cache? I was under the impression such caches were allowed in that sort of case.

 

It's up the the reviewer to determine where they draw the line. 400' and maybe my cache would have been approved. They said I made a good case, but they also said that it was too close for them to grant the exception.

[+DyverDown]

My new answer is to log film cans and the like with as much thought as went into their deployment "+1" That's my complete log, if we even bother to stop for them at all. Nowdays it usually by mistake "oops, this was a micro"

[+peanutbutterbreadandjam]

My new answer is to log film cans and the like with as much thought as went into their deployment "+1" That's my complete log, if we even bother to stop for them at all. Nowdays it usually by mistake "oops, this was a micro"

That's even better!!

I think I will now log my micro finds as "Oops! This is a micro."

 

peanutbutterbreadandjam

[+DanOCan]

The worst part is that honest feedback is either ignored or deleted.

 

If I owned a cache and started seeing logs like this...

 

"Quick look before the local security arrived."

"Lots of garbage in the area and decided not to look too long."

"We are starting to feel like "dumpster divers" in some of these locations!"

"Not nice hanging around a dumpster in that area of town."

"The security guard asked what we were doing, and come to think of it, I'm not really sure WHAT we were doing....."

 

...you could bet those caches wouldn't be around much longer.

 

I fight back against the people who are only out to up their numbers by making much heavier use of my Ignore list. If I read the cache page and see that people aren't enjoying themselves the cache goes on the Ignore list and I never have to see it again. My caching has been a MUCH better experience since then.

 

Even my niece, who is only six, got bored with hunting for yet another urban micro. After two or three she was asking when we were going to look for "real" caches.

[+DanOCan]

Stop it and be friggin' creative!

 

You know, even creativity isn't the biggest issue. Two of my last hides were actually guardrail caches -- something I swore I would never do. However, the feedback on the caches has been good. People have enjoyed the location and the drive which was the real intent. Nothing creative about the caches -- to me the key to a good cache is just like real estate: location x 3.

 

Cheers!

[+nicolo]

Thoughless owners. Thoughtless finders. There is no lack of either in the world. It takes more work to get a lame cache approved than for someone else to complain about it.

 

I know, I know... Having a complaint, boredom and having access to forums are a dangerous mix!

Well there are 10% and 15% clubs where cachers try to hide up to 15%, as a ratio of their finds. Their mandate, it seems, is that if there were not caches, there'd be no hobby. Their MO seems to be to purchase vast quantities of bison tubes- attach magnets, throw in a roll of paper (no Geocache identification, no contact info) and drop off wherever they happen to be that is at least 161m from another cache. I know of one cacher that boasted he travels with 200 of these things in his vehicle- ready to deploy wherever he goes.

 

What they don't understand is that a predominace of thoughtless, unplanned caches makes Geocaching seem uninspired. It becomes repetitive to keep finding lamp-post skirt caches if that is all that is around your neighbourhood, and children become bored more quickly if there is no possibility of trading.

 

Locally, at least, there appears to be little hope in discussing things with them - they pull themselves out of local forums when the topic is broached.

...

I think I know of whom you speak.

 

I remembered a few of those cache pages : "I placed this cache here because there wasn't one here already" ... woohoo!

[+nicolo]

...

Oh well - it gives the rest of us, the opportunity to hide REALLY, REALLY GOOD caches that are the envy of all else!

...

And then someone cries because you deleted their log because they didn't really find the cache ... oops!

[+Canadavey]

You know, even creativity isn't the biggest issue. Two of my last hides were actually guardrail caches -- something I swore I would never do. However, the feedback on the caches has been good. People have enjoyed the location and the drive which was the real intent. Nothing creative about the caches -- to me the key to a good cache is just like real estate: location x 3.

 

If it's not creativity, at least it's the thought that went behind the placement of the cache. In the end, there was something that made the trip worth while, whether it be a history lesson, a great view or a good hike / drive. That's what matters!

 

Anything besides the numbers! If it was all about the numbers, I suppose we'd all be armchair caching.

[+DyverDown]

Yet another reason NOT to place micros!

 

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/352468

[+Canadavey]

Yet another reason NOT to place micros!

 

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/352468

 

Yeah I just read that...

 

Probably also a good idea to go by the book and make sure it's okay to place a cache on the property also. However, in some cases this might not matter like it did for me. Just make sure you're speaking to the MAIN manager of the property, not the shift manager that claims he's the "property manager".

[+Keith Watson]

Yet another reason NOT to place micros!

 

http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/352468

 

This does not only apply to micros. Many a large cache have been detonated by the police.

 

Getting permission does not always guarantee a cache will not be mis-understood. A cache was placed with permission right beside a police station. Unfortunately not everyone was informed and a rather large amo can ended up with a large hole shot through the lid.

[+northernpenguin]

If you don't like micros, just trim them out of your pocket queries.

I don't like 5/5 caches that require scaling mountains.... doesn't mean someone ELSE wouldn't like it.

 

While my camera doesn't typically come out in a big box store parking lot, these caches do have their place.

[+Keith Watson]

I have a perfectly good reason why people place “No Thought Involved Caches”. Why waste time creating a clever, or wonderful cache when you can just spend a few minutes hiding a “lame” cache. Either way, people are going to dump on you for it.

 

There will be whiners, complainers, people with their view on why it sucks, or how you could have done better. People who don’t know how to use a GPS will tell you your coordinates are off. Finders will complain the terrain and difficulty are not correct, or that you should update them depending on the season. You will get logs telling you that your cache does not follow in the spirit of geocaching, or you didn’t spend enough money on the trade items. Some of my personal favourite logs are from people who don’t follow the directions and then accuse you of placing an illegal cache.

 

Instead of complaining about lack of thought put into a geocache, put some though into what caches you want to find. If you don’t want to find it, then don’t go looking for it.

[Mr.Yuck]

If you don't like micros, just trim them out of your pocket queries.

 

How indicative of not reading the thread, or what anyone is saying. Who doesn't like micros? I've personally never met anyone. Certainly not the OP of this thread, 60% of his cache placements are micros. The last micro I found was absolutely outstanding, near a 150 year old veterans memorial on top of the Niagara Escarpment. I believe the thread is about just what it says, "no thought involved", caches with 10 word or less cache descriptions, placed strictly for people to increment their find count by one, almost always in horrible locations. The fact that 99% of these caches are micros is, uh, just a fact.

[Barnie's Band of Gold]

If you don't like micros, just trim them out of your pocket queries.

 

How indicative of not reading the thread, or what anyone is saying. Who doesn't like micros? I've personally never met anyone. Certainly not the OP of this thread, 60% of his cache placements are micros. The last micro I found was absolutely outstanding, near a 150 year old veterans memorial on top of the Niagara Escarpment. I believe the thread is about just what it says, "no thought involved", caches with 10 word or less cache descriptions, placed strictly for people to increment their find count by one, almost always in horrible locations. The fact that 99% of these caches are micros is, uh, just a fact.

If we had a "lame" cache attribute you could "just trim them out of your pocket queries" and preserve the 1% of micros that are actually worth doing.

[+northernpenguin]

If you don't like micros, just trim them out of your pocket queries.

 

How indicative of not reading the thread, or what anyone is saying. Who doesn't like micros? I've personally never met anyone. Certainly not the OP of this thread, 60% of his cache placements are micros. The last micro I found was absolutely outstanding, near a 150 year old veterans memorial on top of the Niagara Escarpment. I believe the thread is about just what it says, "no thought involved", caches with 10 word or less cache descriptions, placed strictly for people to increment their find count by one, almost always in horrible locations. The fact that 99% of these caches are micros is, uh, just a fact.

 

Yes I read the posts... and that's the overall message that I received from the thread.

 

I'm getting tired of the Canada forum becoming one big "I hate your cache so all of those should be banned" type discussions. We keep beating this horse with a stick... over and over again. Last time was puzzle caches as I recall....

 

There are times when the 'thoughtless' caches can be handy. I like those spend all afternoon on a glorious hike type caches, but frankly the 'no thought involved' caches can be useful at times - for example, breaking up a long drive. If a cache is really THAT bad, then stand behind your words and post a should be archived, with your reasons. If it's just that you don't like it then try to filter those caches or the cache owner and move on.

 

Here's an idea ... write a GSAK macro that does a word count and excludes them from your selections if they have less than x number of words. Won't catch all the 'lame' caches but I'm sure it can be fine tuned to drop a cache if it mentions "WAL" or "MART" or "STORE" or "PINE" or "QUICK"....

[Mr.Yuck]

If you don't like micros, just trim them out of your pocket queries.

 

How indicative of not reading the thread, or what anyone is saying. Who doesn't like micros? I've personally never met anyone. Certainly not the OP of this thread, 60% of his cache placements are micros. The last micro I found was absolutely outstanding, near a 150 year old veterans memorial on top of the Niagara Escarpment. I believe the thread is about just what it says, "no thought involved", caches with 10 word or less cache descriptions, placed strictly for people to increment their find count by one, almost always in horrible locations. The fact that 99% of these caches are micros is, uh, just a fact.

 

Yes I read the posts... and that's the overall message that I received from the thread.

 

I'm getting tired of the Canada forum becoming one big "I hate your cache so all of those should be banned" type discussions. We keep beating this horse with a stick... over and over again. Last time was puzzle caches as I recall....

 

There are times when the 'thoughtless' caches can be handy. I like those spend all afternoon on a glorious hike type caches, but frankly the 'no thought involved' caches can be useful at times - for example, breaking up a long drive. If a cache is really THAT bad, then stand behind your words and post a should be archived, with your reasons. If it's just that you don't like it then try to filter those caches or the cache owner and move on.

 

Here's an idea ... write a GSAK macro that does a word count and excludes them from your selections if they have less than x number of words. Won't catch all the 'lame' caches but I'm sure it can be fine tuned to drop a cache if it mentions "WAL" or "MART" or "STORE" or "PINE" or "QUICK"....

 

If I remember correctly, it was puzzles leading to micros. I really think you're reading too much into it though, as far as people wanting anything banned, unless you're talking about a couple people who recently mentioned the reviewers should "tighten up" the rules as far as caches in people's parking lots (which we all know darn well are placed without permission 90% + of the time )

 

I doubt your post was a direct response to me, but more of your thoughts in general. I do (and I'm sure it's mentioned earlier in this thread) have almost 400 caches on my ignore list, from roughly Batavia, N.Y. to Grimsby, Ontario. That's the maximum my 50 mile (or anyone's) radius for cache notifications. But it's obvious many of the "complainers" don't follow the don't like them don't find them credo, and you'll see their name on every logscrap in every parking lot in town.

 

How I came up with this ignore list was studying the caches on a one by one basis as they are published. It's a lot of work, but It really doesn't bother me. By the way, in 2003-2005, I didn't have to do this!! Sure, there was the rare occasional cacher who would drop a leaky gladware container in a trash-filled teen party spot, but certainly no film canisters tossed in he bushes at McDonalds or dead-end roads, or under light pole covers. As I said in one of the early posts, could people just take a little pride in this great hobby? It's just a request (not just by me, but many others) for the overall health of the hobby, it's not like I'm finding these things.

 

I've never actually heard anyone mention writing GSAK macros. My ignore method works fine. But I sure would like one that filters out cache descriptions with "stealth" or "stealthy". And yes, I know I can already filter by the Stealth attribute.

 

Oh, thanks for a very nice reply. Mine wasn't meant to be confrontational, but I could see some people could have taken it that way.

[+DanOCan]

I've never actually heard anyone mention writing GSAK macros. My ignore method works fine. But I sure would like one that filters out cache descriptions with "stealth" or "stealthy". And yes, I know I can already filter by the Stealth attribute.

 

At one point I had written a GSAK macro that would filter out any micros hidden by certain cachers. It worked well, but I think word got around that more people were putting those sorts of caches on their Ignore lists so those cachers started hiding more and more caches with the "Unknown/Not Listed" size. I have since given up on the GSAK macro method because it was too broad -- not all of the micros being flagged by my macro were that bad.

 

As such, I now tend to read the logs from the previous finders and if they don't sound like the cache is appealing I drop it on my Ignore list. Or, if I approach a cache area and discover it doesn't appeal to me I drop it on the Ignore list.

[+peanutbutterbreadandjam]

I've never actually heard anyone mention writing GSAK macros. My ignore method works fine. But I sure would like one that filters out cache descriptions with "stealth" or "stealthy". And yes, I know I can already filter by the Stealth attribute.

 

At one point I had written a GSAK macro that would filter out any micros hidden by certain cachers. It worked well, but I think word got around that more people were putting those sorts of caches on their Ignore lists so those cachers started hiding more and more caches with the "Unknown/Not Listed" size. I have since given up on the GSAK macro method because it was too broad -- not all of the micros being flagged by my macro were that bad.

 

As such, I now tend to read the logs from the previous finders and if they don't sound like the cache is appealing I drop it on my Ignore list. Or, if I approach a cache area and discover it doesn't appeal to me I drop it on the Ignore list.

And yet one of the people on your ignore list, himself, says that " knowing the cache size is important element for finding the cache"... sigh!

[Mr.Yuck]

I've never actually heard anyone mention writing GSAK macros. My ignore method works fine. But I sure would like one that filters out cache descriptions with "stealth" or "stealthy". And yes, I know I can already filter by the Stealth attribute.

 

At one point I had written a GSAK macro that would filter out any micros hidden by certain cachers. It worked well, but I think word got around that more people were putting those sorts of caches on their Ignore lists so those cachers started hiding more and more caches with the "Unknown/Not Listed" size. I have since given up on the GSAK macro method because it was too broad -- not all of the micros being flagged by my macro were that bad.

 

As such, I now tend to read the logs from the previous finders and if they don't sound like the cache is appealing I drop it on my Ignore list. Or, if I approach a cache area and discover it doesn't appeal to me I drop it on the Ignore list.

And yet one of the people on your ignore list, himself, says that " knowing the cache size is important element for finding the cache"... sigh!

 

Sounds like a local issue. But I was looking at some of my recent finds. I mentioned filtering out by the Stealth attribute. That would never work, I've found boatloads of them, most recently in a City Park in St. Catharines. I'm of the opinion, by the way, that people overuse this attribute! Then I mentioned lamo 10 word or less cache descriptions, but I was reminded of this Charter member in New Joisey, USA, and I've found 4 or 5 his outstanding caches. A man of few words? Despite such cache descriptions being sterotypical for film canisters tossed out of a moving vehicle, there's no way to tell for sure. So I will continue to study caches on a one by one basis as they are published, or study the logs, cache description, and aerial photography, if they're outside my area on a road trip.

[+CacheDrone]

Hide caches that you would enjoy finding. Seek caches that sound appealing.

 

No one complains about the movies they don't watch, the music they don't listen to, food they don't eat or anything else they don't expose themselves to. But by doing them we learn what we do and don't like. Continuing afterwards to expose yourself to what you didn't like sounds like an odd choice to make.

 

It sounds like everyone already has an opinion that is unlikely to change. See line 1.

 

Find your own fun, there's plenty of room for everyone!

 

edit: Forgot to sign my name

 

CD / BQ

Edited April 18, 2008 by CacheDrone

[+XopherN71]

So simple, yet so true...

"Hide caches that you would enjoy finding. Seek caches that sound appealing."

 

I think that small statement alone is the end all of "Cache Wars 2008".