Groundspeak Forums: The Micro Spew(tm) Era - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The Micro Spew(tm) Era June 19, 2004

#1 User is offline   budd-rdc 

  • R X R
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1388
  • Joined: 31-July 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 12:32 AM

By the way, I'm not a micro hater, as the locals are well aware. I just think this is a fun topic to discuss. :(

Drat19 declared earlier that June 19, 2004 is the beginning of the Micro Spew™ era. This is around the time waypoints were GCJQxx so I offer an alternate definition - GCJ000 (3/23/2004) or GCK000 (7/14/2004).

I found my first three caches on March 7, 2004 although I didn't sign up until July 31, 2004. I did sign the log on those three, though!

My Summary of Pre-Micro Spew™ stats:
- 0 finds officially before 6/19/2004.
- 3 finds unofficially + 1 more that I'm not sure if I signed the log (2000' elevation gain to double check)
- few more unofficial & unsigned "cheats" as a spotter - I did leave my fingerprints on the containers! :(
- 1120+ finds of caches placed on or before 6/19/2004 (not exact, since I'm using an old My Finds PQ)
- 330+ of those were Micros (not exact)

This is based on 2700+ total finds according to the My Finds PQ.

I simply used filters on GSAK to find this info. Others are welcome to share their pre-Micro Spew™ Era stats!

#2 User is offline   Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking 

  • Rx: GPS prn
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 1666
  • Joined: 31-August 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 12:58 AM

Ok, I'll bite....while Im looking up my stats, why is that one date the official start of Micro Spew?

#3 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38088
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 01 June 2006 - 03:22 AM

Drat19 is full of puppy squat. The actual date is August 9th, 2004 at 5:22 a.m.

Seriously, I think the micro spew era started shortly after the guidlines for virtuals were made more stringent, which was in Feb or March of 2003. Before that virtuals were popular with the lazy cache hiders who were out only to increment their hide count. All they had to do was mark any object, no matter how mundane and submit it. (Note: I'm not saying all owners of virtuals are lazy, or that all virtuals are mundane). Once virts were taken off the table, the low cost, low maintenance, easy to hide micros became their alternative.


I really don't think the micro spew era applys here though, because micro spew has yet to hit my area (despite the efforts of a couple of newbies). The closest 500 caches to my Zipcode consist of only 13.8 percent micros.

But just for fun and assuming for the sake of argument that Drat19's 6/19/2004 date is the official beginning of the micro spew era, here are my numbers (first find on 9/22/2001):

Total finds - 471
Total finds before 6/19/2004 - 242
Total finds placed before 6/19/2004 - 314
Total micros found - 76 (16.2%)
Total micros found before 6/19/2004 - 19

This post has been edited by briansnat: 01 June 2006 - 03:23 AM


#4 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9661
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 01 June 2006 - 04:37 AM

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 1 2006, 03:22 AM, said:

Drat19 is full of puppy squat. The actual date is August 9th, 2004 at 5:22 a.m.

Seriously, I think the micro spew era started shortly after the guidlines for virtuals were made more stringent, which was in Feb or March of 2003. Before that virtuals were popular with the lazy cache hiders who were out only to increment their hide count. All they had to do was mark any object, no matter how mundane and submit it. (Note: I'm not saying all owners of virtuals are lazy, or that all virtuals are mundane). Once virts were taken off the table, the low cost, low maintenance, easy to hide micros became their alternative.


I don 't want to suck up too much, but this paragraph ^^^^^^^^represents a brilliant observation.

Quote

I really don't think the micro spew era applys here though, because micro spew has yet to hit my area (despite the efforts of a couple of newbies). The closest 500 caches to my Zipcode consist of only 13.8 percent micros.


In 2003-2004, I had an 11 trip "temporary assignment" to your area, probably never to return again. I looked, and yup, still no micro spew. Man, I have to get back somehow :( The very little there is seems to be concentrated around Westfield, and even then, a few by the same placer are archived.

Quote

But just for fun and assuming for the sake of argument that Drat19's 6/19/2004 date is the official beginning of the micro spew era, here are my numbers (first find on 9/22/2001):


I'll have to look into this for myself, sounds interesting.

This post has been edited by TheWhiteUrkel: 01 June 2006 - 04:54 AM


#5 User is offline   Team Cotati 

  • US Geocacher of the Year 2004,2006,2009
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5698
  • Joined: 09-September 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 04:41 AM

In all fairness: "All they had to do was mark any object, no matter how mundane and submit it." might be better stated as: "All they had to do was mark any object, no matter how mundane, submit it and hope that it would be APPROVED and published." Additionally, many virtuals highlight local and national history, interesting events and places. That according to caching lore, some virtuals that were listed on the site which consisted of telephone pole serial numbers and such other useless junk is certainly not related to the energy level of a set of cache hiders. :( :( :(

#6 User is offline   Team Cotati 

  • US Geocacher of the Year 2004,2006,2009
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5698
  • Joined: 09-September 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 04:47 AM

My personal opinion is that it all began on September 8th., 2004. I could be off by a day or two but not much more. :( :( :( And oh yeah, I have found 323 caches.

#7 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38088
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 01 June 2006 - 05:03 AM

Quote

In all fairness: "All they had to do was mark any object, no matter how mundane and submit it." might be better stated as: "All they had to do was mark any object, no matter how mundane, submit it and hope that it would be APPROVED and published."


Before the guidelines were tightened, most were approved and published. Objects like flag poles and street signs made the cut. Only the most incredibly inane submissions were rejected. :( :( :(

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic...

This post has been edited by briansnat: 01 June 2006 - 05:05 AM


#8 User is offline   Team Cotati 

  • US Geocacher of the Year 2004,2006,2009
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5698
  • Joined: 09-September 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 05:29 AM

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 1 2006, 06:03 AM, said:

Quote

In all fairness: "All they had to do was mark any object, no matter how mundane and submit it." might be better stated as: "All they had to do was mark any object, no matter how mundane, submit it and hope that it would be APPROVED and published."


Before the guidelines were tightened, most were approved and published. Objects like flag poles and street signs made the cut. Only the most incredibly inane submissions were rejected. :( :D :(

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic...


Thanks to all the cache 'hiders' for tightening the guidelines, things were really getting out of hand there for a while. :( B) :)

#9 User is offline   VegasCacheHounds 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 05:36 AM

I really could care less about Micro Spew. As long as there are some dedicated caches out there that hide quality caches, those that wish to put out pure crap caches can have all the fun thay want.

I view it like wathcing TV. There are a ton of shows that I can't stand, such as Reality TV, and they keep making more shows in that vein, but as long as there are still shows being made that I do like, why would I care about the others? Its not like I'm being forced to watch them (well, some of them, but thats only due to my wife's bad taste in shows).

#10 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 06:22 AM

Geez, I'd better jump in to this thread! :(

OK, here's the story from the Ho(rse)'s mouth:

June 19, 2004 was the date I made a cache run over to (pre-Katrina) New Orleans. I live only 90 miles from New Orleans; I've made many runs there. That day, if I recall, I found around 24 caches, and at least 16 of them were roadside tree/rail micros. At one particularly unpleasant one (at an abandoned City Park building with the cache hidden in a rusted lightpole base), I happened to run into my geo-friend AlexM, who was out with his wife KatieM that day also doing a New Orleans run. While chatting we both lamented that it seemed like every cache run to every city was getting to be like this. (So you New Orleans folks, please don't chime in saying I'm slamming your town...we went through that a few months back on another thread! I travel to metro areas nationwide and it just happened to be that New Orleans run that finally "broke" me.) It wasn't that it was JUST MICROS, it was that it was micros that seemed to be placed JUST FOR THE NUMBERS ("Spew™"), not for the quality of the locations or the hides. (In fact, my good geo-buddy Bamboozle even commented on one of those other threads that it WAS his and some other locals' intention to get a bunch more caches out there for folks to find, in dense bunches. Since I know him personally, I know his heart was in the right place; I just don't happen to agree with the process.)

I had run into Micro Spew™ in other metro areas well before 6/19/04. However, it was clear by this time that Spew™ had affected more than just the metro areas that had already become "notorious" for it.

I didn't coin the phrase Micro Spew™. I picked it up somewhere on these forums a while back. I did, however, add the sarcastic ™ to it, and I HAVE been crusading around here more loudly than most about how I believe that a. it has lowered the standards for cache hiding to our newcomers (because if they live in a Spew™-affected area, they believe that "this is the game"), and b. it has cheapened Find stats IF FOLKS WISH TO COMPARE THEIR STATS TO OTHERS' (key caveat) (because it's possible to run up stats much more quickly than in the pre-Spew™ era, when one had to drive further and hike more often to find caches).

There are two camps regarding the view towards Micro Spew™. One camp says, "So what? It's more caches for everyone. If you don't like 'em, don't go search for 'em." The other camp says, "Overall cache quality has suffered if a majority of newer caches is placed in this fashion. It takes more effort to filter through the mundane micro hides in non-worthwhile locations to get to the listings of better caches in better places. You don't necessarily know it's a Spew Hide™ (meaningless lightpole/rockpile/guardrail) until you've expended the time and gasoline to arrive there. And if you filter out ALL micros, you might miss the MANY excellent micro hide techniques and locations that are obscured by the Spew™ hides."

That's my story and I'm stickin' with it. :(

This post has been edited by drat19: 01 June 2006 - 06:26 AM


#11 User is offline   Quest Master 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 424
  • Joined: 01-April 01

Posted 01 June 2006 - 06:43 AM

My first encounter with Micro Spew™ was on October 30, 2003. It was pointless roadside micro (film canister in a ziplock bag) hidden by the mother of all numbers cachers. It was so lame that it left a bad taste in my mouth. I encountered another close to my home a month later that was hidden by a disciple of the mother of all numbers cachers. It (a guardrail microscrap) was even worse. I quit hunting micros after that. I have found only three since. It's just not worth the effort to figure out which ones might be good. They usually aren't. They are not missed.

This post has been edited by Quest Master: 01 June 2006 - 06:48 AM


#12 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 06:45 AM

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 1 2006, 03:22 AM, said:

Drat19 is full of puppy squat. The actual date is August 9th, 2004 at 5:22 a.m.

Check the photo on my GC profile, bub; my squat is WAY bigger than puppy-sized! :( :( :( :)

#13 User is offline   Klatch 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 22-January 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 06:55 AM

View PostQuest Master, on Jun 1 2006, 06:43 AM, said:

I encountered another close to my home a month later that was hidden by a disciple of the mother of all numbers cachers. It (a guardrail microscrap) was even worse. I quit hunting micros after that. I have found only three since. It's just not worth the effort to figure out which ones might be good. They usually aren't. They are not missed.

And now you got me laughing again thinking back on that situation!

#14 User is offline   Miragee 

  • Wherever you go, there you are.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 11171
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:01 AM

Last summer, the Micro Spew™ really took off in a nearby community northeast of San Diego. These became known as S.C.U.M. (Santee Cammoed Urban Micro.) :(

I haven't been caching long enough to know what it was like before the Micro Spew™ occurred, but the very first cache I found was an ammo can on a beautiful trail. Those are still my favorite caches. :(

#15 User is offline   Kacky 

  • There's Tupperware in them thar hills
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 354
  • Joined: 14-March 06

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:08 AM

I guess it's all relative. To wit:

My son (V-Real) only does virtuals. One of his autism things is that he can't visualise a container by description so he doesn't like searching, and he gets really uncomfortable waiting. It's boring watching someone else search. We are fortunate that the grandfathered virtuals in Maine are good. We visited a John Ford statue in Portland that we never knew was there. Now we run around making our own quality virtuals and listing them privately for our friends. Eventually we'll get the best ones up on Waymarking.com.

Meanwhile, there is some debate going on locally about a 101 Dalmations-themed micro series. Some of them appear to have been placed by using the open car window method, and some others are taking up space where a bigger cache could have gone (mine, for instance). But the originators are happy with them.

#16 User is offline   DocDiTTo 

  • Seeker of extraordinary places
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1433
  • Joined: 30-August 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:09 AM

View Postdrat19, on Jun 1 2006, 06:22 AM, said:


There are two camps regarding the view towards Micro Spew™. One camp says, "So what? It's more caches for everyone. If you don't like 'em, don't go search for 'em." The other camp says, "Overall cache quality has suffered if a majority of newer caches is placed in this fashion. It takes more effort to filter through the mundane micro hides in non-worthwhile locations to get to the listings of better caches in better places. You don't necessarily know it's a Spew Hide™ (meaningless lightpole/rockpile/guardrail) until you've expended the time and gasoline to arrive there. And if you filter out ALL micros, you might miss the MANY excellent micro hide techniques and locations that are obscured by the Spew™ hides."



The Great Spewage has occurred, like it or not. Rather than pining for the good old days which are long gone, why not embrace the fact that craptacular caches exist, and won't be leaving any time soon. I don't particularly enjoy finding them by myself, however they make for a great night of fun when running with a friend or two. In that situation, we have a social outting while mopping the spew off our "nearest caches" lists. So what if the caches suck? We're out for a good time, not for high quality caches. I've long given up on expecting high quality with each new cache that gets approved. That's a pipe dream. Mediocre or even lame caches are still entertaining as long as you do them with the right people. Running around with friends is the primary source of enjoyment, not upskirting yet another lamp post. And hey, occasionally we even stumble across a well done cache too! It's like finding a little gold nugget in the bottom of the pan, after you've tossed out buckets and buckets of spew. Those little nuggets make the outting even more worthwhile. So yes, micro spew is here. Things aren't as I'm told they used to be, back before my time. Rather than living in the past, I suggest trying to embrace the present. Make the most of what you've got, turn your lemons into lemonade. At least Spew Mopping runs give us something to do while we're waiting for the Next Great Cache to pass through the approver's reviewer's queue.

Edit: oops

This post has been edited by DocDiTTo: 01 June 2006 - 07:10 AM


#17 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:09 AM

View PostMiragee, on Jun 1 2006, 07:01 AM, said:

Last summer, the Micro Spew™ really took off in a nearby community northeast of San Diego.

It's like The Flu (to quote the great Lewis Black: "This one guy gets off a boat from Formosa and starts walking around shaking hands with everyone he meets, 'How ya doin'? How ya doin'?' and next thing you know, you've got The Flu.")

All it takes is one determined cache hider who leaves the house with 30 micro containers and the attitude of "I"m going to hide all 30 of these containers today, no matter what, by God." and the process is set in motion, and you've got The Spew™.

#18 User is offline   VegasCacheHounds 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:11 AM

Do most of these micros suck in my opinion? Yes. Would I want to take credit for hiding any of them? No.

Do I think that something should be done to stop them? No. Why? Because it seems that for whatever reason, some cachers are having fun hiding them and others, even more bizarrely, are having fun finding them. Is it likely its just a numbers thing? Sure. Do I care if someone wants to spend their time going after these caches just to increase their numbers? Nope, not one bit.

My beef isn't micros, its micros placed where a larger cache could have easily been placed. A micro in a place that is approprate for a micro, even if it isn't some wonderous sopt, can still be fun, expecially if I just want to go find something on a quick lucnh break or while out running other errands. It may not be as satisfying as an ammo can at the end of a nice hike, but it still is Geocaching, and still fun.

And really, you claim that its hard to just ignoring Micro Spew due to not knowing before you get there, but I don't see how its that hard, look at the map and/or the description. A micro in a park or near a scenic spot? Likely to be decent. A micro in a shopping center? Likely to be Spew. See, not that hard. :(

#19 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:11 AM

View PostKacky, on Jun 1 2006, 07:08 AM, said:

Meanwhile, there is some debate going on locally about a 101 Dalmations-themed micro series. Some of them appear to have been placed by using the open car window method, and some others are taking up space where a bigger cache could have gone (mine, for instance). But the originators are happy with them.

Wanna start a REAL controversy around here? Ask some selected people how they felt about that series when it was done in Nashville back in '03. :(

#20 User is offline   Kacky 

  • There's Tupperware in them thar hills
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 354
  • Joined: 14-March 06

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:12 AM

View Postdrat19, on Jun 1 2006, 07:11 AM, said:

View PostKacky, on Jun 1 2006, 07:08 AM, said:

Meanwhile, there is some debate going on locally about a 101 Dalmations-themed micro series. Some of them appear to have been placed by using the open car window method, and some others are taking up space where a bigger cache could have gone (mine, for instance). But the originators are happy with them.

Wanna start a REAL controversy around here? Ask some selected people how they felt about that series when it was done in Nashville back in '03. :(


NO THANK YOU :(

#21 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:15 AM

View PostKacky, on Jun 1 2006, 07:12 AM, said:

View Postdrat19, on Jun 1 2006, 07:11 AM, said:

View PostKacky, on Jun 1 2006, 07:08 AM, said:

Meanwhile, there is some debate going on locally about a 101 Dalmations-themed micro series. Some of them appear to have been placed by using the open car window method, and some others are taking up space where a bigger cache could have gone (mine, for instance). But the originators are happy with them.

Wanna start a REAL controversy around here? Ask some selected people how they felt about that series when it was done in Nashville back in '03. :(


NO THANK YOU :(
Smart answer! :(

#22 User is offline   VegasCacheHounds 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:20 AM

View Postdrat19, on Jun 1 2006, 07:09 AM, said:

View PostMiragee, on Jun 1 2006, 07:01 AM, said:

Last summer, the Micro Spew™ really took off in a nearby community northeast of San Diego.

It's like The Flu (to quote the great Lewis Black: "This one guy gets off a boat from Formosa and starts walking around shaking hands with everyone he meets, 'How ya doin'? How ya doin'?' and next thing you know, you've got The Flu.")

All it takes is one determined cache hider who leaves the house with 30 micro containers and the attitude of "I"m going to hide all 30 of these containers today, no matter what, by God." and the process is set in motion, and you've got The Spew™.


You'd seem to have everyone believe that the Spew has rendered other cache styles archaic. Thats not true. People are still hiding great caches. Not too long ago I did a comparison of the Las Vegas area's cache stats between when I started cacheing in 2002 and when I did this comparo, about 6 months ago (post Spew date), and what I discoveder is that yes, there were a ton more Micros hidden, but there were also a ton more Regulars, and even a ton more Large caches being hidden. I'd bet that in just about any area this would hold true, that all types of caches are being placed still.

I think I've finally realized what the main issue is here. You really are bothered that your numbers are not as impressive as they once were. You seem to keep saying "You know, for those that care" but really, I bet its you that cares. Why does it matter so much that your numbers have been 'cheapened"? Does this meen that you didn't enjoy all those caches that you've found, just because some other cachers have found more, but less quality, caches than you?

If this seems liek I'm attacking Drat, please don't take it that way. Mostly what I'm doing is playing Devil's Advocate, with a bit of my tongue planted in my cheek. For the most part, I agree with Drat, I wish people would hide nothing but perfect caches. of course, good luck getting everyone to agree just what that meens :(

#23 User is offline   DocDiTTo 

  • Seeker of extraordinary places
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1433
  • Joined: 30-August 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:20 AM

View Postdrat19, on Jun 1 2006, 07:09 AM, said:

View PostMiragee, on Jun 1 2006, 07:01 AM, said:

Last summer, the Micro Spew™ really took off in a nearby community northeast of San Diego.

It's like The Flu (to quote the great Lewis Black: "This one guy gets off a boat from Formosa and starts walking around shaking hands with everyone he meets, 'How ya doin'? How ya doin'?' and next thing you know, you've got The Flu.")

All it takes is one determined cache hider who leaves the house with 30 micro containers and the attitude of "I"m going to hide all 30 of these containers today, no matter what, by God." and the process is set in motion, and you've got The Spew™.



And those 30 containers will provide one evening of Spew Mopping for myself and a friend or two. In the end, everyone has a good time, even though the caches themselves have enough suckage to drain a lake.

But If I really want FUN, I'll go after some Quest Master caches. In fact, I'm teaming up with 3 others to do just that this month. Our two day goal? About half a dozen AWESOME caches. So no, it ain't all about the Spew. The spew just helps us to appreciate great caches even more, when we get the opportunity to go after them. If every cache were a great cache, we wouldn't appreciate them nearly as much as we do since the Age of the Spew. :(

#24 User is offline   Miragee 

  • Wherever you go, there you are.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 11171
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:22 AM

View PostVegasCacheHounds, on Jun 1 2006, 08:11 AM, said:

. . . My beef isn't micros, its micros placed where a larger cache could have easily been placed. . . .

My most recent cache placement is in an incredible location where I could have hid a big ammo can full of great swag. However, I know only three people are going to hike to that cache in a year's time . . . :(

I have several ammo can caches out there, but the visitors to those, added all together, don't add up to the number of visitors to an Altoids tin at one of San Diego's Trolley Stations. :(

I don't know what the answer is to that . . .

#25 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38088
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:28 AM

Quote

And those 30 containers will provide one evening of Spew Mopping for myself and a friend or two. In the end, everyone has a good time, even though the caches themselves have enough suckage to drain a lake.



And your logs say "Was out for an evening of caching with CacherX and BobGPS. Thanks for the cache and a fun time!" So DanCachonwer thinks, "You liked my caches, you really liked my caches!" "I'm going to hide more like them".

#26 User is offline   VegasCacheHounds 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:28 AM

View PostMiragee, on Jun 1 2006, 07:22 AM, said:

View PostVegasCacheHounds, on Jun 1 2006, 08:11 AM, said:

. . . My beef isn't micros, its micros placed where a larger cache could have easily been placed. . . .

My most recent cache placement is in an incredible location where I could have hid a big ammo can full of great swag. However, I know only three people are going to hike to that cache in a year's time . . . :(

I have several ammo can caches out there, but the visitors to those, added all together, don't add up to the number of visitors to an Altoids tin at one of San Diego's Trolley Stations. :(

I don't know what the answer is to that . . .


I don't think an answer is needed, but I'll try: Quantity rarely equals Quality. Just because the micro at the trolley station gets way more hits doesn't mean that the people that find your ammo can had any less of an expereince, in fact I'd bet its the opposite way around.

I know I'm always way more impressed when I get a log on my Atomic Cache (an ammo can miles out into the desert) than I am when I get a log on my Pop Tart cache, a Small cache in a park near my house.

#27 User is offline   VegasCacheHounds 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:29 AM

Whoa, I just clikced that link! I'd love to find that cache! Thanks for placing it.

#28 User is offline   Prothos 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 04-May 06

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:29 AM

I just strated cacheing 3 weeks ago. it seem like for every 1 traditional cache there is 10 micro in my area.

#29 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:30 AM

View PostVegasCacheHounds, on Jun 1 2006, 07:20 AM, said:

I think I've finally realized what the main issue is here. You really are bothered that your numbers are not as impressive as they once were. You seem to keep saying "You know, for those that care" but really, I bet its you that cares. Why does it matter so much that your numbers have been 'cheapened"? Does this meen that you didn't enjoy all those caches that you've found, just because some other cachers have found more, but less quality, caches than you?

If this seems liek I'm attacking Drat, please don't take it that way. Mostly what I'm doing is playing Devil's Advocate, with a bit of my tongue planted in my cheek. For the most part, I agree with Drat, I wish people would hide nothing but perfect caches. of course, good luck getting everyone to agree just what that meens :(

No attack taken. It's not the "main issue" here as you suggest, but you're absolutely right and I freely admit it: Yes, stats overall have been cheapened by Micro Spew™. I have also freely admitted on these forums that I was indeed a Number Ho back before it was fashionable (in mid-'04 when I hit 1500 I believe I was in or close to top-100-ranked worldwide), and yes, I did get a certain level of ego grat out of being recognized for my stats. I used to get asked to give talks at Event Caches about cache hiding, specifically because I was known in my region (Deep Dixie - LA/MS/AL) as a high-number cacher who also happened to be a traveler who got to see hide techinques in a lot of different regions (I also was known for writing entertaining logs if I had a particularly embarrassing experience - which was quite often!). I enjoyed that recognition and acknowledgement, and I'm secure enough to admit I enjoyed it...why not? But then I realized with the changes in the game, I could no longer compete on stats unless I wanted to hunt Spewed Micros™.

So yeah, there's a personal aspect to this: The game changed and the way I play it changed. BUT: It's also clear from these spirited discussions that while not everyone may have the same motivations for railing against Micro Spew™ as I do, people HAVE taken notice of the fundamental shift in how our game is played, and for whatever reason, may not be too happy about it either.

This post has been edited by drat19: 01 June 2006 - 07:39 AM


#30 User is offline   SixDogTeam 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2335
  • Joined: 29-June 03

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:38 AM

View PostVegasCacheHounds, on Jun 1 2006, 07:11 AM, said:

Do most of these micros suck in my opinion? Yes. Would I want to take credit for hiding any of them? No.

Do I think that something should be done to stop them? No. Why? Because it seems that for whatever reason, some cachers are having fun hiding them and others, even more bizarrely, are having fun finding them. Is it likely its just a numbers thing? Sure. Do I care if someone wants to spend their time going after these caches just to increase their numbers? Nope, not one bit.

My beef isn't micros, its micros placed where a larger cache could have easily been placed. A micro in a place that is approprate for a micro, even if it isn't some wonderous sopt, can still be fun, expecially if I just want to go find something on a quick lucnh break or while out running other errands. It may not be as satisfying as an ammo can at the end of a nice hike, but it still is Geocaching, and still fun.

And really, you claim that its hard to just ignoring Micro Spew due to not knowing before you get there, but I don't see how its that hard, look at the map and/or the description. A micro in a park or near a scenic spot? Likely to be decent. A micro in a shopping center? Likely to be Spew. See, not that hard. :(


OOPS!! Time to close this thread. The Voice of Reason has reared it's ugly head...

#31 User is offline   DocDiTTo 

  • Seeker of extraordinary places
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1433
  • Joined: 30-August 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:38 AM

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 1 2006, 07:28 AM, said:

Quote

And those 30 containers will provide one evening of Spew Mopping for myself and a friend or two. In the end, everyone has a good time, even though the caches themselves have enough suckage to drain a lake.



And your logs say "Was out for an evening of caching with CacherX and BobGPS. Thanks for the cache and a fun time!" So DanCachonwer thinks, "You liked my caches, you really liked my caches!" "I'm going to hide more like them".



Actually, my logs are typically "Found with X and Y while running tonight. TFTC.".

Perhaps I should begin logging them differently....

"Out Spew Mopping with X and Y tonight. Another off the list."

:(

Regardless of whether I boycott the caches or not, others won't. So my find won't impact things one way or another. I do try to make the logs as brief and uninteresting as possible though. My last lamp post find was logged simply as "TFTC"

#32 User is offline   VegasCacheHounds 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:41 AM

View Postdrat19, on Jun 1 2006, 07:30 AM, said:

View PostVegasCacheHounds, on Jun 1 2006, 07:20 AM, said:

I think I've finally realized what the main issue is here. You really are bothered that your numbers are not as impressive as they once were. You seem to keep saying "You know, for those that care" but really, I bet its you that cares. Why does it matter so much that your numbers have been 'cheapened"? Does this meen that you didn't enjoy all those caches that you've found, just because some other cachers have found more, but less quality, caches than you?

If this seems liek I'm attacking Drat, please don't take it that way. Mostly what I'm doing is playing Devil's Advocate, with a bit of my tongue planted in my cheek. For the most part, I agree with Drat, I wish people would hide nothing but perfect caches. of course, good luck getting everyone to agree just what that meens :(

No attack taken. It's not the "main issue" here as you suggest, but you're absolutely right and I freely admit it: Yes, stats overall have been cheapened by Micro Spew™. I have also freely admitted on these forums that I was indeed a Number Ho back before it was fashionable (in mid-'04 when I hit 1500 I believe I was in or close to top-100-ranked worldwide), and yes, I did get a certain level of ego grat out of being recognized for my stats. I used to get asked to give talks at Event Caches about cache hiding, specifically because I was known in my region (Deep Dixie - LA/MS/AL) as a high-number cacher who also happened to be a traveler who got to see hide techinques in a lot of different regions. I enjoyed that recognition and acknowledgement, and I'm secure enough to admit I enjoyed it...why not? But then I realized with the changes in the game, I could no longer compete on stats unless I wanted to hunt Spewed Micros™.

So yeah, there's a personal aspect to this: The game changed and the way I play it changed. BUT: It's also clear from these spirited discussions that while not everyone may have the same motivations for railing against Micro Spew™ as I do, people HAVE taken notice of the fundamental shift in how our game is played, and for whatever reason, may not be too happy about it either.



Cool, I realized as I got most the way through that post that without 'tone', my post could be taken as irate or attacking when it was meant as good natured debate fodder.

Anyways, back on topic, I have no lakc of respect for you caring about numbers. At one point I was among the top ten cachers in Nevada, according to the stat site that no longer exists, and really wanted to climb to the top, but I quickly realized that I did not have to time to dedicate to caching that others did, so I stopped competing. I can imaging how much harder it'd be today, with the profliferation of all cache hides, to even get into the top 50 in an area.

And I also have no problem with people disliking any particular style of cache, as the saying goes "To Each Their Own", but at the same time I'm going to leave the caches I don't like alone unless A.) they break the guidelines, B.) the guidelines change to remove a certain type or C.) the cache is mis-labeled on the cache page (terrain and difficulty ratings are waaaay off here in Texas in my opinion, but that may just be me).

Lately my main issue has been a lack of hints on caches, expecially the supposedly easy micros. Sure, it may be easy to find, but if its not really there, a hint would sure save some time of looking for something thats gone. However, I'm not going to jump up and down and try to get everyone to conform to my way of thinking, but I may (and have) put in my DNF how much I wish there was a hint (which has payed off a couple of times already around here).

#33 User is offline   VegasCacheHounds 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:42 AM

View PostSixDogTeam, on Jun 1 2006, 07:38 AM, said:

View PostVegasCacheHounds, on Jun 1 2006, 07:11 AM, said:

Do most of these micros suck in my opinion? Yes. Would I want to take credit for hiding any of them? No.

Do I think that something should be done to stop them? No. Why? Because it seems that for whatever reason, some cachers are having fun hiding them and others, even more bizarrely, are having fun finding them. Is it likely its just a numbers thing? Sure. Do I care if someone wants to spend their time going after these caches just to increase their numbers? Nope, not one bit.

My beef isn't micros, its micros placed where a larger cache could have easily been placed. A micro in a place that is approprate for a micro, even if it isn't some wonderous sopt, can still be fun, expecially if I just want to go find something on a quick lucnh break or while out running other errands. It may not be as satisfying as an ammo can at the end of a nice hike, but it still is Geocaching, and still fun.

And really, you claim that its hard to just ignoring Micro Spew due to not knowing before you get there, but I don't see how its that hard, look at the map and/or the description. A micro in a park or near a scenic spot? Likely to be decent. A micro in a shopping center? Likely to be Spew. See, not that hard. :(


OOPS!! Time to close this thread. The Voice of Reason has reared it's ugly head...



Whoa! :)

I'm the Voice of Reason? Things have gotten out of control :( :(

you got the ugly head part right though. :D

#34 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38088
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:42 AM

View PostDocDiTTo, on Jun 1 2006, 11:38 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 1 2006, 07:28 AM, said:

Quote

And those 30 containers will provide one evening of Spew Mopping for myself and a friend or two. In the end, everyone has a good time, even though the caches themselves have enough suckage to drain a lake.



And your logs say "Was out for an evening of caching with CacherX and BobGPS. Thanks for the cache and a fun time!" So DanCachonwer thinks, "You liked my caches, you really liked my caches!" "I'm going to hide more like them".



Actually, my logs are typically "Found with X and Y while running tonight. TFTC.".

Perhaps I should begin logging them differently....

"Out Spew Mopping with X and Y tonight. Another off the list."

:(

Regardless of whether I boycott the caches or not, others won't. So my find won't impact things one way or another. I do try to make the logs as brief and uninteresting as possible though. My last lamp post find was logged simply as "TFTC"


My point though that if more people were honest in their logs, perhaps it could help the problem.
I know that its hard for me to dis a cache in my log, but I'm getting better at it.

#35 User is offline   DocDiTTo 

  • Seeker of extraordinary places
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1433
  • Joined: 30-August 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:45 AM

View PostMiragee, on Jun 1 2006, 07:22 AM, said:

My most recent cache placement is in an incredible location where I could have hid a big ammo can full of great swag. However, I know only three people are going to hike to that cache in a year's time . . . :(


Wow, yet another awesome cache that I'd have loved to find when I was out there. Let me guess - that was one of the places buried in snow during my trip? :(

These types of caches are what I love to find. Unfortunately, they're so few and far between, all I can do while waiting for the chance to seek them out is mop up more Spewage.

#36 User is offline   VegasCacheHounds 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 882
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:49 AM

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 1 2006, 07:42 AM, said:

View PostDocDiTTo, on Jun 1 2006, 11:38 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 1 2006, 07:28 AM, said:

Quote

And those 30 containers will provide one evening of Spew Mopping for myself and a friend or two. In the end, everyone has a good time, even though the caches themselves have enough suckage to drain a lake.



And your logs say "Was out for an evening of caching with CacherX and BobGPS. Thanks for the cache and a fun time!" So DanCachonwer thinks, "You liked my caches, you really liked my caches!" "I'm going to hide more like them".



Actually, my logs are typically "Found with X and Y while running tonight. TFTC.".

Perhaps I should begin logging them differently....

"Out Spew Mopping with X and Y tonight. Another off the list."

:(

Regardless of whether I boycott the caches or not, others won't. So my find won't impact things one way or another. I do try to make the logs as brief and uninteresting as possible though. My last lamp post find was logged simply as "TFTC"


My point though that if more people were honest in their logs, perhaps it could help the problem.
I know that its hard for me to dis a cache in my log, but I'm getting better at it.


I've started being a bitmore honest in my logs as to what I've thought about a cache, and so far no one has gotten irate about it. In fact, a couple of times things have imporved due to it. For instance, I posted this angry rant in a log:

Quote

Are you kidding me? This cache takes the cake for mis-rated caches, in my opinion.
Here I am, thinking "Hey, a quick 1/1" but no, its a multi in the woods, complere with PI and plenty of tree-canopy.
I spent half an hour thrashing around the woods, trying to find ground zero for stage one, even tried triangulating from out where there is less cover, and nothing.
Man, what the heck is with the local cache style? Even when someone does hide a regular sized cache, they make it a multi with a micro in the woods!
I may just be bitter due to the DNF, but this seems to be a trend for me lately!
Thanks anyways,
Shannon
VegasCacheHounds

EDIT: Okay, okay, I've gotta apologize for the above log...I was in a foul mood. Langly was kind enough to send a much more polite than I was note, in which he noted that the difficulty rating had gotten messed up. I see now that is corrected. I will be back to try this cache agin soon.


As you can see by my edit to the log, the cache owner sent me a polite note, with a hint, and he realized that a glitch had reset the rating to 1/1 and he fixed it.

So honesty in cache logs does seem to pay off.

#37 User is offline   DocDiTTo 

  • Seeker of extraordinary places
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1433
  • Joined: 30-August 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:52 AM

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 1 2006, 07:42 AM, said:


My point though that if more people were honest in their logs, perhaps it could help the problem.
I know that its hard for me to dis a cache in my log, but I'm getting better at it.


You hit the nail on the head. I don't like to dis caches. I know most of the local cachers, and I count many of them among my friends. I don't need to cause grief over something as petty as their latest cache placement. Ok, so it wasn't the greatest. Or maybe it was worse. All in all, I still see these people when I go to events, and we have a good time. If I start going negative in the logs, it's more of a hassle than it's worth. There are a couple times I've logged that I wasn't impressed and won't be coming back to a cache, but they're few and far between. It's much easier to do that when you don't personally know the hider, I think. It's kinda like telling an aquaintance they've got bad breath. Sometimes it's better to just hold your nose and put up with it.

#38 User is offline   thedeadpirate 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2336
  • Joined: 09-June 05

Posted 01 June 2006 - 07:54 AM

It's not always a numbers thing. Some of us have physical handicaps that prevent us from making those 5 mile treks into the woods. If you look at my stats, you will see a high percentage of 1/1 to 2/2 caches. I generally filter for 2/2 or less in GSAK.

Occasionally I feel froggy and will talk the family into a harder cache trip. Of course, I usually pay for that with being out of commission for the next few days. But hey, it's fun to push yourself hard every once in a while.

Anyway, I am the only cacher placing caches in my area. It would be a lot easier and cheaper to put out a bunch of micros to populate the area. However, I do make a conscious effort to put more ammo boxes out than micros and I try to make all of them interesting locations.

That being said, I am still one of those bizarre people who will hunt micro spew because I like to get out of the house and walk as much as I can AND spend time with my family. And up until I found caching, none of us really liked going out of the house, much less together.

So, I don't support the mindless placing of micros, which is what I interpret the term Micro Spew to be, but I will continue to hunt it and hope that at least a decent percentage is interesting.

*edited for spelling*

This post has been edited by GeoBain: 01 June 2006 - 08:01 AM


#39 User is offline   Miragee 

  • Wherever you go, there you are.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 11171
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 01 June 2006 - 08:00 AM

View PostDocDiTTo, on Jun 1 2006, 08:45 AM, said:

View PostMiragee, on Jun 1 2006, 07:22 AM, said:

My most recent cache placement is in an incredible location where I could have hid a big ammo can full of great swag. However, I know only three people are going to hike to that cache in a year's time . . . :(

Wow, yet another awesome cache that I'd have loved to find when I was out there. Let me guess - that was one of the places buried in snow during my trip? :(

These types of caches are what I love to find. Unfortunately, they're so few and far between, all I can do while waiting for the chance to seek them out is mop up more Spewage.

No snow in the winter . . . that would actually be the best time to make the hike because it is getting hot now and no one will look for it until fall . . . :) And few people will make the less-than-a mile hike then, even though it is fewer than 30 miles from downtown San Diego . . . :(

#40 User is offline   bumblingbs 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 501
  • Joined: 07-May 03

Posted 01 June 2006 - 08:06 AM

Micro spew or not, you just can't compare numbers from the early years of caching to today's numbers. When I started, in 2003, my family found our first cache (a micro, by the way) a couple miles from our house. To find our second cache, we drove 20 miles.

Obviously, with cache saturation levels rising, today's cachers can hit more caches in in a given time period, because there are more caches around, period.

How can you compare apples to oranges? You cannot get such controlled circumstances. Everyone would have to have the same amount of free time to hunt for the same list of caches to see who is "best".

There is an area cacher who has a fairly low find count, considering that he is a charter member who has been continuously active. But his finds are almost all long hikes into the mountains. Can you compare that to someone picking off magnetic gaurdrail caches? Obviously not, and this cacher is very well respected within his community.

I have been hiding an alarming number of micros lately, and they are not clever hides. My current interest is local history, and my cache pages are long, and hopefully contain interesting information. Then, I take the seeker to the spot to contemplate what I hope was an good story. I never put a micro where a full sized cache would fit; I have a number of full sized caches in my car, ready to go to the right home.

I've seen well known cachers take every imaginable shortcut to get to my caches and rack up their smiley, and I've seen cachers who are brought to a new spot by a cache hide and ~sit down and enjoy it for awhile. Or explore nearby trails~ Some cachers get an adrenaline rush out of finding as many caches as they can in one day. I simply don't connect with this--I geocache to relax. I stop for lunch. That certainly doesn't make THEIR experience bad or wrong or invalid in any way.

There just is no quantative way to compare cachers numbers. There's been some mind-boggling revelations about various forms of 'cheating' lately, but even within the set of community approved cache finds there is a tremendous variation in experience.

That all being said, if I hide an absolutely pointless micro with no redeeming value, I hope that someone sets me straight. It's hard to always tell, though. The first time I saw a magnetic keyholder attached to a guardrail I thought it was clever. The fifth time, not so much....

#41 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38088
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 01 June 2006 - 08:14 AM

Quote

It's not always a numbers thing. Some of us have physical handicaps that prevent us from making those 5 mile treks into the woods. If you look at my stats, you will see a high percentage of 1/1 to 2/2 caches. I generally filter for 2/2 or less in GSAK.



A cache doesn't have to be 5 miles in the woods for it to be a good one. Heck, it doesn't even have to be a full sized cache. There are some fantastic micros out there.

Micro spew is the placing a large number of these things for the sake of placing a cache, in spots that have no redeeming value. I really doubt that most people with physical hanidcaps want to be consigned to a life of going from shopping mall lamp post to shopping mall lamp post.

This post has been edited by briansnat: 01 June 2006 - 08:15 AM


#42 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 08:46 AM

View Postbumblingbs, on Jun 1 2006, 08:06 AM, said:

Micro spew or not, you just can't compare numbers from the early years of caching to today's numbers. When I started, in 2003, my family found our first cache (a micro, by the way) a couple miles from our house. To find our second cache, we drove 20 miles.

Obviously, with cache saturation levels rising, today's cachers can hit more caches in in a given time period, because there are more caches around, period.

How can you compare apples to oranges? You cannot get such controlled circumstances. Everyone would have to have the same amount of free time to hunt for the same list of caches to see who is "best".

There is an area cacher who has a fairly low find count, considering that he is a charter member who has been continuously active. But his finds are almost all long hikes into the mountains. Can you compare that to someone picking off magnetic gaurdrail caches? Obviously not, and this cacher is very well respected within his community.

I have been hiding an alarming number of micros lately, and they are not clever hides. My current interest is local history, and my cache pages are long, and hopefully contain interesting information. Then, I take the seeker to the spot to contemplate what I hope was an good story. I never put a micro where a full sized cache would fit; I have a number of full sized caches in my car, ready to go to the right home.

I've seen well known cachers take every imaginable shortcut to get to my caches and rack up their smiley, and I've seen cachers who are brought to a new spot by a cache hide and ~sit down and enjoy it for awhile. Or explore nearby trails~ Some cachers get an adrenaline rush out of finding as many caches as they can in one day. I simply don't connect with this--I geocache to relax. I stop for lunch. That certainly doesn't make THEIR experience bad or wrong or invalid in any way.

There just is no quantative way to compare cachers numbers. There's been some mind-boggling revelations about various forms of 'cheating' lately, but even within the set of community approved cache finds there is a tremendous variation in experience.

That all being said, if I hide an absolutely pointless micro with no redeeming value, I hope that someone sets me straight. It's hard to always tell, though. The first time I saw a magnetic keyholder attached to a guardrail I thought it was clever. The fifth time, not so much....

Fabulous post and points...you betray your nickname. :(

When I was actively hiding (my post-Katrina work/travel sched prevents me from hiding much anymore; can't adequately maintain), I too hid quite a few micros in my area. My hides were sometimes devious, sometimes mundane...but they were NEVER, EVER spewed - I chose locations for historical or scenic significance, and I was praised along the lines of "Thanks for taking me off the beaten path during my visit to the Biloxi casinos" repeatedly in the logs. Once again, I admit that I enjoyed the ego grat, and it motivated me to find more worthwhile locations in which to hide more caches.

I guess there are a lot of other people who get their ego grat out of the hundreds of "Found it, TFTC" log/Emails they get in response to their Spewage™. Once again, I say, God Bless 'Em, but then DON'T COMPARE YOUR SPEW ERA™ STATS TO ANYONE and expect a fair comparison to those who came before.

#43 User is offline   Quest Master 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 424
  • Joined: 01-April 01

Posted 01 June 2006 - 09:55 AM

View PostMiragee, on Jun 1 2006, 07:22 AM, said:

View PostVegasCacheHounds, on Jun 1 2006, 08:11 AM, said:

. . . My beef isn't micros, its micros placed where a larger cache could have easily been placed. . . .

My most recent cache placement is in an incredible location where I could have hid a big ammo can full of great swag. However, I know only three people are going to hike to that cache in a year's time . . . :laughing:

I have several ammo can caches out there, but the visitors to those, added all together, don't add up to the number of visitors to an Altoids tin at one of San Diego's Trolley Stations. :)

I don't know what the answer is to that . . .


Neither do I. I think that the future for caches like this is pretty bleak. I'm afraid that anyone who might hunt and hide caches like this isn't going to give geocaching a second look when they key in their zipcode and see that this is a game of hide and seek in parking lots. The numbers cachers won't touch it because it's too much work for one measly point in their game. As they brag their find count and speak the holy mantra "if you don't like them, don't hunt them" over and over and over again, they will steadfastly refuse to see how they are dragging the game down.

View PostJeremy, on May 30 2006, 11:24 AM, said:

My goodness. The activity used to be about the journey to discover new locations.



Anyhow, for what it's worth, thanks for hiding that. I really enjoyed your webpage. I only wish that your cache wasn't 3000 miles away. If I'm lucky, I'll get to hunt it someday.

#44 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20563
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 01 June 2006 - 10:03 AM

View PostQuest Master, on Jun 1 2006, 09:55 AM, said:

View PostMiragee, on Jun 1 2006, 07:22 AM, said:

My most recent cache placement is in an incredible location where I could have hid a big ammo can full of great swag. However, I know only three people are going to hike to that cache in a year's time . . . :laughing:

I have several ammo can caches out there, but the visitors to those, added all together, don't add up to the number of visitors to an Altoids tin at one of San Diego's Trolley Stations. :)

I don't know what the answer is to that . . .


Neither do I. I think that the future for caches like this is pretty bleak.

I have to disagree. While it's true that an ammo can in a remote location will get much fewer visits than an easy micro in town, this has always been true.

People who like to hike will go after the caches that make them hike. Those who don't, won't. No biggie.

The fact that some areas have a higher percentage of urban micros does not mean that 'regular' caches are dying out in those areas. It only means that more urban micros have been placed. For the most part, these micros do not block full-sized caches.

A fault of the analysis of cache areas is that we are looking at percentages of micros vs. regular-sized caches. We should be looking at the trend of how many full-sized caches there has been in an area over time.

#45 User is offline   ParrotRob 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 691
  • Joined: 21-August 03

Posted 01 June 2006 - 10:05 AM

View Postdrat19, on Jun 1 2006, 10:22 AM, said:

Geez, I'd better jump in to this thread! :huh:

OK, here's the story from the Ho(rse)'s mouth:

June 19, 2004 was the date I made a cache run over to (pre-Katrina) New Orleans. I live only 90 miles from New Orleans; I've made many runs there. That day, if I recall, I found around 24 caches, and at least 16 of them were roadside tree/rail micros.


In all seriousness, and with all due respect... WHY DID YOU GO LOOKING FOR THEM? Did you expect to find a 5 gallon bucket on the side of the road? An ammo can in the guardrail? No one hogtied you and forced you to go looking for those caches, did they?

Quote

At one particularly unpleasant one (at an abandoned City Park building with the cache hidden in a rusted lightpole base), I happened to run into my geo-friend AlexM, who was out with his wife KatieM that day also doing a New Orleans run. While chatting we both lamented that it seemed like every cache run to every city was getting to be like this.


As opposed to BEFORE micros? When a cache "run" to a city was non-existent because ammo cans don't fit in the rusty light poles? Again, why did you bother to LOOK for the one in the light pole?

Quote

(So you New Orleans folks, please don't chime in saying I'm slamming your town...we went through that a few months back on another thread! I travel to metro areas nationwide and it just happened to be that New Orleans run that finally "broke" me.) It wasn't that it was JUST MICROS, it was that it was micros that seemed to be placed JUST FOR THE NUMBERS ("Spew™"), not for the quality of the locations or the hides.


Yet you still felt compelled to search for them. That completely boggles my mind. :laughing:

Quote

(In fact, my good geo-buddy Bamboozle even commented on one of those other threads that it WAS his and some other locals' intention to get a bunch more caches out there for folks to find, in dense bunches. Since I know him personally, I know his heart was in the right place; I just don't happen to agree with the process.)

I had run into Micro Spew™ in other metro areas well before 6/19/04. However, it was clear by this time that Spew™ had affected more than just the metro areas that had already become "notorious" for it.

I didn't coin the phrase Micro Spew™. I picked it up somewhere on these forums a while back. I did, however, add the sarcastic ™ to it, and I HAVE been crusading around here more loudly than most about how I believe that a. it has lowered the standards for cache hiding to our newcomers (because if they live in a Spew™-affected area, they believe that "this is the game"), and b. it has cheapened Find stats IF FOLKS WISH TO COMPARE THEIR STATS TO OTHERS' (key caveat) (because it's possible to run up stats much more quickly than in the pre-Spew™ era, when one had to drive further and hike more often to find caches).

There are two camps regarding the view towards Micro Spew™. One camp says, "So what? It's more caches for everyone. If you don't like 'em, don't go search for 'em." The other camp says, "Overall cache quality has suffered if a majority of newer caches is placed in this fashion. It takes more effort to filter through the mundane micro hides in non-worthwhile locations to get to the listings of better caches in better places. You don't necessarily know it's a Spew Hide™ (meaningless lightpole/rockpile/guardrail) until you've expended the time and gasoline to arrive there.


Baloney. That's what cache hints are for. Previous finder logs. Topo maps. Google Earth. I have a hell of a lot less finds than you do and I can tell with a prety high level of accuracy whether it's in a lightpole, a guardrail or some place more interesting without leaving my chair.

Quote

And if you filter out ALL micros, you might miss the MANY excellent micro hide techniques and locations that are obscured by the Spew™ hides."

That's my story and I'm stickin' with it. :)


edit: inflammatory comment about "stickin' with it" removed.

This post has been edited by ParrotRob: 01 June 2006 - 10:18 AM


#46 User is offline   ParrotRob 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 691
  • Joined: 21-August 03

Posted 01 June 2006 - 10:12 AM

View Postbriansnat, on Jun 1 2006, 11:28 AM, said:

Quote

And those 30 containers will provide one evening of Spew Mopping for myself and a friend or two. In the end, everyone has a good time, even though the caches themselves have enough suckage to drain a lake.



And your logs say "Was out for an evening of caching with CacherX and BobGPS. Thanks for the cache and a fun time!" So DanCachonwer thinks, "You liked my caches, you really liked my caches!" "I'm going to hide more like them".


Good - then it will provide yet another pleasant night out for the finder. Where's the problem in that?

#47 User is offline   fizzymagic 

  • Boson
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 4181
  • Joined: 16-March 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 10:22 AM

I probably shouldn't write this, and I'll probably get a ton of grief for it, but I think it needs to be said.

While the causes of the micro-spew epidemic (which I agree has gotten worse since the summer of 2004) are complex, I believe that changes to the guidelines and Groundspeak approval policies that occurred around that time have significantly exacerbated the problem.

At that time I said that I believed that the policy changes would make the problem of lame urban micros worse, so this is not Monday-morning quarterbacking. While the effect of accelerating the amount of urban micro-spew was not intended, it was foreseeable.

That's what happens when policies and guidelines are created reactively instead of proactively. And it's probably too late to turn back the clock now.

The policy changes in question here were those around cache maintenance. During that period, the approvers and TPTB were fixated on eliminating so-called "vacation caches," and as a result came up with guidelines for maintainability that, taken at face value, strongly discourage the placement of interesting caches requiring significant effort to get to.

Fro example, I clearly remember one of the forum regulars (still a regular, BTW) stating that if you weren't willing to go to the cache and attend to any problem with it in less than a week, it shouldn't be approved. And we are all aware that if a cache is placed more than about 100 miles from where we live, the reviewers will require a detailed explanation of how you plan to maintain the cache.

The result of this new emhasis was that cachers quit placing caches in out-of-the-way spots that are hard to get to. Instead, they only placed caches that would require minimum maintenance and could be easily reached if there were any problems. Caches out in the boonies could only be placed by people already living out in the boonies. Unfortunately, not all that many people living in the boonies are placing caches. So the result is the situation we have today: a huge concentration of caches in urban areas and easy-to-reach locations, with very few caches in more remote areas.

I'm sure that the guidelines were implemented with the best of intentions; this whole thing is part of the Law of Unintended Consequences. But the contribution to the problem must be acknowedged.

#48 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20563
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 01 June 2006 - 10:29 AM

I don't think its that complicated.

People place caches where they know. I don't know any cool spots in the boonies, so I'm not going to place them there. I know where the local parks are, so I'll put caches in them. If there are already caches there, I'll hide caches somewhere else. I'll show you where the smaller parks are, the cool historical locations, etc. Eventually, the local places that could hold an ammo can already have them. We still want to hide caches, however, so we place them other places.

The virt rules probably did cause an increase in micros because you could no longer simply bring someone to a cool historical location for a virt. You had to hide something there. In many places, this means an 'urban' micro.

Either way, all of these urban micros don't stop people from hiding regular caches in the larger parks or even in the boonies; the caches that are already hidden there do.

#49 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 10:38 AM

View PostParrotRob, on Jun 1 2006, 10:05 AM, said:

...lots of counterpoints to my original points...

ParrotRob, obviously we're going to have to respectfully agree to disagree. There are plenty of people in the camp that I subscribe to (Micro Spew™ is bad for the overall health of our game, for a variety of reasons), and plenty of people in your camp (play your own game, micros are fine, etc.). Obviously I think my opinion is "more right" than yours, but you also feel your opinion is equally "more right" than mine. And so we have a stalemate.

I will say this: Obviously both sides of the debate wish to keep discussing it; otherwise we wouldn't have all these threads talking about it. I'm sure you'd agree with THAT. :laughing:

#50 User is offline   drat19 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 11-June 02

Posted 01 June 2006 - 10:40 AM

View Postfizzymagic, on Jun 1 2006, 10:22 AM, said:

I probably shouldn't write this, and I'll probably get a ton of grief for it, but I think it needs to be said.

While the causes of the micro-spew epidemic (which I agree has gotten worse since the summer of 2004) are complex, I believe that changes to the guidelines and Groundspeak approval policies that occurred around that time have significantly exacerbated the problem.

At that time I said that I believed that the policy changes would make the problem of lame urban micros worse, so this is not Monday-morning quarterbacking. While the effect of accelerating the amount of urban micro-spew was not intended, it was foreseeable.

That's what happens when policies and guidelines are created reactively instead of proactively. And it's probably too late to turn back the clock now.

The policy changes in question here were those around cache maintenance. During that period, the approvers and TPTB were fixated on eliminating so-called "vacation caches," and as a result came up with guidelines for maintainability that, taken at face value, strongly discourage the placement of interesting caches requiring significant effort to get to.

Fro example, I clearly remember one of the forum regulars (still a regular, BTW) stating that if you weren't willing to go to the cache and attend to any problem with it in less than a week, it shouldn't be approved. And we are all aware that if a cache is placed more than about 100 miles from where we live, the reviewers will require a detailed explanation of how you plan to maintain the cache.

The result of this new emhasis was that cachers quit placing caches in out-of-the-way spots that are hard to get to. Instead, they only placed caches that would require minimum maintenance and could be easily reached if there were any problems. Caches out in the boonies could only be placed by people already living out in the boonies. Unfortunately, not all that many people living in the boonies are placing caches. So the result is the situation we have today: a huge concentration of caches in urban areas and easy-to-reach locations, with very few caches in more remote areas.

I'm sure that the guidelines were implemented with the best of intentions; this whole thing is part of the Law of Unintended Consequences. But the contribution to the problem must be acknowedged.

This is a GREAT point that I hadn't seen before in the recent debates (although I'm sure it was made in earlier debates).

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic