[budd-rdc]

Kit Fox, on Dec 1 2006, 02:23 PM, said:

I'm not against micros placed in historical spots, unique works of art, or some hidden gem type location. What I do have distaste for is uninspired hides in locations not needing caches, like Walmart Parking Lots.

I can see some people having "pride of ownership" for even a Wal-Mart parking lot hide... As the owner drives by it, he can proudly proclaim to himself or to his friends, "yup, there's a Geocache there, and I hid it. " Maybe the novelty of Geocaching hasn't worn off for him. As others have said, he may not have the opportunity to go on 10 mile hikes... keep in mind that you and I live in areas with dramatic terrain diversity, and are spoiled.

Now, if the same owner keeps hiding caches at all the Wal-Marts around the area, he might have issues, and I can see how you can become annoyed. However, there's an easy answer for that... ignore the owner's hides from now on.

Problem is, what happens when 5-10 different hiders do that? They can still be ignored, but now it takes more time (looking at maps, reading the title and description, etc.). If you are afraid you might just miss out on a great hide, it's annoying. Besides, you won't know how "lame" they are until you actually visit one first.

I think this is where you can start to tie-in with Markwell's comments. These "caches you don't like" start wasting your preparation time: ignore lists, fine-tuning Pocket Queries, reading descriptions and past logs, etc. I have a temporary solution for myself, which I've said in the past: I ignore cache dense areas and drive right past them, and if I miss out on great hides, oh well!!

[Snoogans]

budd-rdc, on Dec 1 2006, 03:41 PM, said:

If you are afraid you might just miss out on a great hide, it's annoying. Besides, you won't know how "lame" they are until you actually visit one first.

Hmmmm, I go to lots of events, so I hear the word of mouth (w-o-m) on many caches. Given the limited time of events this w-o-m tends to run in extremes of reeeeally great, or reeeeally bad caches. The latter is usually only whispered if the cache is local and the owner is present.

It sure saves on prep time to be a social cacher.

This post has been edited by Snoogans: 01 December 2006 - 04:28 PM

[budd-rdc]

Snoogans, on Dec 1 2006, 04:27 PM, said:

It sure saves on prep time to be a social cacher.

Yeah, it does. I hear rumors of lameness all the time at unevents in my area. If it's a new hider I haven't heard before, I still give the benefit of doubt and pay a visit. I've gotten positive e-mail replies when I've posted constructive comments in the logs.

[Clan Riffster]

I think there may be yet another branch of the Tree Of Angst;
Those folks who have little love for what they perceive to be lame hides, and are willing to post their opinions, regardless of how PC they might be. The folks inhabiting this particular branch know what is carpy and what is kewl, to them, and often express their opinions, much to the chagrin of the Handwringers of the geocaching world.
The Handwringers often mistake these folks as belonging to the "I know better than YOU what geocaching is supposed/intended to be all about" group, and often mistake those aforementioned opinions for angst.

[sbell111]

Kit Fox, on Dec 1 2006, 02:53 PM, said:

Quote

What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

Where you place a cache is up to you

Considering that most micros don't contain any swag, how do you feel about them now.

You might want to skip this post, because you are not going to like my answer.


With every cache, since day one, a finder has had the choice whether to trade his trinkets for the garbage in the cache. Since that choice has always been valid, it must be OK for the cacher to trade exactly nothing.

1. Take nothing from the cache

2. Leave nothing in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

This has always been a valid transaction, as it was for you today on this cache. The size of the container or whether it contains any swag (worth taking or otherwise) makes no difference.

This post has been edited by sbell111: 01 December 2006 - 05:25 PM

[sbell111]

budd-rdc, on Dec 1 2006, 03:41 PM, said:

... I think this is where you can start to tie-in with Markwell's comments. These "caches you don't like" start wasting your preparation time: ignore lists, fine-tuning Pocket Queries, reading descriptions and past logs, etc. I have a temporary solution for myself, which I've said in the past: I ignore cache dense areas and drive right past them, and if I miss out on great hides, oh well!!

I may have misread Markwell's comments since it was 1) a long post, 2) used small type, and 3) made a number of color changes (three of my pet peaves, by the way), but I believe that he was talking about caching time that was wasted through misinformation, not that prep time is not a good investment.

[Kit Fox]

sbell111, on Dec 1 2006, 05:23 PM, said:

Kit Fox, on Dec 1 2006, 02:53 PM, said:

Quote

What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

Where you place a cache is up to you

Considering that most micros don't contain any swag, how do you feel about them now.

You might want to skip this post, because you are not going to like my answer.


With every cache, since day one, a finder has had the choice whether to trade his trinkets for the garbage in the cache. Since that choice has always been valid, it must be OK for the cacher to trade exactly nothing.

1. Take nothing from the cache

2. Leave nothing in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

This has always been a valid transaction, as it was for you today on this cache. The size of the container or whether it contains any swag (worth taking or otherwise) makes no difference.

cache 

–noun 1. a hiding place, esp. one in the ground, for ammunition, food, treasures, etc.: She hid her jewelry in a little cache in the cellar.
2. anything so hidden: The enemy never found our cache of food.
3. Alaska and Northern Canada. a small shed elevated on poles above the reach of animals and used for storing food, equipment, etc.
–verb (used with object) 4. to put in a cache; conceal; hide.

—Synonyms 2. hoard, stockpile, reserve, store. 4. secrete.

[sbell111]

Kit Fox, on Dec 1 2006, 05:44 PM, said:

cache 

–noun 1. a hiding place, esp. one in the ground, for ammunition, food, treasures, etc.: She hid her jewelry in a little cache in the cellar.
2. anything so hidden: The enemy never found our cache of food.
3. Alaska and Northern Canada. a small shed elevated on poles above the reach of animals and used for storing food, equipment, etc.
–verb (used with object) 4. to put in a cache; conceal; hide.

—Synonyms 2. hoard, stockpile, reserve, store. 4. secrete.

How much is the tea, again?

(BTW, the most important thing in a cache is the log. The cache is hidden. The log is in the cache. Also, the actual name of the item being hidden is 'geocache'. Don't expect it to have the same definition as 'cache'.)

This post has been edited by sbell111: 01 December 2006 - 06:07 PM

[Mushtang]

Kit Fox, on Dec 1 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

cache 

–noun 1. a hiding place, esp. one in the ground, for ammunition, food, treasures, etc.: She hid her jewelry in a little cache in the cellar.
2. anything so hidden: The enemy never found our cache of food.
3. Alaska and Northern Canada. a small shed elevated on poles above the reach of animals and used for storing food, equipment, etc.
–verb (used with object) 4. to put in a cache; conceal; hide.

—Synonyms 2. hoard, stockpile, reserve, store. 4. secrete.

Good definition. However, I think this definition actually fits the conversation better.


Geocache

- Noun 1. A gamepiece used in Geocaching. A container hidden by one player for other players to find, which often contains trade items. In its simplest form a cache can be just a logbook and nothing else.

[Confucius' Cat]

sbell111, on Dec 1 2006, 02:38 PM, said:

Kit Fox, on Dec 1 2006, 11:15 AM, said:

I'm willing to wager that most property owners would not approve geocaches in their parking lots. The cost to insure said property, as well as the shock risk with lamppost caches, would cause most owners to decline approval.

I donj't know that you are correct. Certainly we have seen large companies embrace the idea. Also, I think that you are over-representing the 'shock risk'.

You got that right. If there is any "shock risk" from a cache properly placed under the lift-up skirt of a lamppost base, the property owner has a MUCH bigger problem than the film can under the skirt. What if someone simply leans on the lamppost and gets killed? I would venture to say (here goes:) 99% of lampposts are quite safe with absolutely NO SHOCK HAZARD at all. (of course that leaves a few hundred thousand exceptions if you take into account how many lampposts there are out there)

OTOH, if they allow a cache there, the lamppost gets "inspected" a lot more often, potentially finding that shock hazard b4 the customers do. Now THAT's a win-win situation.

Disclaimer:
The above "smilified" post does not apply to idiots that hide caches INSIDE lampposts next to the live wires, especially those caches that are made to look like wire-nuts.

ARGGGGGH! Shock hazard! Oh, the humanity. Oh the ANGST!

[Kit Fox]

Confucius' Cat, on Dec 1 2006, 06:19 PM, said:

sbell111, on Dec 1 2006, 02:38 PM, said:

Kit Fox, on Dec 1 2006, 11:15 AM, said:

I'm willing to wager that most property owners would not approve geocaches in their parking lots. The cost to insure said property, as well as the shock risk with lamppost caches, would cause most owners to decline approval.

I donj't know that you are correct. Certainly we have seen large companies embrace the idea. Also, I think that you are over-representing the 'shock risk'.

You got that right. If there is any "shock risk" from a cache properly placed under the lift-up skirt of a lamppost base, the property owner has a MUCH bigger problem than the film can under the skirt. What if someone simply leans on the lamppost and gets killed? I would venture to say (here goes:) 99% of lampposts are quite safe with absolutely NO SHOCK HAZARD at all. (of course that leaves a few hundred thousand exceptions if you take into account how many lampposts there are out there)

OTOH, if they allow a cache there, the lamppost gets "inspected" a lot more often, potentially finding that shock hazard b4 the customers do. Now THAT's a win-win situation.

Disclaimer:
The above "smilified" post does not apply to idiots that hide caches INSIDE lampposts next to the live wires, especially those caches that are made to look like wire-nuts.

ARGGGGGH! Shock hazard! Oh, the humanity. Oh the ANGST!

Before I despised them, I found many caches underneath lampposts, that were next to the actual wiring.

Interesting read: Electricity And Magnetic Micros, bizarre experience...

Geocaching Electrical Safety

[Confucius' Cat]

Do you find it wierd that I play both sides of the net on this one?

Wherever there is electricity, there is some potential (forgive the pun) shock hazard.

Proper electrical installation and maintenance makes the hazard minimal.

People do, however make mistakes and time does deteriorate insulation. There is no such thing as an energized electrical device with NO hazard, but I would suspect that the percentage of seriously "hot" lampposts is closer to something like 0.0000001% (made up statistic ), but that still leaves a FEW that are dangerous.

If you know for a fact that a cache is placed where the seeker has to come in close proximity to live wires, especially if the seeker has to actually touch them- such as move them out of the way- IMHO you would be well justified in posting SBA.

Another common misconception that leads to angst (on the part of those who are paranoid about lawsuits and such) is that people have sense enough to avoid obvious hazards and walk away from dangerous situations. Caching is too addictive for that.

This post has been edited by Confucius' Cat: 01 December 2006 - 06:54 PM

[sacred6]

Snoogans, on Nov 28 2006, 03:25 PM, said:

From the gc.com faq page:

Quote

What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

Where you place a cache is up to you.

Let’s discuss the common themes that lead to angst here in the forums, at events, and between hiders and finders. (Please add to the list. There are far more misconceptions than I have time to list.)
Can't decide whether I disagree or not.
Feel free to disagree, but this is how I see it:

The Basics

Geocaching boiled down is just high tech hide and seek. It’s nothing more or less.

To play, you or someone else hides some sort of container (usually, but not always) with a log book of some kind using a GPS receiver. The hider is expected to do so while staying within the guidelines set by geocaching.com to get their cache listed here.

A volunteer reviewer will publish or deny the cache based on the guidelines.

Then comes the fun part… A finder chooses to hunt the cache. If they find it, they sign the log book and if the cache has trade items, they make a trade if they so choose. The finder then has the choice of writing about their adventure online, but they don’t have to.


The Basic Misconceptions:

Most of the misconceptions I see with regard to geocaching seem to come from a sense of entitlement from both hider’s and finders and no small amount of unrealistic expectation.

Hiding: Some folks think that the hider owes them some sort of adventure that they couldn’t get at home on the couch eating popcorn and watching a movie, or playing a video game. (I.E. A beautiful view, a fantastic location… In short, something they couldn’t find doing any other activity.) The hider in fact doesn’t OWE you anything except to be honest in hiding a cache within the posted guidelines. That’s it. Many caches exist to do nothing more than to give the hider one more hide number and the finder one find number and there’s nothing at all wrong with that as long as the guidelines are followed.

Finding: Some cache owners are very proud of the effort, time, and expense that they put into their caches and rightly so. However, the finder’s online account of their find is NOT interest paid on the hider’s expense. The hider is not, in fact, owed anything except a decent attempt to rehide their cache after you found it. They chose to hide a cache as a means to participate. That’s all. The fact that folks do participate in finding it should be enough. Even if a cache merits long descriptive logs from most finders, it’s unfair to hold every finder to that standard unless there’s a clearly stated logging requirement (for whatever reason) which is the owner’s prerogative.

Trackables:

A travel bug/released geocoin/Jeep is just a thing that has been cast out upon the geocaching continuum to fend for itself. It is also a hapless pawn to chance. It is private property that has been placed in public trust. Whatever is attached to the TB tag belongs to the TB owner and no one else. The value of a TB is relative to the person who released it and the person holding it. The positive rule of thumb here is to hope for the best and expect/accept the worst.

The Trackable Misconceptions:

Again, most of the misconceptions I see with regard to trackable items seem to come from a sense of entitlement and unrealistic expectation from both owner’s and interested parties.


If a TB is private property that has been placed in public trust and also a hapless pawn to chance, then many, mannny TB owners either can’t, or won’t, accept that they have taken a gamble on releasing their trackable item and also don’t realize that “Public Trust” is an oxymoron. When you gamble and lose in the real world you either quit, or pony up for more disappointment in hopes of a win. Anything more is unrealistic.



Perception IS reality. The fact remains that our perceptions of geocaching change with experience, but the guidelines for how it's played change much slower. As yet, the guidelines and very few rules that exist don't seem to support the sense entitlement and unrealistic expectation that causes so much angst.


So, that's all I had time for, but I believe that the subjects I mentioned are the root of ALL geocaching related angst. I'll leave the branches to those that care to discuss.

Whether you agree or disagree let's hear what you think.....

[KBI]

Confucius' Cat, on Dec 1 2006, 09:51 PM, said:

There is no such thing as an energized electrical device with NO hazard, but I would suspect that the percentage of seriously "hot" lampposts is closer to something like 0.0000001% (made up statistic ), but that still leaves a FEW that are dangerous.

Just to put things in perspective:

There is no such thing as [a cache hide location of ANY description] with NO hazard, but I would suspect that the percentage of seriously [hazardous cache hide locations] is closer to something like 0.0000001% (made up statistic ), but that still leaves a FEW that are dangerous.

[Snoogans]

I have no idea why Sacred6 chose to quote my OP and then not make a comment, but this is as good a place as any to update our summary of the "Tree of Angst." (Say that qoutation in your head in a Superhero voice with just the right amount of echo.) (TREE OF ANGST, Angst, angst, angst...)


To summarize our "Geocaching Tree of Angst" so far:

We have an atmosphere rich with CO2 that is represented by one atom of "Entitlement" ( C ) and two atoms of "Expectation." (O2)

We have a rich medium for the growth of angst in our soil which is represented by a common/general, "unawareness that this hobby is intrinsically linked to other people."

The roots of our tree are based in actual participation and experience in geocaching as an activity.... Hiding, finding, & moving trackables.

The water (H2O) that nourishes the tree is either actual or perceived (H2) negative interaction (O) between geocachers.

The trunk of our tree emerges over time. It is actually just individual experience that expresses itself in this way, "I know better than YOU what geocaching is supposed/intended to be all about."

From there our "Tree of Angst" branches out in many directions. Some branches sprout from the trunk and some branches think they are attacking the trunk from the other side, but are seemingly unaware that they are part of the same tree.

We have identified one branch of the tree as, The Theory of Geocaching Evolution and another as Geocaching would be more fun for me, IF

There are more branches to identify, but as I ponder the branches of angst, leaves are starting to sprout from them. I'm starting to realize that many of the stated forms of angst fit neatly onto the two already named branches. Although, the micro debate is so varied I'm starting to visualize it as some form of mutant twig that connects the two branches we have already identified rather than a leaf on both branches.

I'm really starting to wish I was all artsy. I would like to make a graphic to go with this summary. Anyone wanna take a stab at it? On the other side of the tree from the two named branches there would need to be a branch (as yet un-named) holding an ax and chopping away at the trunk. Of course, the rest of the "Forest of Human Disgruntlement" would need to be pictured in the background.

Does anyone else hear an echo every time they read the word "angst" now?

This post has been edited by Snoogans: 02 December 2006 - 07:43 AM

[Outspoken1]

As with any other activity that draws a wide number and variety of people, geocaching is going to have some gems and some toads (no offense to real toads). I enjoy that fact that other geocachers, for no compensation, have invested their time and talent and money to set caches for others to enjoy. If a geocacher feels the cache was lame or did not have good swag or (fill in the blank), then perhaps they are "done" with this activity and need to find another hobby/sport. Most of the grumps will drift away. For those who are unhappy and want to share their funk with others--just don't pick it up. Move on to those who are truly enjoying the challenge and fun!

I am so very thankful that other geocachers before me have invested so much time and effort to develop this hobby. Us newbies have the benefit of joining a fantastic website (get the Premium membership; it is only $3 a month or $30 a year and well worth it) that works very smoothly; able to purchase GPSr with great features for $100 to $400; have hundreds or thousands of caches awaiting our feet and minds; and a strong support group of experienced cachers to help with our chosen game. As for the toads, go croak

Take care,
Outspoken1

This post has been edited by Outspoken1: 02 December 2006 - 07:58 AM

[Luckless]

A cacher has to know their limitations. I approach electrical hides very cautiously and will quickly leave them alone if I feel the least bit uneasy that I could touch something I shouldn't. Fortunately I haven't had to deal with any. The closest I've come is a magnetic key holder on a metal electrical box covering. I'd prefer not to see them myself, but hey I'm not the hider. I tend to hide and seek from a family friendly (kid-safe) aspect.
As for lame caches my first cache was pretty lame. I hid it in the winter in a small frozen niche that collapsed when spring came and it thawed out. Hopefully my hides have improved. I read the online logs for my caches and am always making changes and upgrading them to make them better. I don't (well, I try not to) jump all over lame caches placed by first time hiders because I remember my first few caches and even some bad hides since then. Hopefully my hides have improved with experience. Besides it is counterproductive to attack (notice I said attack and not offer helpful suggestions- the angst comes from not knowing the difference between the two) someone else's hide when the whole point of geocaching is finding other people's hides. They aren't going to hide them if all I do is complain and attack them for it.
I think one way to avoid lame hides might be for premium members to list (bookmark) or maybe have a URL with their favorite caches for specific areas so people traveling to that area can use that as a guide to the "good ones". It might even encourage other people to make better hides if they know they are going to get on the "list".

[KBI]

Alrighty then, here's my contribution.

I don't know whether this qualifies as a branch, a leaf or a molecule, but here's a chronic forum angst theme that always bugs the heck out of me:

Short version: People who say "WAAAA! Sometimes I find caches I don’t like! WAAAA!"

Expanded version: One of the most frequent complaints I read about in the forums takes the form of geocachers expressing their lack of tolerance for whatever cache type they don’t happen to like. This is usually coupled with a whiny impatience with the fact that there is no convenient or systematic way to guarantee that they will NEVER have to have their caching day contaminated with the mere knowledge of the existence of such hides, much less any risk of ever having to be unpleasantly surprised at the unhappy lack of adequate entertainment that these folks demand from each and every cache hide they attempt.

Examples:

• I hate lame hides! How can I be guaranteed to avoid them?
  
• I hate lame hides! Why can’t more cache hiders be adequately clever?
  
• I hate lame hides! They should never be approved!
  
• I hate lame hides! They should be archived/eliminated/banned!
  
• I hate non-beautiful locations! Why do some caches fail to provide me with a visit to an interesting or scenic location? How can I be guaranteed to avoid these?
  
• I prefer large containers/caches with trade swag. Why do there have to be so many micros?
  
• I hate Additional Logging Requirements! Why are some cache owners such control freaks/meanies/clueless morons?
  
• I hate surprises! Why do so many caching-related experiences have to be unexpected?
  
• I hate dangerous caches! What can’t they all be perfectly safe?
  
• I hate lame swag! How can I force people to trade better so that there is always something in there that I’LL like?
  
• I hate caches that aren’t fun for ME! Why can’t every single one of them meet my minimum requirement for satisfactory entertainment?

This angst/complaint/rant of mine is not directed at anyone in particular. This is something I’ve seen from LOTS of people, and it takes LOTS of different forms. I’m probably even guilty of it myself at some point.

What bugs me about the whole concept of cachers whining and demanding protection from less-than-minimum-acceptable-entertainment or less-than-minimum-acceptable-pleasantness is this: Never knowing exactly what entertainment to expect when one goes out caching is, in my opinion, one of the greatest things about this hobby! It’s wonderful! There is no guarantee that you will ALWAYS be entertained by EVERY cache you find. It works just like "Life."

Sometimes I go after a cache that I expect to be ho-hum, yet it turns out to be surprisingly entertaining. Yay! Those are the best kind.

Sometimes I go after a cache that I expect to be loads of fun, but then it turns out to be disappointing for some reason. So what? I still got to be outside, I still got to play with my GPS, and I still had fun – but most importantly, I still got to enjoy the anticipation of something potentially wonderful. So what if it wasn’t as wonderful as the previous cache? Before reading these forums it never would have occurred to me to follow up such an experience with a forum post whining about not being able to avoid disappointing experiences.

Does anybody else feel the same way as I do about this?

Anyway, there it is.

Thanks, Snoogans, for letting me get that off my chest. If you want something more concise for your list, maybe you could just call it "Folks who whinily demand guaranteed protection from unpleasant caching experiences."

[Kit Fox]

Here is my gross oversimplification of what the sport has become:

Caching has become far more popular as a "numbers game" rather than an "adventure game."

Caches that require any physical effort, are instantly purged and avoided, and only those caches that require opening your car door get frequent visits. Fewer people hide the adventure caches, because they get few visitors. All that is left in many areas, is nothing but lame uninispired hides, on private property, in parking lots, with a usual disclaimer "Watch out for muggles."


When the adventurous cachers attend event caches, all they see is a bunch of newbies flocking to the "big number cachers," because they have become immensely popular with their ability to raise 100 + lamppost covers in a day's time. These newbies want to be like the "Big number cachers," so they hide a bunch of crappy caches to please all the other big number cachers. The incidences of new caches being larger than a micro is exponentially reduced.

The value of cache finds has been grossly cheapened with the proliferation of Temporary caches, logged by "attending" event caches multiple times, retirement cards, and pocket caches. Found it = Didn't find it


My response to the proliferation of micro spew is to "lead by example," and hide caches like this:

Eisen-Faust
The Legend of Big Ben
Cañon El Gato del Diablo
The Llano Del Rio Geocache

You won't see any of the "big number cachers" hunting these caches, because they could easily find dozens of 1/1s in the same amount of time that it takes to find these caches.


I've also gotten really good with GSAK, and PQ filtering.

This post has been edited by Kit Fox: 02 December 2006 - 09:40 AM

[budd-rdc]

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 09:16 AM, said:

Here is my gross oversimplification of what the sport has become:

Caching has become far more popular as a "numbers game" rather than an "adventure game."

Caches that require any physical effort, are instantly purged and avoided, and only those caches that require opening your car door get frequent visits. Fewer people hide the adventure caches, because they get few visitors. All that is left in many areas, is nothing but lame uninispired hides, on private property, in parking lots, with a usual disclaimer "Watch out for muggles."


When the adventurous cachers attend event caches, all they see is a bunch of newbies flocking to the "big number cachers," because they have become immensely popular with their ability to raise 100 + lamppost covers in a day's time. These newbies want to be like the "Big number cachers," so they hide a bunch of crappy caches to please all the other big number cachers. The incidences of new caches being larger than a micro is exponentially reduced.

The value of cache finds has been grossly cheapened with the proliferation of Temporary caches, logged by "attending" event caches multiple times, retirement cards, and pocket caches. Found it = Didn't find it


My response to the proliferation of micro spew is to "lead by example," and hide caches like this:

Eisen-Faust
The Legend of Big Ben
Cañon El Gato del Diablo
The Llano Del Rio Geocache

You won't see any of the "big number cachers" hunting these caches, because they could easily find dozens of 1/1s in the same amount of time that it takes to find these caches.


I've also gotten really good with GSAK, and PQ filtering.

Leading by example is . Unfortunately, the 1/1 hounds will never bother with your caches. Even if you spend more time and effort advertising your example, you'll likely meet resistance. Your examples seem fun for those who already enjoy the outdoors regardless of Geocaching, and for those who are open-minded and already physically fit.

I often see "newbie angst" in the forums by them calling veteran cachers "elitists." They should change their tact. They should call us "old farts." The behaviors KBI desribed above seem to fit the stereotypes of a decrepit old man: stubborn, grumpy, hateful, lazy...

[KBI]

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 12:16 PM, said:

My response to the proliferation of micro spew is to "lead by example," and hide caches like this:

Eisen-Faust
The Legend of Big Ben
Cañon El Gato del Diablo
The Llano Del Rio Geocache

You won't see any of the "big number cachers" hunting these caches, because they could easily find dozens of 1/1s in the same amount of time that it takes to find these caches.

I applaud and support your efforts, Kit Fox, and I wish more folks would do the same. When you want to encourage change, leading by example is far better than the type of whining I, um, whined about in my previous post. My own hide policy is similar, however I do think the easy access urban/suburban quick-find cache has its place, and I enjoy doing those caches as well. I haven't seen anything to support your implied conclusion that an increase in the number of quick-caches means fewer "adventure"-type caches.

Now, just out of curiosity, why would someone who expresses a distaste for numbers hounds by stating '"Caching has become far more popular as a "numbers game" rather than an "adventure game."' also complain that "The value of cache finds has been grossly cheapened"?

• Do your numbers matter to you, or don't they?
  
• How does anything that anybody else does "cheapen" anything you've done?

[Mushtang]

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 12:16 PM, said:

Here is my gross oversimplification of what the sport has become:

Cool. I'll translate your post. This may not be what you meant, but it's how it sounded to me.

Quote

Caching has become far more popular as a "numbers game" rather than an "adventure game."

"I don't like that people are playing the game different than I do"

Quote

Caches that require any physical effort, are instantly purged and avoided, and only those caches that require opening your car door get frequent visits. Fewer people hide the adventure caches, because they get few visitors. All that is left in many areas, is nothing but lame uninispired hides, on private property, in parking lots, with a usual disclaimer "Watch out for muggles."

"I don't like that others are hiding the kinds of caches that they enjoy hiding and finding. They should only hide the kinds of caches that I enjoy."

Quote

When the adventurous cachers attend event caches, all they see is a bunch of newbies flocking to the "big number cachers," because they have become immensely popular with their ability to raise 100 + lamppost covers in a day's time. These newbies want to be like the "Big number cachers," so they hide a bunch of crappy caches to please all the other big number cachers. The incidences of new caches being larger than a micro is exponentially reduced.

"I consider myself to be more worthy of newbies attention, but they're not coming up to praise me on my superior cache preferences and I'm jealous."

Quote

The value of cache finds has been grossly cheapened with the proliferation of Temporary caches, logged by "attending" event caches multiple times, retirement cards, and pocket caches. Found it = Didn't find it

"The fact that other people have the nerve to play the game the way they want to play it, and even "cheat" by faking their own cache find counts because that's what is fun to them, really ticks me off. It grossly cheapens my find count in my own eyes. I have less finds than some of these people and it bothers me. I don't do any of those things, so they shouldn't either, regardless of the fact that they have fun doing them."

Quote

My response to the proliferation of micro spew is to "lead by example," and hide caches like this:

Eisen-Faust
The Legend of Big Ben
Cañon El Gato del Diablo
The Llano Del Rio Geocache

"THIS is the way that cache hides SHOULD be done! I'm definitely a better cacher than people that don't hide caches of such high quality as this"

Quote

You won't see any of the "big number cachers" hunting these caches, because they could easily find dozens of 1/1s in the same amount of time that it takes to find these caches.

"I laugh at the mere thought that "big number cachers" actually might enjoy finding a cache other than a lamp post micro. Obviously a cacher with more finds than I have HAS to be a cheater, and cheaters NEVER go for non 1/1 hides."

Quote

I've also gotten really good with GSAK, and PQ filtering.

"Even though lame caches exist, and I've figured out a really good way to avoid them, I still don't think others should enjoy finding them since I don't enjoy finding them."

[wimseyguy]

In keeping with the arboreal theme of our analysis, is it over-irrigation if the OP has more than 10% of the total posts in a thread?

This post has been edited by wimseyguy: 02 December 2006 - 10:36 AM

[Kit Fox]

KBI, on Dec 2 2006, 10:25 AM, said:

Now, just out of curiosity, why would someone who expresses a distaste for numbers hounds by stating '"Caching has become far more popular as a "numbers game" rather than an "adventure game."' also complain that "The value of cache finds has been grossly cheapened"?

• Do your numbers matter to you, or don't they?
  
• How does anything that anybody else does "cheapen" anything you've done?

Because the absolute drive to gain "bigger stats" causes caches like mine to quickly be skipped in favor of "100 1/1s in a day." My friends that share my view get very disappointed when their adventure caches also get skipped over because of the "easy caches" nearby. Then people can further inflate their find status through all the aforementioned, shady practices.

I'm proud of my ethically gained stats.

[KBI]

wimseyguy, on Dec 2 2006, 01:35 PM, said:

In keeping with the arboreal theme of our analysis, is it over-irrigation if the OP has more than 10% of the total posts in a thread?

I think he's doing an excellent job of moderating his thread. By its very nature, this topic is almost doomed to be derailed by tangents and bickering. I've already been guilty of it myself.

[KBI]

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 01:39 PM, said:

KBI, on Dec 2 2006, 10:25 AM, said:

Now, just out of curiosity, why would someone who expresses a distaste for numbers hounds by stating '"Caching has become far more popular as a "numbers game" rather than an "adventure game."' also complain that "The value of cache finds has been grossly cheapened"?

• Do your numbers matter to you, or don't they?
  
• How does anything that anybody else does "cheapen" anything you've done?

Because the absolute drive to gain "bigger stats" causes caches like mine to quickly be skipped in favor of "100 1/1s in a day." My friends that share my view get very disappointed when their adventure caches also get skipped over because of the "easy caches" nearby. Then people can further inflate their find status through all the aforementioned, shady practices.

I'm proud of my ethically gained stats.

So then if I understand correctly, the stats you're actually concerned about are the numbers of cachers who choose/don't choose to find your and your friend's "adventure" caches. You're concerned that the availability of a different type of cache decreases your own cache traffic? What does that matter? If folks have a choice, why begrudge them the natural results of that freedom? Isn't that the same as trying to tell others how they should play, like Mushtang says?

Forgive me if I still misunderstand.

[Kit Fox]

Mushtang, on Dec 2 2006, 10:32 AM, said:

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 12:16 PM, said:

Here is my gross oversimplification of what the sport has become:

Cool. I'll translate your post. This may not be what you meant, but it's how it sounded to me.

Quote

Caching has become far more popular as a "numbers game" rather than an "adventure game."

"I don't like that people are playing the game different than I do"

They can play however they want.

Quote

Caches that require any physical effort, are instantly purged and avoided, and only those caches that require opening your car door get frequent visits. Fewer people hide the adventure caches, because they get few visitors. All that is left in many areas, is nothing but lame uninispired hides, on private property, in parking lots, with a usual disclaimer "Watch out for muggles."

"I don't like that others are hiding the kinds of caches that they enjoy hiding and finding. They should only hide the kinds of caches that I enjoy." Wrong!

Quote

When the adventurous cachers attend event caches, all they see is a bunch of newbies flocking to the "big number cachers," because they have become immensely popular with their ability to raise 100 + lamppost covers in a day's time. These newbies want to be like the "Big number cachers," so they hide a bunch of crappy caches to please all the other big number cachers. The incidences of new caches being larger than a micro is exponentially reduced.

"I consider myself to be more worthy of newbies attention, but they're not coming up to praise me on my superior cache preferences and I'm jealous."

Absolutely wrong on all accounts. I'm not a glutton for anyones attention. I go to events to see my friends, make new ones, and have a good time. Look at it this way. "Billy Bob" has found 6000 1/1s, I should look up to them because?

Quote

The value of cache finds has been grossly cheapened with the proliferation of Temporary caches, logged by "attending" event caches multiple times, retirement cards, and pocket caches. Found it = Didn't find it

"The fact that other people have the nerve to play the game the way they want to play it, and even "cheat" by faking their own cache find counts because that's what is fun to them, really ticks me off. It grossly cheapens my find count in my own eyes. I have less finds than some of these people and it bothers me. I don't do any of those things, so they shouldn't either, regardless of the fact that they have fun doing them."

I live 30 miles from Los Angeles, I could easily double my numbers by visiting all the lousy 1/1s spewn all over the city. They do nothing for me, so I avoid them. I'm very comfortable with my "numbers" and I don't need to impress anyone with my find count, I can do that with quality hides.

Quote

My response to the proliferation of micro spew is to "lead by example," and hide caches like this:

Eisen-Faust
The Legend of Big Ben
Cañon El Gato del Diablo
The Llano Del Rio Geocache

"THIS is the way that cache hides SHOULD be done! I'm definitely a better cacher than people that don't hide caches of such high quality as this" Another BS outlook. I hide the kind of caches that I like to find, plain and simple.

Quote

You won't see any of the "big number cachers" hunting these caches, because they could easily find dozens of 1/1s in the same amount of time that it takes to find these caches.

"I laugh at the mere thought that "big number cachers" actually might enjoy finding a cache other than a lamp post micro. Obviously a cacher with more finds than I have HAS to be a cheater, and cheaters NEVER go for non 1/1 hides."

I never said they were all cheaters, but I do know of some shady practices that some of them engage in. I also know that a large number of the power cachers have lower standards than me. I've spoke to many of them, and asked them why they continue to find caches in trash strewn ditches, in homeless encampments, and other nasty areas. There response is almost always, "because it is another cache to find.

Quote

I've also gotten really good with GSAK, and PQ filtering.

"Even though lame caches exist, and I've figured out a really good way to avoid them, I still don't think others should enjoy finding them since I don't enjoy finding them." All I have to do is filter out any caches with a terrain rating of less than 2 stars, and i'm happy.

[Kit Fox]

KBI, on Dec 2 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

So then if I understand correctly, the stats you're actually concerned about are the numbers of cachers who choose/don't choose to find your and your friend's "adventure" caches. You're concerned that the availability of a different type of cache decreases your own cache traffic? What does that matter? If folks have a choice, why begrudge them the natural results of that freedom? Isn't that the same as trying to tell others how they should play, like Mushtang says?

Forgive me if I still misunderstand.

I gave you just one example. I love to hide challenging caches that weed out all but the most adventuresome explorers. The "found it" logs I get from these caches is worth more than bickering about angst.



I'm going to go out and hide a new cache, and restock two others, it's time to leave the computer, and have fun outdoors.

[budd-rdc]

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 10:39 AM, said:

KBI, on Dec 2 2006, 10:25 AM, said:

Now, just out of curiosity, why would someone who expresses a distaste for numbers hounds by stating '"Caching has become far more popular as a "numbers game" rather than an "adventure game."' also complain that "The value of cache finds has been grossly cheapened"?

• Do your numbers matter to you, or don't they?
  
• How does anything that anybody else does "cheapen" anything you've done?

Because the absolute drive to gain "bigger stats" causes caches like mine to quickly be skipped in favor of "100 1/1s in a day." My friends that share my view get very disappointed when their adventure caches also get skipped over because of the "easy caches" nearby. Then people can further inflate their find status through all the aforementioned, shady practices.

I'm proud of my ethically gained stats.

Most of my caches are placed in locations that are not drive-ups, even if they are close to roads and freeways. I enjoy locations that require "local knowledge" to find. I also have a cache in an Open Space Preserve with nearly 30 caches, but mine is out of the way from the rest, so I only have 6 unique visits in the last 6 months, 1 of those by me. Disappointing? Nope. People post positive logs, and even if my caches aren't in the "Top 1% favorites" bookmarks, I'm satisfied.

I adopted a lamp post micro because the location is at a train station, one of my interests. It has far more visits than any of my other caches, but I try not to compare the two. I get lots of just "Quick find, TFTC" because not everyone is a railfan. No biggie. They at least visit, and no one has complained except when the log sheet was full.

As for "ethically gained stats", I'll just say that credibility is important in any social activity. Since the stakes are low (unlike Tour de France or Major League Baseball), you'll just have to let each play his own game... and bring a clean up crew later when things get out of control.

[Kit Fox]

budd-rdc, on Dec 2 2006, 11:07 AM, said:

I adopted a lamp post micro because the location is at a train station, one of my interests. It has far more visits than any of my other caches, but I try not to compare the two. I get lots of just "Quick find, TFTC" because not everyone is a railfan. No biggie. They at least visit, and no one has complained except when the log sheet was full.

I think trains are cool, but wouldn't label myself a railfan. One of my favorite caches is Hill 582 - A Tribute to Railroading!

[KBI]

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 01:59 PM, said:

KBI, on Dec 2 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

Forgive me if I still misunderstand.

I love to hide challenging caches that weed out all but the most adventuresome explorers.

Then I guess I'm still confused:

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 01:39 PM, said:

KBI, on Dec 2 2006, 10:25 AM, said:

How does anything that anybody else does "cheapen" anything you've done?

Because the absolute drive to gain "bigger stats" causes caches like mine to quickly be skipped in favor of "100 1/1s in a day."

[budd-rdc]

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 11:15 AM, said:

budd-rdc, on Dec 2 2006, 11:07 AM, said:

I adopted a lamp post micro because the location is at a train station, one of my interests. It has far more visits than any of my other caches, but I try not to compare the two. I get lots of just "Quick find, TFTC" because not everyone is a railfan. No biggie. They at least visit, and no one has complained except when the log sheet was full.

I think trains are cool, but wouldn't label myself a railfan. One of my favorite caches is Hill 582 - A Tribute to Railroading!

Ah... Cajon Pass... been there twice, but Hill 582 wasn't there when I first visited, and I was on time constraints the second time around (heading to Vegas). It was in my PQ, and I wanted to go there. You'll see that I've found a number of caches in that great area... and for the 1/1 hounds, these are almost drive-ups with any high clearance vehicles, 4WD or not.... enough caches to get your counts in a short time, too... no angst!

[Confucius' Cat]

KBI, on Dec 2 2006, 10:30 AM, said:

Confucius' Cat, on Dec 1 2006, 09:51 PM, said:

There is no such thing as an energized electrical device with NO hazard, but I would suspect that the percentage of seriously "hot" lampposts is closer to something like 0.0000001% (made up statistic ), but that still leaves a FEW that are dangerous.

Just to put things in perspective:

There is no such thing as [a cache hide location of ANY description] with NO hazard, but I would suspect that the percentage of seriously [hazardous cache hide locations] is closer to something like 0.0000001% (made up statistic ), but that still leaves a FEW that are dangerous.

I like it. Good Job!

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 12:16 PM, said:

Caching has become far more popular as a "numbers game" rather than an "adventure game."

<snip> usual disclaimer "Watch out for muggles."

Well, for many "Watch out for muggles." IS the adventure. Never mind that in the cases presented, it is the ONLY adventure.

[Confucius' Cat]

(double post deleted- computer returned error and I assumed post did not work)

This post has been edited by Confucius' Cat: 02 December 2006 - 12:19 PM

[Kit Fox]

KBI, on Dec 2 2006, 11:24 AM, said:

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 01:59 PM, said:

KBI, on Dec 2 2006, 10:48 AM, said:

Forgive me if I still misunderstand.

I love to hide challenging caches that weed out all but the most adventuresome explorers.

Then I guess I'm still confused:

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 01:39 PM, said:

KBI, on Dec 2 2006, 10:25 AM, said:

How does anything that anybody else does "cheapen" anything you've done?

Because the absolute drive to gain "bigger stats" causes caches like mine to quickly be skipped in favor of "100 1/1s in a day."

Not all of my caches are 4 1/2 star difficulty, but the ones that are provide plenty of adventure. The caches cater to a "Rare Breed" of cachers, so I don't expect a high number of finds.

I wasn't complaining that my caches don't get enough visitors, but rather illustrating a point that this is what caching has evolved into.

[KGunner]

Whatever it is, it still draws people in huge numbers and provides hours of enjoyment for everybody, so geocaching must be doing something right. My first finds were micros which were in simple easy parks, I liked them, they got me involved. Who cares who hunts what or hides what?

[Clan Riffster]

Our beloved Snoogy has fairly accurately accounted for the oxygen & water that sustain his Tree Of Angst. It seems there is at least one more element to be accounted for:
The Tree Of Angst is fertilized by the handwringing Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.

[Kit Fox]

KGunner, on Dec 2 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

Whatever it is, it still draws people in huge numbers and provides hours of enjoyment for everybody, so geocaching must be doing something right. My first finds were micros which were in simple easy parks, I liked them, they got me involved. Who cares who hunts what or hides what?

At least they were in parks, instead of guardrails, parking lots, or in trashy areas.

Quote

The Tree Of Angst is fertilized by the handwringing Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.

Exactly

[tozainamboku]

Since everyone else is doing it, I'll try my analysis of Kit Fox's post too. I consider Bill a friend (although I don't share his politics) and I think I know what kind of caches he enjoys (although he hasn't found any of mine).

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 09:16 AM, said:

Here is my gross oversimplification of what the sport has become:

Caching has become far more popular as a "numbers game" rather than an "adventure game."

I don't know why this should cause Kit Fox any angst. He used to post often that he knew the #3 cacher in world. That person is now only #6 or #7. Perhaps he is concerned that people have past his friend by cheating. As far as his own numbers, I believe him when he says he caches for quality not quantity. I don't let it bother me that some people are in it for quantity, if that is how they want to play the game.

Caches that require any physical effort, are instantly purged and avoided, and only those caches that require opening your car door get frequent visits. Fewer people hide the adventure caches, because they get few visitors. All that is left in many areas, is nothing but lame uninispired hides, on private property, in parking lots, with a usual disclaimer "Watch out for muggles."

Since the day I hid my first cache, I decide to hide the caches I like to find. That means requiring a hike to get to them. I knew that some people would never find my caches and they would be visited less often than urban hides. I am fine with that. I don't believe that all people are motivated by having a lot of visitors to their caches and hide urban hides instead of "adventurous" hides. I have found some of Kit Fox's caches because he hides caches I like to find, especially his puzzles. Everytime I go out to the desert to cache, he and a few others have hidded plenty of puzzles and caches off on dirt roads to keep me busy and I can mostly skip the ones in the malls.

When the adventurous cachers attend event caches, all they see is a bunch of newbies flocking to the "big number cachers," because they have become immensely popular with their ability to raise 100 + lamppost covers in a day's time. These newbies want to be like the "Big number cachers," so they hide a bunch of crappy caches to please all the other big number cachers. The incidences of new caches being larger than a micro is exponentially reduced.

Certainly the big numbers cachers get a lot of attention at events. But they are not the only ones. I get introduced a lot as the guy that solves the really tough puzzles or the guy whose hides all require hikes. I also find a lot of people who recognize my name from the forums. I don't think that newbies are hiding lamppost hide just because Kit Fox's friend who was formerly #3 is tell them to (which he does). I always tell people to hide the kinds of caches that they like to find.

The value of cache finds has been grossly cheapened with the proliferation of Temporary caches, logged by "attending" event caches multiple times, retirement cards, and pocket caches. Found it = Didn't find it

The value of cache find is what you make of it. You can not redeem your find count like trading stamps. If you are into numbers each cache is worth one smiley. If you are into quality, you will remember the good hides and quickly forget all the lame hides. Or you might have a good story to tell about how the restaurant owner wanted to know why you were in his bushes and made you wait while he called the police.

My response to the proliferation of micro spew is to "lead by example," and hide caches like this:

Eisen-Faust
The Legend of Big Ben
Cañon El Gato del Diablo
The Llano Del Rio Geocache

You won't see any of the "big number cachers" hunting these caches, because they could easily find dozens of 1/1s in the same amount of time that it takes to find these caches.

Great, you are hiding the kinds of caches you like to find. These are all on my list to do. My mom has been ill so I haven't had the time to do any long hikes recentlyInstead of putting down other cachers by claiming my hides aren't lame, I used this cache to make a statement that lameness is in the eye of the beholder.
As far as the "big number cachers" finding these, you may have just made a challenge. Perhaps I can get EMC to go on one of these hikes with me, or maybe next time TeamAlamo comes down for a visit.

I've also gotten really good with GSAK, and PQ filtering.

Tools like these are useful for people trying to sort through what is out there to find the caches they like doing. The numbers cachers also use them to find caches that have a high probability of being there and to layout their routes for their cache raids.

[Kit Fox]

Quote

Perhaps I can get EMC to go on one of these hikes with me, or maybe next time TeamAlamo comes down for a visit.

I give her loads of credit for all the hike-in caches that she does. She impresses me the most with her ability to find easy caches, hard puzzle caches, and still find time to find hard caches like Return to Scab Island

She is the only big number cacher that I was not referring to.

[flask]

my generally angst-free outlook:

i am a numbers whore. at the moment i can't tell you my accurate total. i don't care, just as long as it's more than it was last week. i don't consider every 100 caches to be a milestone. for this reason my area cachers do not throw me any milestone parties, even if they CAN figure out how many i have. sometimes they invite me to their parties, though, and if i go i am suitably congratulatory.

i often prefer large containers full of oddball stuff. if you hide a teeny little cache, not only will i not be leaving my signature cd/dvd set, but i will not be leaving any museum-shop-quality trinkets. (i actually have a surplus of museum-shop trinkets).

i do not resort to "questionable logging practices" and if i complain about others' use of them, i complain about it in the company of like-minded friends. we hold our heads up and feel quietly smug.

crashco says that either you're having a good time or you're having a good story to tell.

i like to tell the story of the trip, and if your cache sucks, i might use my log space to tell about what i had for lunch.

every once in a while a cache owner deletes one of my logs. i don't care about the smiley, but i care about the log. fortunate it is that i can store that log elsewhere and link to it.

i have been called a harpy, a shrew, and a couple of other things. fine. i prefer to project a curmudgeonly persona anyway.

i'm pretty happy about it, and i don't get all stirred up.

hope you're having a swell day.

[budd-rdc]

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 02:41 PM, said:

Quote

Perhaps I can get EMC to go on one of these hikes with me, or maybe next time TeamAlamo comes down for a visit.

I give her loads of credit for all the hike-in caches that she does. She impresses me the most with her ability to find easy caches, hard puzzle caches, and still find time to find hard caches like Return to Scab Island

She is the only big number cacher that I was not referring to.

I've gone caching with EMC on a few occasions, including two local night-only caches... so she drove 400+ miles just to do those?

I was impressed at how she took her find counts seriously, by making sure they were accurate. She took the time to run a mini-audit with bthomas (a name familiar to most extreme adventurer/cachers) before going to the next cache, which wasn't a 1/1 but an EVIL TeamAlamo hide. I appreciate the unrecklessness. Minimizes angst.

Let's not talk about hiking and TeamAlamo... My muscles get sore just hearing that.

[KBI]

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 04:43 PM, said:

I wasn't complaining that my caches don't get enough visitors, but rather illustrating a point that this is what caching has evolved into.

Fair enough. Then I guess what I was originally getting at is that, logically, there is no reason to let the mere existence of a large number of whatever kind of hide you don’t like get in the way of your enjoyment of whatever type you DO like to find ... or hide.

Your description of bleak and omnipresent lameness doesn't have to be "what the game has evolved into" for YOU ... unless you let it.

[wimseyguy]

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 05:41 PM, said:

Quote

Perhaps I can get EMC to go on one of these hikes with me, or maybe next time TeamAlamo comes down for a visit.

I give her loads of credit for all the hike-in caches that she does. She impresses me the most with her ability to find easy caches, hard puzzle caches, and still find time to find hard caches like Return to Scab Island

She is the only big number cacher that I was not referring to.

I'm glad to see her name pop up in this thread. I understand I made her scream like a little girl at a 1/1 drive up in TX during GW4, although I wasn't there to enjoy the prank.
You will have to ask her about the little surprise I gave her though. It's another one of those 'only in geocaching' adventure stories.

[KBI]

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 05:21 PM, said:

Clan Riffster, on Dec 2 2006, 05:09 PM, said:

The Tree Of Angst is fertilized by the handwringing Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame.

Exactly

Allow me to remind you both of two things that should be obvious:

(1) ALL cache hiders are VOLUNTEERS.

(2) ALL cache hiders are AMATEURS.

Do you complain to the manager when you get a bland plate of food at a restaurant? You should. Do you post negative reviews on Amazon.com when you watch a lame DVD or read a novel that wasted your time? Absolutely you should. You're the customer. The customer is always right.

Should you whine when you discover that some of the geocaches you've been finding didn't quite live up to your standards of fun? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You're NOT a customer here -- you're a fellow participant. Sure, maybe you paid for a premium membership, but that money goes to the website, not the cache owner. Geocaching.com is merely the listing agent. It is the individual cache owner who designs and executes each cache hide.

Will whining about growth in the number of so-called lame caches cause owners of those caches to consider archiving them? Maybe. (Probably not, actually, because if those hiders didn't care what you thought before, what makes you think threads like this will get their attention? Who are you going to convince that one of their very own caches is "lame?")

One thing that whining about so-called lame caches WILL almost certainly do is cause certain potential hiders of future fun caches to hesitate. If I were a newbie, had only a couple dozen finds, and had a great idea for a thoughtful and creative new hide, I can see how reading you comments and name calling (Staunch Defenders Of Everything Lame) might scare me off from putting out the cache. "What of nobody likes my hide? What if I'll just be adding to the problem? What if my hide gets held up in the forums as a Bad Example for Everyone to Behold as Lame? Maybe I'll just stick to finding other people's hides instead."

No one ever promised you that all caches will be fun. In fact, and as Snoogans pointed out, the enjoyment one gets from this hobby has a lot more to do with one's inner attitudes and motivations than with any specific type of existing or future hide method.

Those of you who are bitching about other volunteer, amateur, fellow participants' lack of inspiration should be ashamed of yourselves. If pointing that out to you like this is blunt, then please excuse me -- I can't think of any more diplomatic way to phrase it.

Whining "WAAAA! sometimes I find caches that aren't fun" implies a lack of patience with your fellow man that indicates maybe Geocaching is not for you. Nothing wrong with that. I frequently find disappointing ("lame") caches myself, but I don't turn around and whine about the efforts of my fellow VOLUNTEER, AMATEUR cachers when it happens to me. Somebody liked it -- else it wouldn't be there.

If my opinion makes me a "Staunch Defender of Everything Lame" then pin that big 'ol S.D.E.L. badge on my chest, and I'll wear it proudly!!

[Kit Fox]

KBI,

I just wanted to let you know that this topic is a great debate, and hope you haven't taken anything I have said personal. You do an excellent job of playing devil's advocate, and making me evaluate my stances.


I don't believe that the sky is falling when it comes to caching, however I do believe quantity is slowing taking over quality in new cache placements. I'm a staunch defender of great caches, in great locations. I reward the owners, with long "found it" logs, private emails (thanking them), and my "Top 5%" bookmark.

The best tools invented to enhance my enjoyment of geocaching, are PQs, and Bookmarks.

[KBI]

MUSHY ALERT!!! MUSHY ALERT!!!

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 09:45 PM, said:

KBI,

I just wanted to let you know that this topic is a great debate, and hope you haven't taken anything I have said personal.

No, no personal offence at all. I'm not thin-skinned. I can't remember ever getting emotionally torqued at anything anyone has ever said to me in the forums. These debates are all pretty much academic as far as I'm concerned. I feel strongly about my principles, of course, but I'm always happy to defend them. The ensuing debate is ALWAYS enjoyable, and it's important to me that I regularly expose myself to opposing viewpoints to see whether I might be convinced to change my mind. Sometimes I AM convinced!

And ... same here: No personal offence intended.

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 09:45 PM, said:

You do an excellent job of playing devil's advocate, and making me evaluate my stances.

Thanks. You've helped me to review some of my own thinking on this issue as well.

But I wouldn't call it 'playing devil's advocate' exactly; like I said, I'm stating and defending my strongly held principles, not throwing around hypothetical points of view.

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 09:45 PM, said:

I don't believe that the sky is falling when it comes to caching, however I do believe quantity is slowing taking over quality in new cache placements.

Probably so, but I still don't see that as a problem.

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 09:45 PM, said:

I'm a staunch defender of great caches, in great locations. I reward the owners, with long "found it" logs, private emails (thanking them), and my "Top 5%" bookmark.

Same here, pretty much. Desired behavior should be rewarded!

Kit Fox, on Dec 2 2006, 09:45 PM, said:

The best tools invented to enhance my enjoyment of geocaching, are PQs, and Bookmarks.

I'll take your word for that. I've haven't tried them. Never got around to it. Drives my brother crazy.




Yes, it's been a stimulating conversation. Have we wandered too far off topic with it? That's up to Snoogans and the Mods, I guess.

Maybe Snoogans can use the noise we've made as some kind of illustrative angst case study.

(And BTW, don't you think "Snoogans and the Mods" would be a great name for a doo-wop band?)

[carleenp]

A brief history of angst

I recalled it, found it, and thought it was interesting.

This post has been edited by carleenp: 02 December 2006 - 07:38 PM

[KBI]

carleenp, on Dec 2 2006, 10:38 PM, said:

A brief history of angst

I recalled it, found it, and thought it was interesting.

Wow.

That links through to a July 5, 2001 post that shows Jeremy as "unregistered."

It feels sorta like looking back in time at the Earth when it was still cooling ...

[budd-rdc]

carleenp, on Dec 2 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

A brief history of angst

I recalled it, found it, and thought it was interesting.

Snarky is in there too.

I followed the link to the other thread where Jeremy first used angst. We are too serious here. I better lighten up from now on.