Geocaching Forums: Spew Be Gone! - Geocaching Forums

Jump to content

  • (12 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

Spew Be Gone! The obliteration of lame micros

#51 User is offline   jmundinger 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 381
  • Joined: 12-April 05

Posted 05 September 2007 - 06:49 PM

Perhaps one way to deal with this issue would be to include a rating scale for cache quality on the page for logging caches. Another site that I play on does this - but, then, part of that site's purpose is to promote quality caches, with quality related to the overall experience of finding the cache. A cache like this one would rate pretty well on that site: GCVXM6

The reason that cache would rate highly is self-evident from the description - a three part cache, with the first two requiring solving a puzzle in order to proceed; a four-mile hike; and, the opportunity to experience one of the outdoor treasures in our community.

What you refer to as spew would not pack it on that site - the users would be too embarrassed to post them. At the same time, however, there still is room for more accessible micros - having a lot to do with location and/or the mental challenge associated with finding the cache.

Having said that, one of the values that GC offers, relative to that site, is the fact that it makes caching approachable to a broader audience. Not everyone is up to a 4-mile hike around a mountain and they should not be excluded just because they can't.

#52 User is offline   traildad 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 715
  • Joined: 25-October 06

Posted 05 September 2007 - 08:33 PM

I recently placed my own micro spew cache (GC153VY). This is my third cache. In less than a month it has 11 finds while my other caches that have been active for a lot longer have only 7 finds each. My reason for hiding this cache was to have a starting point for a TB so I can track my caching miles. I was not trying to create an inspirational cache and this is fairly clear if you read the cache page. My second cache (GCZRG4) is easy to get to and easy to find. It has great views of the beautiful Napa Valley. 7 finds in 9 months. My first hide is under snow half the year and is way off the main roads but is in a very scenic area. If I wanted to hide caches that people wanted to find I might think micro spew is the way to go. We will never get rid of micro spew as long as they are popular.

Edited to say, Make that 12 finds in less than a month. :)

This post has been edited by traildad: 05 September 2007 - 08:39 PM


#53 User is offline   Mudfrog 

  • Premium MudCacher
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 3957
  • Joined: 27-March 02

Posted 05 September 2007 - 09:15 PM

Quote

So when it's time for them to place a cache, they place what they know, thus creating more garbage, speeding even more rapidly towards critical mass.


This point is brought up in every lame cache thread.

Do you think this is the only reason these newbies place caches like this, because it's all they know? I just do not believe this is the case. To me it's pretty obvious that these types of caches must have been enjoyed by those newbies. Otherwise, why would they even want to keep caching and then on top of that, hide caches like this themselves? Evidently those newbies had fun with these caches and didn't think they were garbage.

For the record, i don't care for some of these types of caches myself and would rather go after other types of hides. But i have come to realize that it's not my place to tell you or anybody else what's garbage and what's not. Believe it or not, there are cachers out there who really enjoy finding what you and i consider to be lame caches. :)

#54 User is offline   plasmafamily 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 17-November 06

Posted 06 September 2007 - 12:39 AM

I also have mobility problems, I have rheumatoid arthrits-ain't going away anytime soon. Recently on a caching trip we got to a cache rated 5* terrain. I watched, from the other side of the river, as my husband and friend had a great time getting that cache. We agreed to meet up at the next cache. While they were trying to figure out how to get that cache, I found a micro on a nearby bridge. I arrived at the meeting point a good 45 minutes before they did, so I found that micro as well. Both micros were in nice locations. The 5* cache took well over an hour (maybe close to 2 hours) for them to get to, figure out how to retrieve and then meet me again. I was able to find a couple of caches myself as a few of the other caches that day were located in places I couldn't search (too high too low etc...). I am able to walk a good distance on flat terrain but I can't hike up a mountain (ok I could but I would need to be air lifted down, I can't go downhill :) ) Somewhere there is a point in here, oh yeah, don't dismiss LUM micros, I have just as much a right as you to find caches.

#55 User is offline   4wheelin_fool 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6049
  • Joined: 31-January 02

Posted 06 September 2007 - 01:37 AM

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 5 2007, 12:50 PM, said:

Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?




So........
Which day (out of the 2) you have gone out caching in the last six months, have you run into this "spew"?

:)

#56 User is offline   Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking 

  • Rx: GPS prn
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 1673
  • Joined: 31-August 02

Posted 06 September 2007 - 01:42 AM

View Post4wheelin_fool, on Sep 6 2007, 02:37 AM, said:

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 5 2007, 12:50 PM, said:

Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?




So........
Which day (out of the 2) you have gone out caching in the last six months, have you run into this "spew"?

:)



Rofl. I really need to start paying attention to things like this.

#57 User is offline   Snoogans 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8683
  • Joined: 02-March 03

Posted 06 September 2007 - 02:48 AM

View PostTsegi Mike and Desert Viking, on Sep 6 2007, 04:42 AM, said:

View Post4wheelin_fool, on Sep 6 2007, 02:37 AM, said:

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 5 2007, 12:50 PM, said:

Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?




So........
Which day (out of the 2) you have gone out caching in the last six months, have you run into this "spew"?

:D



Rofl. I really need to start paying attention to things like this.


OOOoOOOooo I believe the proper that 70's show response would be, BURRRRRRRNNNN!!! :) :) :)

This post has been edited by Snoogans: 06 September 2007 - 03:39 AM


#58 User is offline   CoyoteRed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7122
  • Joined: 22-August 02

Posted 06 September 2007 - 03:35 AM

After reading the entire thread it becomes painfully obvious that plenty of folks simply don't get it. The OP is talking MicroSpew™, not micros or urban caches in general. There is a fairly good definition of MicroSpew™ in this thread.

Some of the elements of the confusion include:
  • He's talking about all micros.
    No, he's not. All micros is not the definition of MicroSpew™. There are plenty of thoughtful, satisfying placements out there that happen to be micros.
    While there are reasons that folks choose micros to place over a larger size, I've found few that needed to be a micro. The size micro definitely has its place, it's just over used. What's unfortunate is when someone places a less-than-satisfying cache it is generally a micro. "MicroSpew™" is really a misnomer as not all spew is a micro. Being a micro does not make it a bad cache.

  • He's talking about all urban caches.
    No, he's not. There are plenty of highly satisfying caches that happen to not be in rural areas. I've found plenty of highly satisfying urban caches. There are parks and greenspaces of various types that can host caches and make a wonderful experience. Being in an urban environment does not make it a bad cache.

  • He's talking about all easy-to-access caches.
    No, he's not. "Easy" does not make it a bad cache. We've got a couple of beginner caches that are easy to find and to physically reach. They are in a nice city park with ponds and sculptures. Folks with mild to moderate physical limitations shouldn't have a problem with accessing these caches.
    On the flip side, many folks seem quick to point out if all LPCs went away they'd have nothing to find. I'd say shame on the local caching community for not providing easy-to-access caches in worthwhile locations. I'd personally give up the hobby in a heart beat if the only caches I could find where skirt lifters in big box parking lots.
    Additionally, easy caches don't have to be urban. Drive-bys can happen anywhere and aren't relegated to the cities. A guardrail cache with a fantastic view would be easy to access and provide you with something to enjoy other than being able to log yet another smilie.

On some of the rebuttals:
  • The "Ice Cream Rebuttal:" This might be a valid rebuttal if ice cream came in infinite flavors which would mean you'd only know if you liked it after you sampled it. Sure, you could look through the case and check the name, ingredients and color, but without sampling it, you wouldn't know. Why do you think every shop--that I've been in anyway--give free tastes?
  • "Ignore them if you don't like them:" Only viable if you're a premium member otherwise you're pretty much stuck using the Nearest Cache List and those caches you've chosen to not hunt start piling up on the first several pages. You'll soon start looking for ways to get them out of your face. Oh, wait, the only way to do that is pay up or go find them.

What can we do about MicroSpew™? Not much directly besides not place any ourselves. We can influence only indirectly. Make your opinion tactfully public. I know of someone who will respond to an offer to place a cache in their honor but happens to be a micro, "I won't hunt it." That pretty much stops them dead if they were sincere. Doesn't stop the jerks, of course. The same goes if the cache is lame.

I think Groundspeak could give us some tools that would help open up the communication between owner and finder--and make it so the power isn't only on one side. The primary concern is retaliation. Remove that threat and folks may start to be more honest. The second is provide more tools to allow even non-paying members sort through caches they'd rather hunt. Right now, the power is all in the hands of the cache owner in this regard. Put more in the hands of the seeker.

#59 User is offline   Rockin Roddy 

  • Please pay attention out there, LOOK for bikes!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8696
  • Joined: 30-January 06

Posted 06 September 2007 - 03:43 AM

Quote

The "Ice Cream Rebuttal:" This might be a valid rebuttal if ice cream came in infinite flavors which would mean you'd only know if you liked it after you sampled it. Sure, you could look through the case and check the name, ingredients and color, but without sampling it, you wouldn't know. Why do you think every shop--that I've been in anyway--give free tastes?


That's why I'd suggest everyone "sample" the various caches out there before ignoring "microspew"!

#60 User is offline   CoyoteRed 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7122
  • Joined: 22-August 02

Posted 06 September 2007 - 04:03 AM

View PostRockin Roddy, on Sep 6 2007, 07:43 AM, said:

Quote

The "Ice Cream Rebuttal:" This might be a valid rebuttal if ice cream came in infinite flavors which would mean you'd only know if you liked it after you sampled it. Sure, you could look through the case and check the name, ingredients and color, but without sampling it, you wouldn't know. Why do you think every shop--that I've been in anyway--give free tastes?
That's why I'd suggest everyone "sample" the various caches out there before ignoring "microspew"!

:)

I'm assuming you're talking about sampling the various styles of hides of which one is MicroSpew™. Am I understanding correctly? If so, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If not, then you pretty much have to sample each cache, in person, to see if it's worthwhile to visit.

You can't know that a particular cache is spew until you sample it--that particular cache--and then you've already got the taste in your mouth. There's no button, type, icon, or attribute that identifies a cache as spew. This is why spew is mistaken as micros or urbans or easy caches. Spew can't be virtually visited as you never know if a weird statue is in front of a Target or a cool mosaic is across from a street corner--unless it is mentioned in the description and logs. Of course, doing so would then ruin the surprise.

Of course, we wouldn't have to visit each and every caches to see if it was worthwhile to visit in the first place if we were able to rely on others to determine this for us. The problem is we don't have the tools to reliably do so.

#61 User is offline   Dinoprophet 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3097
  • Joined: 08-April 02

Posted 06 September 2007 - 04:26 AM

Proactive but not wholly practical advice: Hide a bunch of good caches that block parking lots under the 0.1 mile guideline. ETA: The beauty is, if you can't hide a good cache that blocks the parking lot, then a cache in the parking lot isn't really hurting anything.

View Post4wheelin_fool, on Sep 6 2007, 01:37 AM, said:

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 5 2007, 12:50 PM, said:

Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?




So........
Which day (out of the 2) you have gone out caching in the last six months, have you run into this "spew"?

:)

The common advice is to read the cache page and ignore the ones that you wouldn't like. Could it be that he's doing just that? I have two lame micro/nano series in my area. It's pretty easy to tell that there's spew going on.

This post has been edited by Dinoprophet: 06 September 2007 - 05:37 AM


#62 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20567
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 04:35 AM

I have never read a better post in one of these threads than this one:

View PostMudfrog, on Sep 6 2007, 12:15 AM, said:

Do you think this is the only reason these newbies place caches like this, because it's all they know? I just do not believe this is the case. To me it's pretty obvious that these types of caches must have been enjoyed by those newbies. Otherwise, why would they even want to keep caching and then on top of that, hide caches like this themselves? Evidently those newbies had fun with these caches and didn't think they were garbage.

For the record, i don't care for some of these types of caches myself and would rather go after other types of hides. But i have come to realize that it's not my place to tell you or anybody else what's garbage and what's not. Believe it or not, there are cachers out there who really enjoy finding what you and i consider to be lame caches. :)
Why is it that some people want to do away with caches that they don't enjoy, thereby depriving those players who would enjoy those caches? I have never truly understood the rational behind this position. Surely those that advocate this cannot simply be extremely selfish.

That being said, from the OP, the premise of this thread appears to be that the placement of these 'spew' caches (whatever that is) is quickly pushing us towards 'critical mass' (whatever that is). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the concept, but isn't 'critical mass' the point at which a system becomes self-sustaining? In geocaching terms, wouldn't it be the point at which an area has enough caches placed that the players don't get bored and wander off. Instead, they stay interested and place caches for others to enjoy? If so, I suspect that the game reached critical mass some years ago and continues to chug along happily.

It would appear, based on the premise proposed in the OP, that there is no problem here that needs to be resolved.

Here's two more quick thoughts for ReadyOrNot:
  • If you are trying to avoid 'lame' hides, there are several ways to do it that have been proposed in this and all the other similar threads. They certainly are not going to be foolproof, because everyone's personal definition of 'lame' is different (and differs moment to moment) and most rely on unsortable factors. If you truly believe that most micros are lame and that most lame caches are micros, stop looking for micros. If you think most caches should be a physical challenge, stop looking for low terrain caches. There are avoidance techniques that are better than this, but they tend to require you to do some work for yourself.
  • I kind of feel sorry for you. You see, the cachers in your area will see this thread. If their caches go missing, they might suspect that you did it. Some of the people who suspect your involvement may take action against your caches. I'm certainly not advocating that anyone 'trash out' your caches, but I could see it happening based on your posts in this thread.

This post has been edited by sbell111: 06 September 2007 - 05:31 AM


#63 User is offline   Markwell 

  • Moderatin' the Neo-cachers & helping the How Do I?
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 8914
  • Joined: 09-March 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 04:39 AM

So the ice cream analogy is more akin to Bertie Bot's Every Flavor Beans?

Quote

"You want to be careful with those," Ron warned Harry. "When they say
every flavor, they mean every flavor -- you know, you get all the
ordinary ones like chocolate and peppermint and mar- malade, but then
you can get spinach and liver and tripe. George reckons he had a boogerflavored
one once."
Ron picked up a green bean, looked at it carefully, and bit into a
corner.
"Bleaaargh -- see? Sprouts."


#64 User is offline   Vinny & Sue Team 

  • Psycho Platinum Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3929
  • Joined: 24-April 05

  Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:13 AM

View PostKit Fox, on Sep 5 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

View PostStarBrand, on Sep 5 2007, 01:58 PM, said:

Lead by example. Coach and train. Report guideline violations. Best we can do. These usually otherwise fit the current guidelines and so will continue to be published.


I posted this on my cache pages. And hide caches that I like to find.

Posted Image


The main reason Micro Spew is getting worse is because there are still cachers that find them and tell the owners, "Thanks for the cache." Do like I do, and put all spew caches on your ignore list. Imagine if nobody bothered to find caches under lampposts, in parking lots.

I have just realized that I generally tend to agree with much of what you write on the forums, but in this case, I must point out that the BIG problem with Spew caches, aka Lame Urban caches, whether they micro-sized or small-sized, is that it is often near-impossible to tell such a cache from quality caches by perusing the cache listing page and reviewing the text, the D/T ratings and the attribute icons, and instead, the "stupidity factor" of such caches often becomes apparent only when you reach the hide site. I have had this happen to me on trips to Los Angeles, to western Michigan (particularly Kalamazoo... phew!), to Houston, TX and to Phoenix, AZ.

In fact, this is also why the "Ice Cream" analogy fails miserably when one tries to apply it to the mater of LUMs, aka Spew. Ice cream is labeled as to flavor and also as to other ingredients, and also bears a label disclosing whether it was made with skim milk or with real cream. The problem with a vast majority of Spew/LUM caches is that you can never know, till you reach the hide site, that the cache is one of "those" caches.

#65 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 10134
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:23 AM

View PostMarkwell, on Sep 6 2007, 04:39 AM, said:

So the ice cream analogy is more akin to Bertie Bot's Every Flavor Beans?

Quote

"You want to be careful with those," Ron warned Harry. "When they say
every flavor, they mean every flavor -- you know, you get all the
ordinary ones like chocolate and peppermint and mar- malade, but then
you can get spinach and liver and tripe. George reckons he had a boogerflavored
one once."
Ron picked up a green bean, looked at it carefully, and bit into a
corner.
"Bleaaargh -- see? Sprouts."




OMG, yes!! The Bertie Bot analogy! Perfect! Is this the first time anyone has ever come up with that one?

#66 User is offline   magellan315 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1715
  • Joined: 20-August 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:24 AM

View PostCoyoteRed, on Sep 6 2007, 07:35 AM, said:


[*]"Ignore them if you don't like them:" Only viable if you're a premium member otherwise you're pretty much stuck using the Nearest Cache List and those caches you've chosen to not hunt start piling up on the first several pages. You'll soon start looking for ways to get them out of your face. Oh, wait, the only way to do that is pay up or go find them.


You'd think no one could possibly Geocache prior to the ignore feature and premium membership.

I do not have a premium membership and its not a problem for me. With the size of the cache identified on the Nearest Cache list and a mouse with a scroll wheel it takes me less than a minute to scan a page. It was a lot more difficult when you had to read each cache page.

Even though I don't have access to the ignore feature I can ignore them the same way I use to ignore them before that feature existed, by ignoring them. And yes I can ignore unfound caches if I have no interest in them, no matter how many pile up.

I'd like to know how the OP determined Geocaching is reaching critical mass.

This post has been edited by magellan315: 06 September 2007 - 05:25 AM


#67 User is offline   Mr. 0 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 711
  • Joined: 11-September 02

Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:29 AM

I personally don't advocate removing caches or anything like that. What I do, is read the cache page, if I figure it's not going to be something that I like, I won't do it. If I do decide to try it anyhow, I have only myself to blame if I don't like it. If I'm not having fun looking for it, I leave, post a DNF and then often put it on the ignore list....I don't have to find every cache in the world. Just because someone else plays the game differently than I, doesn't mean they are bad people, or their hides are wrong, it's just how they play. I can't make decisions for other people, nor can others make decisions for me, only I know what I like. I realize that Geocaching as a whole isn't all about me, there is a diverse group of folks here who have different interests.....I don't have any right to spoil the fun for others just because our opinions differ.

As a side note, here is one cacher's attempt to stop Microspew. Promise Me

#68 User is offline   Dinoprophet 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3097
  • Joined: 08-April 02

Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:33 AM

View PostMarkwell, on Sep 6 2007, 04:39 AM, said:

So the ice cream analogy is more akin to Bertie Bot's Every Flavor Beans?

Quote

"You want to be careful with those," Ron warned Harry. "When they say
every flavor, they mean every flavor -- you know, you get all the
ordinary ones like chocolate and peppermint and mar- malade, but then
you can get spinach and liver and tripe. George reckons he had a boogerflavored
one once."
Ron picked up a green bean, looked at it carefully, and bit into a
corner.
"Bleaaargh -- see? Sprouts."


And trying to determine from the listings whether you'd like a cache is like looking at the box and thinking, "Is this tutti-frutti or vomit? I can't tell"

It covers the "kitsch" appeal, too, when you consider people like my aunt: "It doesn't really taste like vomit, does it? Let me see....EW, IT REALLY DOES! What else is there? Dirt? Get out of here, let me see.....EW, IT DOES! What else is there?..."

#69 User is offline   Trinity's Crew 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1291
  • Joined: 05-June 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:33 AM

<snip>

View Postsbell111, on Sep 6 2007, 08:35 AM, said:

because everyone's personal definition of 'lame' is different (and differs moment to moment)
HOW TRUE!!! The funny thing is that most people who complain about "lame" caches either don't realize this or refuse to admit it.

#70 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 10134
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:36 AM

View Postmagellan315, on Sep 6 2007, 05:24 AM, said:

View PostCoyoteRed, on Sep 6 2007, 07:35 AM, said:


[*]"Ignore them if you don't like them:" Only viable if you're a premium member otherwise you're pretty much stuck using the Nearest Cache List and those caches you've chosen to not hunt start piling up on the first several pages. You'll soon start looking for ways to get them out of your face. Oh, wait, the only way to do that is pay up or go find them.


You'd think no one could possibly Geocache prior to the ignore feature and premium membership.


Actually, spew was not a problem in most areas (if anywhere) before the ignore feature was implemented. :) When was that? 2004? 2005 at the latest?

Quote

I'd like to know how the OP determined Geocaching is reaching critical mass.


It hasn't. But it makes for a fun conversation, doesn't it? :)

#71 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20567
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:38 AM

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Sep 6 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

View Postmagellan315, on Sep 6 2007, 05:24 AM, said:

You'd think no one could possibly Geocache prior to the ignore feature and premium membership.
Actually, spew was not a problem in most areas (if anywhere) before the ignore feature was implemented. :) When was that? 2004? 2005 at the latest?
People were whining about it in the forums in 2001 (of course, the 'witty' spew term hadn't yet been foisted upon us).

<edited because a search found threads discussing this issue in 2001, not 2002.>

This post has been edited by sbell111: 06 September 2007 - 05:44 AM


#72 User is offline   Jhwk 

  • non des palourdes mortes
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 11-November 04

Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:47 AM

View Postsbell111, on Sep 6 2007, 05:38 AM, said:

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Sep 6 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

View Postmagellan315, on Sep 6 2007, 05:24 AM, said:

You'd think no one could possibly Geocache prior to the ignore feature and premium membership.
Actually, spew was not a problem in most areas (if anywhere) before the ignore feature was implemented. :) When was that? 2004? 2005 at the latest?
People were whining about it in the forums in 2002 (of course, the 'witty' microspew term hadn't yet been coined).

The initial argumenntt is based upon the false assumption that:
1. everyone knows what microspew is.
2. everyone hates microspew.

I have yet to find a cache I wasn't happy to find and log. I always sign the log. And I always thank the owner. They did 'participate' in helping support this sport, regardless of your OPINION of the quality of their cache.

BTW, I still like DPM. If you don't like the cache, DPM it.

#73 User is offline   wesleykey 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1112
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:50 AM

I LOVE LAME MICROS!!!

#74 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 10134
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:56 AM

View Postsbell111, on Sep 6 2007, 05:38 AM, said:

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Sep 6 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

View Postmagellan315, on Sep 6 2007, 05:24 AM, said:

You'd think no one could possibly Geocache prior to the ignore feature and premium membership.
Actually, spew was not a problem in most areas (if anywhere) before the ignore feature was implemented. :) When was that? 2004? 2005 at the latest?
People were whining about it in the forums in 2001 (of course, the 'witty' spew term hadn't yet been foisted upon us).

<edited because a search found threads discussing this issue in 2001, not 2002.>


Sure. But wouldn't the 2002 whining have been about lame virts and locationless? :)

That, and the incessant whining of 2003 and 2004 certainly led to the ignore list. My sincere thanks to those early pioneers in the lame cache whining arena, I didn't post here then. :)

[EDIT] I can't find the exact post by TPTB announcing the "ignore listing" feature, but it was implemented in early February 2005.

This post has been edited by TheWhiteUrkel: 06 September 2007 - 06:17 AM


#75 User is offline   Mushtang 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3917
  • Joined: 13-June 03

Posted 06 September 2007 - 05:58 AM

View PostCoyoteRed, on Sep 6 2007, 06:35 AM, said:

After reading the entire thread it becomes painfully obvious that plenty of folks simply don't get it. The OP is talking MicroSpew™, not micros or urban caches in general.

It's also painfully obvious that the OP was suggesting that people steal caches that they don't like and throw them in the garbage.

I hope you didn't miss those posts.

#76 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Nine time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38380
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 06:15 AM

Quote

Since there are many ways to avoid Lame Micros, including not being a "radius slave," I don't really see a problem.


Could you please explain many ways? I've yet to discover one. Short of a "Junk cache for numbers hounds only" attribute, I see no way to filter out garbage micros. Many have suggested ways, but every one I've seen potentially eliminates a lot of excellent caches as well.


Quote

What exactly is the problem that a majority of us agree is a problem?


There must be a problem because this subject comes up in the forums like every 5 days or so. In my
6 years here I've yet to see a thread complaining about too many caches in interesting locations.

#77 User is offline   Trinity's Crew 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1291
  • Joined: 05-June 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 06:55 AM

<snip>

View Postbriansnat, on Sep 6 2007, 10:15 AM, said:

There must be a problem because this subject comes up in the forums like every 5 days or so. In my
6 years here I've yet to see a thread complaining about too many caches in interesting locations.

But I have seen MANY different types of caches described as lame.

#78 User is offline   Jhwk 

  • non des palourdes mortes
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 11-November 04

Posted 06 September 2007 - 06:56 AM

View Postbriansnat, on Sep 6 2007, 06:15 AM, said:

Quote

Since there are many ways to avoid Lame Micros, including not being a "radius slave," I don't really see a problem.


Could you please explain many ways? I've yet to discover one. Short of a "Junk cache for numbers hounds only" attribute, I see no way to filter out garbage micros. Many have suggested ways, but every one I've seen potentially eliminates a lot of excellent caches as well.


Quote

What exactly is the problem that a majority of us agree is a problem?


There must be a problem because this subject comes up in the forums like every 5 days or so. In my
6 years here I've yet to see a thread complaining about too many caches in interesting locations.

1. you don't complain about things you like.
2. the squeaky wheel gets the grease. :)
3. people aren't happy if they can't b#&*h about something.

#79 User is offline   ReadyOrNot 

  • Self Portrait
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2210
  • Joined: 03-March 05

  Posted 06 September 2007 - 06:59 AM

View Post4wheelin_fool, on Sep 6 2007, 02:37 AM, said:

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 5 2007, 12:50 PM, said:

Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?




So........
Which day (out of the 2) you have gone out caching in the last six months, have you run into this "spew"?

:)


Perhaps there is a reason for that? Hmmmmmm

#80 User is offline   Jhwk 

  • non des palourdes mortes
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 11-November 04

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:02 AM

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 6 2007, 06:59 AM, said:

View Post4wheelin_fool, on Sep 6 2007, 02:37 AM, said:

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 5 2007, 12:50 PM, said:

Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?




So........
Which day (out of the 2) you have gone out caching in the last six months, have you run into this "spew"?

:)


Perhaps there is a reason for that? Hmmmmmm

Yeah... All the caches near you are lame.


at least in your eyes.

#81 User is offline   GeoScooter1 

  • Not all who wander are lost, but I probably am.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 218
  • Joined: 19-October 02

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:03 AM

I would think that one relatively easy way to avoid a cache some might consider lame would be to look at the attributes. If one is listed as handicapped accessible, that might be a clue for those that hate LUMs to look elsewhere. Until reading this thread, I hadn't given any thought to those geocachers who might have difficulties reaching caches on trails and I am glad that they are able to participate in caches that others might consider lame. A new cache was just posted in my area and on the page, the guy even calls it a "Park and Grab". I think that's a great way to let people know if they want to consider it or not.

#82 User is offline   ReadyOrNot 

  • Self Portrait
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2210
  • Joined: 03-March 05

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:04 AM

View PostMushtang, on Sep 6 2007, 06:58 AM, said:

View PostCoyoteRed, on Sep 6 2007, 06:35 AM, said:

After reading the entire thread it becomes painfully obvious that plenty of folks simply don't get it. The OP is talking MicroSpew™, not micros or urban caches in general.

It's also painfully obvious that the OP was suggesting that people steal caches that they don't like and throw them in the garbage.

I hope you didn't miss those posts.


Please understand the difference between throwing away something that someone owns and throwing away garbage. If you pick up garbage on the side of the road and throw it away, is that stealing? Let's get real here.. I am advocating CITO, not stealing people's caches. There are many caches that are not well maintained and are garbage that ought to be CITO'd in my opinion..

So far I've been accused of stealing and hating the disabled... So typical.. Can't make an argument on it's merits, so you attack, attack, attack..

To the OP: If I can't voice my opinion, why don't you just shut this down now. (and I'm sorry for my vulgar use of the word "tird" -- Have you ever given a warning to someone for saying that before this?)

#83 User is offline   ReadyOrNot 

  • Self Portrait
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2210
  • Joined: 03-March 05

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:07 AM

View PostTsegi Mike and Desert Viking, on Sep 5 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

You wrote:

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 5 2007, 01:50 PM, said:

The Question: Besides #1 and #2, what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?



Your sig line:

Quote

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires."


Anyone see a conflict there?


What conflict? How is my goal my own ego and self desire? My concern is with the quality of the sport/hobby as a whole. I love freedom of speech, but the cost is having to read posts like yours that don't make any logical sense.

#84 User is offline   Jhwk 

  • non des palourdes mortes
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1638
  • Joined: 11-November 04

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:15 AM

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 6 2007, 07:04 AM, said:

View PostMushtang, on Sep 6 2007, 06:58 AM, said:

View PostCoyoteRed, on Sep 6 2007, 06:35 AM, said:

After reading the entire thread it becomes painfully obvious that plenty of folks simply don't get it. The OP is talking MicroSpew™, not micros or urban caches in general.

It's also painfully obvious that the OP was suggesting that people steal caches that they don't like and throw them in the garbage.

I hope you didn't miss those posts.


To the OP: If I can't voice my opinion, why don't you just shut this down now. (and I'm sorry for my vulgar use of the word "tird" -- Have you ever given a warning to someone for saying that before this?)

OP's can't close their own threads anymore, only the mods/admins can do that for us. :)
and yes, I have been warned about language use. There used to be a thread around here somewhere... WHich is where I apparantly went too far.

#85 User is offline   Mushtang 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 3917
  • Joined: 13-June 03

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:17 AM

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 6 2007, 10:04 AM, said:

View PostMushtang, on Sep 6 2007, 06:58 AM, said:

View PostCoyoteRed, on Sep 6 2007, 06:35 AM, said:

After reading the entire thread it becomes painfully obvious that plenty of folks simply don't get it. The OP is talking MicroSpew™, not micros or urban caches in general.

It's also painfully obvious that the OP was suggesting that people steal caches that they don't like and throw them in the garbage.

I hope you didn't miss those posts.


Please understand the difference between throwing away something that someone owns and throwing away garbage. If you pick up garbage on the side of the road and throw it away, is that stealing? Let's get real here.. I am advocating CITO, not stealing people's caches. There are many caches that are not well maintained and are garbage that ought to be CITO'd in my opinion..

So far I've been accused of stealing and hating the disabled... So typical.. Can't make an argument on it's merits, so you attack, attack, attack..

To the OP: If I can't voice my opinion, why don't you just shut this down now. (and I'm sorry for my vulgar use of the word "tird" -- Have you ever given a warning to someone for saying that before this?)

Dude, you ARE the OP.

I'm glad you've asked for the topic to be closed though, I don't want people thinking throwing away caches you don't like is acceptable, no matter how you justify it.

#86 User is offline   ReadyOrNot 

  • Self Portrait
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2210
  • Joined: 03-March 05

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:17 AM

View PostJhwk, on Sep 6 2007, 08:15 AM, said:

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 6 2007, 07:04 AM, said:

View PostMushtang, on Sep 6 2007, 06:58 AM, said:

View PostCoyoteRed, on Sep 6 2007, 06:35 AM, said:

After reading the entire thread it becomes painfully obvious that plenty of folks simply don't get it. The OP is talking MicroSpew™, not micros or urban caches in general.

It's also painfully obvious that the OP was suggesting that people steal caches that they don't like and throw them in the garbage.

I hope you didn't miss those posts.


To the OP: If I can't voice my opinion, why don't you just shut this down now. (and I'm sorry for my vulgar use of the word "tird" -- Have you ever given a warning to someone for saying that before this?)

OP's can't close their own threads anymore, only the mods/admins can do that for us. :)
and yes, I have been warned about language use. There used to be a thread around here somewhere... WHich is where I apparantly went too far.


Ooops, I meant to say to the "MOD"... I wasn't talking to myself, really :)

#87 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20567
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:19 AM

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Sep 6 2007, 08:56 AM, said:

View Postsbell111, on Sep 6 2007, 05:38 AM, said:

View PostTheWhiteUrkel, on Sep 6 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

View Postmagellan315, on Sep 6 2007, 05:24 AM, said:

You'd think no one could possibly Geocache prior to the ignore feature and premium membership.
Actually, spew was not a problem in most areas (if anywhere) before the ignore feature was implemented. :) When was that? 2004? 2005 at the latest?
People were whining about it in the forums in 2001 (of course, the 'witty' spew term hadn't yet been foisted upon us).
Sure. But wouldn't the 2002 whining have been about lame virts and locationless? :)
Those were whined about also, but not exclusively.

View Postbriansnat, on Sep 6 2007, 09:15 AM, said:

Quote

Since there are many ways to avoid Lame Micros, including not being a "radius slave," I don't really see a problem.
Could you please explain many ways? I've yet to discover one. Short of a "Junk cache for numbers hounds only" attribute, I see no way to filter out garbage micros. Many have suggested ways, but every one I've seen potentially eliminates a lot of excellent caches as well.
That's not a problem, it's a feature.

Seriously, as long as your filtering leaves you with mostly caches that you will like, who cares if it filters out some that you won't like. You can look closer at the caches that were filtered out after you've found all the 'mostly good' caches that were filtered in. (BTW, this is the meat of methods that were discussed in previous threads about this subject. Threads that you participated in.)

View Postbriansnat, on Sep 6 2007, 09:15 AM, said:

Quote

What exactly is the problem that a majority of us agree is a problem?
There must be a problem because this subject comes up in the forums like every 5 days or so. In my 6 years here I've yet to see a thread complaining about too many caches in interesting locations.
Just because there are threads about an issue, doesn't mean that the issue should be acted on. I once read a thread that proposed that BrianSnat was always correct. That didn't make it so.

This post has been edited by sbell111: 06 September 2007 - 07:25 AM


#88 User is offline   ReadyOrNot 

  • Self Portrait
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2210
  • Joined: 03-March 05

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:23 AM

View Postsbell111, on Sep 6 2007, 08:19 AM, said:

[Per the forum guidelines, private discussions should be taken to PM or email. I suppose that includes conversations with oneself.


Thank you for pointing out my mental illness :) Would I want someone to throw away my cache? Of course not. Although, if I'm placing garbage, maybe they should... Look, I don't think anyone should throw away people's caches. I'm just trying to make a point, not advocating theft.

Maybe people should start reporting garbage caches as needs maintenance. I don't know what the answer is, that's why I'm here :)

#89 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20567
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:26 AM

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 6 2007, 10:04 AM, said:

View PostMushtang, on Sep 6 2007, 06:58 AM, said:

View PostCoyoteRed, on Sep 6 2007, 06:35 AM, said:

After reading the entire thread it becomes painfully obvious that plenty of folks simply don't get it. The OP is talking MicroSpew™, not micros or urban caches in general.
It's also painfully obvious that the OP was suggesting that people steal caches that they don't like and throw them in the garbage.

I hope you didn't miss those posts.
Please understand the difference between throwing away something that someone owns and throwing away garbage. If you pick up garbage on the side of the road and throw it away, is that stealing? Let's get real here.. I am advocating CITO, not stealing people's caches. There are many caches that are not well maintained and are garbage that ought to be CITO'd in my opinion..
Your opinion doesn't define other people's ownership. If I decide your cache isn't worthy of being in service, should I simply remove it and toss it in the nearest trash can? Your pride may force you to answer 'yes', but most people will disagree with the concept.

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 6 2007, 10:04 AM, said:

To the OP: If I can't voice my opinion, ...
Ummm, you're the OP. Per the forum guidelines, private discussions should be taken to PM or email. I suppose that includes conversations with oneself.

(I broke the forum thingy with too many quotes, so I broke the post up into two. Unfortunately RON quoted me, making the posts look weirdly out of order.)

This post has been edited by sbell111: 06 September 2007 - 07:26 AM


#90 User is offline   magellan315 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1715
  • Joined: 20-August 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:29 AM

Quote

'ReadyOrNot' 'Sep 6 2007, 10:59 AM'
Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?



I'd like to know how you determined Geocaching is reaching critical mass? What methodology did you use?

This post has been edited by magellan315: 06 September 2007 - 07:34 AM


#91 User is offline   Ambrosia 

  • Center of Washington State
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8081
  • Joined: 03-June 02

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:31 AM

I still don't agree at all with people who say that you can't tell a lame micro (or regular cache) from a decent one, particularly while traveling. I've been on all sorts of trips, some of them to notorious "lame micro" type spots like Dallas/Fort Worth, Nasheville, Phoenix, LA, etc. And so far, I've been pleased for the most part. I'd have to say maybe about 90% or more of the time.

Dunno. Maybe I have some wonderful talent for sifting through the worst of it. Perhaps God is being extra helpful to me in this area. Or it could just be that I'm easy to please.

This post has been edited by Ambrosia: 06 September 2007 - 07:31 AM


#92 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20567
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:33 AM

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 6 2007, 10:23 AM, said:

... Would I want someone to throw away my cache? Of course not. Although, if I'm placing garbage, maybe they should... Look, I don't think anyone should throw away people's caches. I'm just trying to make a point, not advocating theft.

Maybe people should start reporting garbage caches as needs maintenance. I don't know what the answer is, that's why I'm here :)
I guess my problem is that I'm not sure what you mean by 'garbage caches'. The bulk of this thread is regarding caches that are traditionally derided as 'lame', not caches that require maintenance.

If you are suggesting that one should post a 'needs maintenance' for those caches that are in some way damaged, then I am in complete agreement. If you are suggested that you should post a 'needs maintenance' log for those caches that you merely didn't enjoy, I don't agree. That would merely make you a pariah.

#93 User is offline   4wheelin_fool 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6049
  • Joined: 31-January 02

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:38 AM

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 6 2007, 07:23 AM, said:


Maybe people should start reporting garbage caches as needs maintenance. I don't know what the answer is, that's why I'm here :)


Are you suggesting the "needs maintenence" attribute should be used more often on caches that need maintenence?

Or are you suggesting that everyone misuse the "needs maintenence" attribute, based on their own ego and personal desires?

#94 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Banned
  • Posts: 10134
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:38 AM

View PostTrinity's Crew, on Sep 6 2007, 06:55 AM, said:

<snip>

View Postbriansnat, on Sep 6 2007, 10:15 AM, said:

There must be a problem because this subject comes up in the forums like every 5 days or so. In my
6 years here I've yet to see a thread complaining about too many caches in interesting locations.

But I have seen MANY different types of caches described as lame.


Speaking of people (since it was brought up as a negative against the OP) who do a lot of talking about caching, but haven't done all too much of it. :)

This post has been edited by TheWhiteUrkel: 06 September 2007 - 07:52 AM


#95 User is offline   ReadyOrNot 

  • Self Portrait
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2210
  • Joined: 03-March 05

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:39 AM

View Postmagellan315, on Sep 6 2007, 08:29 AM, said:

Quote

'ReadyOrNot' 'Sep 6 2007, 10:59 AM'
Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?



I'd like to know how you determined Geocaching is reaching critical mass? What methodology did you use?


The methodology of common sense. It's a simple question of this: Are caches being created faster than they are being archived? Of course. The question is not IF we will reach critical mass, the question is when will we reach it. No different than a discussion of overpopulation. If the birth rate is increasing, overpopulation is going to happen, the argument is about when it's going to happen.

do you want to discuss when it's going to happen? or are you claiming it won't happen? Please clarify.

#96 User is offline   JustKeely 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 13-March 06

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:43 AM

I think one solution would be to host cache awards in your area. Austin does this and now we are doing this in Houston, and it really makes you examine what you think makes a good cache, then apply that filter to your own caches. Personally, it has inspired me to raise my cache placing to another level to try to win the award, and to seek out caches that are award-worthy. Once we annouce the results and get the HTML tags on the pages of caches that won, I think the newbies will see it on the pages, wonder what is about, and think about that when they place their caches.
Just an idea.
We do have a lot of "park-and-grabs" here in Houston, some better than others, and nothing I would consider terribly lame (except the one I was hunting for the other day in bushes between a busy road and a business that does not know it is there). I think that the Texas heat is part of it, for us. It is so hot in the summer that hunting high terrain caches becomes a safety concern, but we have a very active caching community that wants to continue to participate. We also have a series called Beat The Heat that many cachers participate in hiding, which consists of PnGs. I don't think it is lame, I think it is great, and it gives us a way to feed our fix when we are say running errands with the kids or on the way to something or other.
I think enforcing a certain standard of caches on everyone takes away from personal freedom, and to raise quality you have to promote and recognize quality.
That is my two cents.

#97 User is offline   wesleykey 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1112
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:46 AM

:)

#98 User is offline   ReadyOrNot 

  • Self Portrait
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2210
  • Joined: 03-March 05

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:49 AM

View Posthardings, on Sep 6 2007, 08:43 AM, said:

I think one solution would be to host cache awards in your area.


Wonderful idea! I think it would be even better if it was implemented as a site-wide feature.. But that's a whole different discussion :)

#99 User is offline   Michael 

  • Groundspeak Minion
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 19-January 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:53 AM

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 6 2007, 07:17 AM, said:

View PostJhwk, on Sep 6 2007, 08:15 AM, said:

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 6 2007, 07:04 AM, said:

View PostMushtang, on Sep 6 2007, 06:58 AM, said:

View PostCoyoteRed, on Sep 6 2007, 06:35 AM, said:

After reading the entire thread it becomes painfully obvious that plenty of folks simply don't get it. The OP is talking MicroSpew™, not micros or urban caches in general.

It's also painfully obvious that the OP was suggesting that people steal caches that they don't like and throw them in the garbage.

I hope you didn't miss those posts.


To the OP: If I can't voice my opinion, why don't you just shut this down now. (and I'm sorry for my vulgar use of the word "tird" -- Have you ever given a warning to someone for saying that before this?)

OP's can't close their own threads anymore, only the mods/admins can do that for us. :)
and yes, I have been warned about language use. There used to be a thread around here somewhere... WHich is where I apparantly went too far.


Ooops, I meant to say to the "MOD"... I wasn't talking to myself, really :)



Why does my post say Ringbone :)

#100 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20567
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 06 September 2007 - 07:57 AM

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 6 2007, 10:39 AM, said:

View Postmagellan315, on Sep 6 2007, 08:29 AM, said:

View PostReadyOrNot, on Sep 5 2007, 03:50 PM, said:

Geocaching is speeding rapidly towards critical mass............ what ways can you come up with to combat micro spew? How can we put a stop to it?
I'd like to know how you determined Geocaching is reaching critical mass? What methodology did you use?
The methodology of common sense. It's a simple question of this: Are caches being created faster than they are being archived? Of course. The question is not IF we will reach critical mass, the question is when will we reach it. No different than a discussion of overpopulation. If the birth rate is increasing, overpopulation is going to happen, the argument is about when it's going to happen.

do you want to discuss when it's going to happen? or are you claiming it won't happen? Please clarify.
Again (because I think you may have missed this in post 62), I fear that we are using alternate (and non-standard) definitions of 'critical mass'. Can you please let us know exactly how you define 'critical mass'?

As I understand the consept of 'critical mass', it is the point at which a system becomes self-sustaining and fuels further growth. As this relates to geocaching, one would imagine that this is the point at which there are enough caches placed to keep cachers interested in the game so they place more caches for others to find. If so, it happened years ago, in most areas. Is this not how you're defining 'critical mass'?

This post has been edited by sbell111: 06 September 2007 - 08:05 AM


Share this topic:


  • (12 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked