The Inexorable Rise of the Pointless Micro

[nobbynobbs]

There are two options ignore all micros or put some effort into selecting good ones to visit. Educating people is not an option IMO, an educated person shouldn't even consider "educating" others round to their rather narrow view of the world. Caching is a diverse hobby lets keep it that way instead of dumbing it down to suit a few who want to twist it to fit their own preferences.

So either I'm not educated? or I'm dumbing down things to my own twisted view of the world????????


moving on.

To be honest I'd rather take the risk that I miss one or two caches that I would love because others have visited and rated them low. Than to have to ignore all caches of one type.
So my preference would be to have a simple rating system attached to the online log. This would at least give you a way of estimating whether you would like the cache or not.

Spend time finding out about whether a cache is worth visiting. Well that requires a crystal ball, I can look on a map and have an idea that a cache may or may not be in a good location but that doesn't then tell me about what I will find at ground zero that the ordnance survey didn't think to include a symbol for. Plus on a lot of logs these days you often find people only write long logs for a cache that really rocks their world. Often average caches have short logs just like rubbish ones. Which is a shame as well but a different thread.

[t.a.folk]

To us ,size of container doesn't make a cache pointless or not .
To us, a micro placed in the end of a bridge railing over a dual carriage- way is no better, of worse ,than an ammo hidden under covering below end of similar railing .
For us ,a micro with damp log roll is often a less tacky experience than rummaging through mouldy contents in a rusty ammo trying to find the mouldy log book .We don't do swops .

Ratings would do nothing for us .
We don't mind spending time reading owners cache details and refering to map to glean an idea of what we might expect .Might even read a few logs ,though me ol'man doesn't like to know what others have written before we go .
Being curious , we might still go to seek even if it reads not too good ,just to see how bad it is or not .
Often get nice surprises because ,for example ,one's persons idea of very boggy/muddy route or might just be because they don't have much experience of walking off tarmac pavements and have not worn appropiate footwear .

What does disapoint us is to go to a recently placed cache that has old existing litter around . Then we wonder why the owner placed it .
(and the litter is too horrible to pick up and remove without specialists gear )

[uktim]

So either I'm not educated? or I'm dumbing down things to my own twisted view of the world????????


moving on.

To be honest I'd rather take the risk that I miss one or two caches that I would love because others have visited and rated them low. Than to have to ignore all caches of one type.
So my preference would be to have a simple rating system attached to the online log. This would at least give you a way of estimating whether you would like the cache or not.

Spend time finding out about whether a cache is worth visiting. Well that requires a crystal ball, I can look on a map and have an idea that a cache may or may not be in a good location but that doesn't then tell me about what I will find at ground zero that the ordnance survey didn't think to include a symbol for. Plus on a lot of logs these days you often find people only write long logs for a cache that really rocks their world. Often average caches have short logs just like rubbish ones. Which is a shame as well but a different thread.

It's down to the individual to make their own choices in life, but surely an educated person should be able to see the wider picture, appreciate that others have different views and let them get on with it? I will point out that I never said that your view of the world was twisted, re-read my post and you should realise this.

Many people appear to see a cache as merely the cache and it's very immediate surroundings, I see it as a focus for a walk, a day out with the family. The cache is a very small part of the day. I study the map and envisage the approach and departure routes, I may see a nice ridge walk, a stroll alongside a river, a flight of locks to view or even the potential for an ice cream shop. In this context the size of the cache and it's exact final location are minor considerations, furthermore I'd feel cheated if the cache setter sought to dictate the route by which I approached and gave away to much of the detail.

Our concepts of caching are different and we need to tolerate the views of others instead of seeking to "educate" them to our way of thinking.

Take a step back and celebrate the diversity of caching instead of seeking to convert others to your own chosen style.

[nobbynobbs]

But the point is I am celebrating the diversity, We're just trying to find a way to make it easier for people to make their own choices.

I fail to see what interest anyone would get from a 35mm pot stuffed under a bush , say near loads of needles and dog eggs, with no view no reason for being there other than the person wanted to place a cache. the same would go for an ammo can the size of a car in the same location.
if you don't think it would be nice to have some simple way to spot these then that's fine, why not embrace the idea that others might like to have an option to not find it or have to have it on their pq's? This is probably just a wild fantasy but wouldn't it be nice for people to have the easy choice that you want?

An regarding education. It is possible that someone could place a cache of any size in a location that is not suitable for whatever reason. I personally would appreciate someone pointing out that I might have made a mistake and could be doing damage or putting people at risk because of it's location. Always good to learn something new every day and not just want to go through life with blinkers on believing that I know the answers to the world

[agentmancuso]

I think it likely that the average quality of new caches would be improved considerably by having a minimum number of finds that cachers had to reach before having new caches accepted.

[keehotee]

I think it likely that the average quality of new caches would be improved considerably by having a minimum number of finds that cachers had to reach before having new caches accepted.

Hush my mouth.....I don't think there's a single cacher with more than a years experience behind them that would disagree with you - but for some reason this is one of those taboo subjects that shall not be discussed in the open....

Edited to add...... NOT to imply that finding experience is directly related to hide quality. We've all found really good caches (well, I have, at least) that were hidden by cachers with finds in single digits. Conversely, there are hundreds of caches out there hidden by people with years of experience and finds running into the thousands that I'd put straight onto my iggy list if I'd known about them beforehand.

Whilst it might be a good idea to include a guideline to state that somebody might need a certain number of hides before they could hide a cache, how is that going to help somebody that finds 100 2/2 micros in their first month of caching (easy if you live around Bristol / Wiltshire) hide a nice, well stocked, thoughtfully hidden box???

No - I'm going to stick to my first line of attack - honest logging. While I agree that not everybody is going to agree with my taste in caches or level of criticism, some people will. And I theirs.
I know some people have said that logs will eventually average out....but that neglects the fact that logs aren't anonymous....and eventually people will recognise the logs of people whose tastes coincide with their own....

Second edit-- what I'm trying to say is, if we all logged caches honestly, people with the same taste in caches would get a better idea of the quality of the cache (in their opinion) than an anonymous numerical rating system would ever give.
This would work equally well for any cache - be it a micro in a poo infested layby, or an ammo can on the top of Ben Whatever. They all have their fans.

[The Other Stu]

I for one can accept if someone wants to say one of my caches was carp (or any other fish variety).

But how about going one further? On fleabay, there's a complaint button if something is in the wrong category (certain "bodily enhancements" listed with sports cars for instance)

How about a button that says "This is a pointless 1/1 nano hidden in a forest when an Ammo can could have been placed here (or even better, the Wombles' now infamous plastic bin thingy)"?

I have that mobile cache TB lunchbox thingy with me at the moment. I have every intention to place it ATTACHED to a micro (or even better a nano) to prove that a micro may not have been the best container to have placed in that exact spot.

But it's the whole quantity v quality argument all over again. We've been here many, many times before. Some of us play the numbers game and some of us play the long walk with a puzzle and a cache at the end.