A couple of times this summer I tried doing noseeum, a micro cache near Huntsville. The cache is rated 5 as it is quite hard to find. This cache is typically found via brute force. You spend a few hours on your hands and knees looking for the cache. This was okay the first time but after a third hour on my knees I’d had enough. The CO was kind enough to send me a picture of the hide to satisfy my curiosity. It is a neat hide but with new growth on the ground the cache is nearly impossible to ‘see’.
I went out today to do a cache that is rated a 3. The cache is in a pile of rocks 3m X 20m. Three cachers logged finds in the first two days and the last 4 cachers have all logged DNF’s. Some other cachers did a nearby cache but I don’t see them logging this one so maybe they didn’t try it. Now that the rock pile is well disturbed you are never sure if you are in the right area. A cache rated 3 is supposed to be hard. I like hard, what I don’t like is brute force.
I thought about it some today when walking back to my car. Why don’t I find these kinds of caches fun? That’s when it dawned on me that I don’t like the brute force approach. That’s not why I cache. I cache so I can get outside and maybe see some interesting places. Piles of rocks or on my hands and knees does nothing for me. This is just my personal opinion. I’m sure there are people out there that like this kind of challenge.
teamvoyagr
I have been writing the cachemania blog since 2008. I'm interested in the development of geocaching and the many ways that people play the game.
Follow Me:
8 Comments until now
I agree with you! I’m not into the needle in a haystack type cache. Now a clever hide that is difficult is ok but the one that you’ll eventually get if you spend a long time combing through something turns me off. I’m for the beautiful views and the places that I’d never visit short of the cache being placed there.
Imagine if it was a nano!
I talked to someone that found the rock pile cache and went back and found the cache. A slight modification to the hint made the cache much more findable. It was still a three but not nearly as bad. An area 10 X 10 is a lot easier to search than 10 X 100.
They always seem a lot funner if you find em.. (i dont like them either)
I’m sure it’s a lot of fun for the person that spends the time to find it. I’d just rather find more nice caches than spend time one that isn’t a lot of fun.
Well, I’m two months late to this topic but thought I’d add my two cents anyway.
Like most others I’m in this for the fun. I get no fun at all hunting for the “needle in a haystack” hides. When I get to GZ and find a huge pile of rocks (or open field of grass, or cedar hedge, etc) I’m usually the first one to look at the hint. If the hint doesn’t provide specifics, I’ll spend minimal time searching. If the cache hider lacks the creativity to make a quality hide, I’ll put the same effort into my search. If I do happen to stumble upon the cache it’s still not a “fun” find for me…rather, it’ll either be remembered for it’s frustration or “lameness” or, it’ll not be remembered at all. Either way, it’s not something I’d ever want any of my own caches to be looked upon.
These kinds of caches have always been my number one reason for Groundspeak to add a cache rating system. Their new addition of the “Favourite” feature doesn’t begin to approach what is really needed. Yeah, it’s great to be able to list a dozen or so caches as your all-time favourites, but it doesn’t let you rate the cache properly.
~TT~
Arghh. Went off topic again…sorry.
[...] Related posts:No Joy in Brute Force Caching [...]
Add your Comment!