This is always a touchy subject and probably should be in it's own thread, but I'll weigh in a bit and TRY to be fair minded about it.

Fact: There are more micros now than there ever were, and there is a much much higher percentage of micros than there ever were.

Fact: Micros are not necessarily low quality, nor are low quality caches necessarily micros. This has been true since caching started.

Fact: Everyone has their own opinion of what constitutes lesser quality in a cache, whether it is location, size, container, hide method, or whatever.

Now comes the opinion mixed with some fact:

I don't think the ratio of what I consider a lesser quality cache has been consistent with the number of caches placed. I think the event which caused the largest jump in the percentage of these caches was the removal of virtual caches from gc.com. Why they removed a cache type that the placer was required to explain why the spot was worthy and replace it with a type that could be haphazardly placed is beyond me. The other largest thing that I think promotes lesser quality cache hides is the promotion of 'the numbers'. This has existed since caching started and has had upswings and downswings through time.

That being said, I am not sure if the percentage of what I consider to be lesser quality caches is much greater than it ever was. If, when I started, 10 of the 150 (6%) caches available were 'lame', that same percentage would be 331 of the available caches now. I do know my expectations have lowered - that my definition of a lesser quality cache has lowered.