A caches LQ - Lameness Quotient

Summary from: What is your definition of a lame cache?

It is often stated in the forums that lameness is subjective. What is lame to me may not be lame to you. I'm wondering if most people differ in what they consider lame or if there is a general consensus of a few certain features which would deem a cache lame by the majority of cachers.

• random container, random place with no special history, view, nature, hike or other feature, a cache description of less than 3 lines of text
•  Guardrail cache along major highway, nothing to see for miles (except that nice park about 2 miles down the road with no cache).
• Many factors combine to achieve what I like to call a cache's Lameness Quotient, or LQ.
  These include, but are not limited to the location, the container, the hide style and the write up.
• Example of an "on-purpose" poster-child of lame caches: Always Lame
• A cache in a completely unremarkable location, this includes many LPCs, Guard Rail and Cattle Guard caches.
• A cache made from a container which is not up to the elements, i.e will leak or decompose within a year.
• A cache which makes poor use of natural cover, particularly where there exists abundant cover for a small, medium or large cache, but a micro has been placed.
• Yet another travelbug hotel - seriously, can we stop creating these? When they are muggled it's a major loss.
• Needle in haystack - When I see the cache is small or micro in a big pile of rocks, I just move on, I don't have time for that.
• A cache placed where visitors will do harm to the environment - I've seen a few placed in sandstone or serpentine where climbing to search for it will, or already has torn away the slope or rock face.
• Any hide which modifies or damages the hide location in a permanent nature, particularly without permission from park, land owner or land management - when a cache is remove there should be no trace it was ever there - no metal plates, no Velcro, no holes bored.
• Unsafe containers which may cut, pinch or otherwise injure someone trying to open them in a reasonable manner (if you get hit by a ricochet while trying to shoot one open, that's your own dumb fault.)
• Placed and forgotten hides - the CO thought Geocaching was a blast and wanted to do one or more hides and then abandoned the game - these may be good or ingenious, but a neglected hide eventually becomes a problem for other geocachers.
• Bottlecap hides - a bottle cap is litter, expect it to be picked up. Try gluing your vessel to a rock or piece of wood instead.
• Caches which needlessly place seekers at risk - there's challenging terrain and then there's dangerous terrain where a cache should never be placed - i.e. on a branch overhanging a pool of crocodiles.
• Caches where the CO is off on coordinates by a significant distance, such as 50 feet, or more, depending upon terrain - 50 feet in a fairly open spot, not a problem, but 50 feet in a hillside, thick with undergrowth can be a real bother and encourage a lot of geotrail making.
• ask "why did you bring me here!?!" If we cannot readily determine the answer, the lame-o-meter will begin to twitch!
• A cache placed only because there was a space on the map.
  A cache who's only redeeming quality is that I got a smilie for finding it.
• Most caches in parking lots would fit that criteria. There are, however, exceptions that are hidden on guard rails or in parking logs that offer something unique (or at least not common) to the experience. That can be done in a variety of ways. All it takes is a little imagination and initiative. If a CO hasn't tried to use a little imagination and initiative it's probably going to be a lame cache.