Matthew1344

Thanks to all of you for the valuable advice. By the way, I'm not surprised that this cache doesn't get 10 visits per day, I'm surprised that it hasn't had *any*. I assumed (evidently incorrectly) that there were more hiker-cachers out there than there are. Part of my purpose in placing this one so remotely was to *avoid* having 3-visits-per day. I tried to make it a rewarding cache for cachers who value quality over quantity, plus the journey itself will be a reward in itself. Happy caching!

I hid a cache (Pilgrim's Relief - GCJXBC) several months ago and nobody has found it yet. To my knowledge, only one person has attempted it. He didn't make it to the cache, but still seemed to have enjoyed the experience. It's the kind of cache that I personally love--it's at the climax of a tough but rewarding hike. You can get more details on a note that another cacher posted. There's not much volume in my description because I wanted the cache to be a bit mysterious. However, perhaps it is too mysterious? I am planning to rewrite the description, but I'd like some input on what kind of things might make it more attractive. Your advice is appreciated but please hurry--the Cheetos in the cache are getting stale... just kidding... no Cheetos.

Awesome new feature. Thanks, Jeremy!

Thanks!

For long hikes with a pack and trekking poles, I'd like to rig up something to attach my eTrex to the top of a hat (I'd get whatever hat I needed to handle the job). I know it would look a little funny, but I can't think of a better place to maintain my signal when walking through wooded areas. Any ideas?

I'll step forward now as having been one of the "confused" about the contest/sweepstakes. Initially, I assumed that finding a Jeep TB would enter me into the drawing for a new Jeep. The front page of jeep.geocaching.com reads (in bold print): (emphasis mine) Having been there myself, I can see where some confusion might arise. On the other hand, once you realize there is both a "contest" and a "sweepstakes" (and realize that the two are not referring to the same event) and read the rules for both, it's pretty obvious. I'm not sure who to thank (Jeremy, et. al.), but the contest is really exciting! I found one TB already and grabbed a couple of others.

Thanks, Jeremy... I'm not even sure who you are, but the site is great. And a note to all... some posts aren't worth responding to. Fight the urge.

As someone pointed out to me earlier, "micro" is a size, not a type. Different types currently have different icons. You can't really make a micro a type because a cache can be a Multi-cache and a micro. Which type would you give it? Multi or Micro? Also, adding another cache type ("Micro" in your suggestion) would require every cache to be evaluated as to whether or not it should be a "Micro" type instead of its current type. The reason I'm starting out with the assumption that identifying cache size is the way to go is because: 1) The data is already stored (traditional caches in general already have a size assigned to them--or they are unknowns). 2) People who do not care about the feature would not be inconvenienced by this whereas they would be if cache types were changed around. 3) Being a programmer myself, I think this would be an easy (relatively speaking) change that would excite many of us, yet hinder none. Are there any more suggestions as an answer to the original question: IF the guys at GC.com decided to distinguish cache sizes on search pages and maps (they've already worked their wonders with PQs), what might be the best (most helpful) way?

Agreed. We haven't heard "exactly what we want" yet. So far, all of the suggestions that each of us have mentioned do have their flaws. But I do appreciate those of you who are giving it some thought. I asked, "what would be the best (most helpful) way" to identify cache sizes on maps and searches because I'm looking for the most helpful way "IF" it were done. A new topic (which might be called, "Should there be a more obvious distinction between cache sizes?") would be appropriate for the very arguable opinion that it isn't needed.

I do want to hear all the answers to the question I asked, which was:

From the original post: I know some of you don't care to have a distinction between cache sizes, but please respect the fact that some of us do care and would like to talk about it.

There is also an "Unknown" cache size. At least, Pocket Queries think there is.

Are there? I don't think so. I think all traditionals (regardless of size) are the same icon. All I know is that if I create a pocket query, there are check boxes for "unknown", "virtual", and "other" cache sizes. Some people want to find *any* cache, while some of us often want to see only certain sizes on search results and maps (or at least be able to tell the difference without looking up individual caches). GC.com already defines cache sizes. Size requirements are a discussion in themselves, but to avoid confusion, we should probably talk about that in a different topic. I'm only interested in how to display the data as it currently exists in the database. In other words, if the hider calls the cache size "regular", we should just assume it really is large enough to be considered a regular.

Hey! That's GREAT artwork! I'm not sure it would go over well to show a completely different icon for micros... though I consider them to be a different type, micro fans don't. Hey, yeah... I like that idea for searches, although it doesn't help much when looking at a map. Maybe if the map would allow you to show only certain sizes (just as it does types)? Wouldn't that be a plus, since some people will oppose any change at all? Thanks to both of you... great ideas!

In my limited--though very rewarding--caching experience, I have often wished that I could identify cache types when looking at search results pages and maps without drilling down into each of the cache details pages. This is purely a HYPOTHETICAL question, but... IF the guys at GC.com decided to distinguish cache sizes on search pages and maps (they've already worked their wonders with PQs), what might be the best (most helpful) way? What about adjusting the icon size on search results and maps to reflect the container size? In other words, micro, regular, and large caches would have small, medium, and large icons respectively. Even then, what could be done about unknowns, "others", and virtual containers (I'm not sure what that even means)? Perhaps a subdued icon or pale version of the regular, or maybe a regular with a question mark on it? Any thoughts are welcome, but please do try to stay on the subject. This is not a discussion on whether or not the distinction between cache sizes should be made.

Micro: a cache that the owner has labeled "micro" That wasn't difficult at all. I'll ignore this... Yes, the site is great and the staff does a MAGNIFICENT job with it. I'm in no position to demand anything. And to use your own metaphor, if I am at a restaurant I would like to see something more specific than just the word "seafood" on the menu. I would like to see both "shrimp" and "lobster". (GC.com has provided this by distinguishing between the cache types.) Further, it would be nice if I could tell from the menu whether the shrimp would be cocktail or scampi. And your smaller icons on maps idea does have me thinking... hmm... a new thread is born...

No "beef" here. You and your household can hunt micros all you want. I'm not opposing that. I'm just saying that they are different enough be distinguished or filtered on maps and searches for those of us who don't want to see them.

Yeah, I'm sure it's frustrating if your area doesn't have a lot of caches. I'm thankful that mine does. I guess the best way to help is to hide one yourself and tell a friend to go find it. I just hid my first one this past weekend. It's waiting for approval now. It's a regular.

I appreciate that and feel the same way about features that are not personally beneficial to me. I realize that there are a lot of other features that could be added, though I don't have any idea how many people each one would benefit. I guess it would be the job of GC.com to determine that. You may well be right. I guess I somewhat agree except for a few things: 1) When caching with my daughter I would want to avoid even "trading" caches if they are so small that we have trouble finding anything in our bag to leave. (this is part of why I'm so persistent about the size) 2) Is the trading/non-trading information stored? If not, I think it would be a simpler change if the information was already stored... and cache size is already there. (Being a "resource" myself, I would want the change to require as few resources as are necessary). 3) Size achieves my goal the vast majority of the time. I bet that for every regular log-book-only cache, there are 100's of trading regulars. Likewise, (and yes, I realize this may vary by area) for every trading micro there are 100's of non-trading micros. Whether my request is ever granted or not, hats off to the staff of GC.com! They do an incredible job with the site.

I realize that my last post was long, so I'm sorry if your eyes got tired before finishing it. The bottom line of my post is that to some people micros and regulars are different enough that they deserve an obvious distinction wherever they are seen together (search page and maps, as well as PQ's). And, oh, I really like the idea of someone respecting the "Cache listing Requirements / Guidlines" of Geocaching.com by calling a regular a micro. From the site: Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller, typically containing only a logbook) Regular (Tupperware-style container or ammo can) Large (5 gallon bucket or larger) As someone once said, "Remember to always trade kindly. The person after you should be as pleased as you are." I won't apologize for my 4-year-old giving even though she didn't receive.

Sounds like you don't have kids. Actually, once my daughter leaves it it will have something in it... she wouldn't want the next little girl or boy to be disappointed like she was. And I guess instead of buying Cracker Jacks for my daughter, I should just go *buy* her some tatoos or a plastic ring? I'm not saying micros are evil or that no one should hunt them or place them. I'm just saying that from my daughter's perspective they're like getting an empty prize package in your Cracker Jacks. Would she choose Cracker Jacks without the prize? Maybe, but the fun of seeing what's in the package makes it a lot more fun and keeps her choosing Cracker Jacks instead of Crunch 'N Munch. Micros would be of no consequence to me at all if I had a way to completely ignore them or identify them on searches and maps. And PerkyPerks... Smokem peace pipe? I apologize if you perceived my statement that you were "wrong" to be judgement against your preference of cache. This is not what I meant. The "wrong" that I assigned was to bons' assessment of what is desired by placing restrictions on guidelines. Looking back, I see that I should have read more carefully and been more clear in my statements. When I do a search, I want to avoid micros--not lame regulars. It is the size of the container that I am concerned with. No doubt, my daughter would be disappointed to find an empty ammo can, but even then I could teach her about giving being better than receiving. My bottom line is, when I do a search or look at a map, I only want to see hides which have the capacity to store a selection of items (lame or not) that my daughter will enjoy seeing. I know there are others that feel the same. It's not that I want micros banished or even regulated. We just want to know that a cache we see on a map or in search results are micros without drilling down to the details. It may be a location thing, but I just searched a radius of 10 miles from my zip and got back 24 caches... 14 of them were micros, only 8 were "regulars". Surrounding areas are even less "regular". We may refer to micros as a cache size, but it could be argued that the practical application makes them a completely different animal that some of us would prefer to avoid. One more time... I don't want them taken away, I just want to be able to distinguish them from regulars wherever I see them (in searches, in maps, and in Pocket Queries--this is done... THANKS to the awesome staff of geocaching.com!).

1) You couldn't be more wrong. I have yet to come across a regular cache with nothing in it. My little girl has *never* been disappointed with a regular. On the other hand, due to her dissatisfaction with the one micro I took her to (and it was a "good" one), I do not want to take her to another. Bigger isn't necessarily better, but (as my daughter sees it) something IS better than nothing. Nothing = Lameness. Anyway, if I had an opinion that there is no such thing as a good micro, so what? Maybe I'm harming myself by missing out on some good caches, but that's not the issue. The issue is: Since it would help some of us and is likely a relatively simple change, why not distinguish (and or filter) cache size on the search results page? 2) I paid my $3, and I DO want the feature... and the mere existence of this conversation proves that I'm not alone. To some of us, (whether you can understand this or not) cache size is as important if not more so than the difficulty level, terrain level, cache name, owner, date placed, or date last found. I agree with you completely about praising the good caches, but that is another topic. I'm not complaining about caches, I'm just saying it would be tremendously helpful for some of us if the cache size was on the search results page. That's all.

Oh, yes, lovely. Snap! Just like that! This *feature* should attract millions to the sport! Seriously, I'm sure this is a great system for the person who created it, but it's hardly user-friendly. WHY IS THIS TOPIC SO HOT ? The only thing I can imagine is that people who don't mind micros have exactly what they want and they fear: 1) Any implication that their 100 micro cash hides are inferior to someone else's 10 regular hides. 2) That if an obvious distinction is made between micros and regulars it might affect the impressiveness of their 10,000 micro guard-rail finds. 3) Time spent to please someone other than themselves is a waste of time. Honestly, I don't care about how many hides or finds you have. In my area, there are so many micros that there needs to be a simple way for anybody (newbies included) to exclude them--or at least quickly identify and ignore them--if that's not what they're interested in. Conversely, if they like micros and hate regulars, fantastic! Flame on. ---------------------------------------------- cache - a secure place of storage - Mirriam-Webster Dictionary What can you "store" in a tic-tac box?

I would be able to talk more families into trying geocaching if the search results (on the non-paid-members site) wasn't cluttered (as we see it) with micros. It may indeed be a regional thing. There may be some places where this is not an issue at all. All I know about is my area.

The bottom line is, I (and many others) would like to see the cache size on the search results page and so far no one has offered a good reason why *not* to include it.