Matthew1344
-
Posts
44 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Matthew1344
-
-
I have only one thing to say in this thread which is: lead by example. If you like traditional caches, hide some ...
I agree completely. I don't have any hides yet, but then I only have 12 finds. I do have some very creative hides in mind. I may not hide 100 caches (and of course, I'll hide ZERO micros), but I will make mine such that if you ever visit one it will be very memorable.
-
Plus, I think Basic Members should also be able to see the cache size, though they can't use Pocket Queries.
I am not going to recommend becoming a premium member as that would be too easy.
Again... I *am* a Premium Member.
-
Sure, but that isn't what this topic is about. You wouldn't be "Excluding micros from search results", only identifying them.
I think that would satisfy most customers.
Agreed.
If it were possible to spot micros in the search listings without having to load individual pages to check the size attribute, it would save the user time and relieve some small burden from the website. If people want to screen them out entirely, they can pay extra for the pocket queries as has already been suggested.
I agree as well. I'd like to be able to filter them out, but I would be satisfied with identifying them.
-
Want a list of caches that aren't micros? No problem, cough up the $30 a year and get your PQs.
*cough*... *cough* . . . OH wait a minute!... I *AM* a premium member!
Pocket Queries are for routine searches, but why is it such a problem to consider showing the cache size on the search results page?
Several here have stated that it would be helpful to them, and there has been no evidence presented to suggest that it would be harmful to any! So if it's not a major endeavor, WHY NOT?
-
If we were in this for large containers and what they may hold I do not believe we would be looking forward to the next hunt.... Pocket queries seem to be the way to go to isolate what I want and do not want.
It's not that my daughter hopes to find a bicycle in the container... she just hates the ones where there is no surprise. It's like Cracker Jacks with no prize.
Yes, Pocket Queries are okay (and as far as I know the *only* way isolate specific types of caches), but the icon change would be even better.
Plus, I think Basic Members should also be able to see the cache size, though they can't use Pocket Queries.
-
There's also one more thing to think about...
Since there do exist those of us who strongly prefer the larger containers, it stands to reason that there are potential geocachers who would also be more attracted to geocaching by a particular size (whether regular or micro). I know a couple of people who I think would enjoy geocaching if they didn't think it was all about finding film canisters. (I'm not putting words in their mouths, that's how they think of it.)
-
It just doesn't seem like it would be too hard or complicated to include the cache size attribute in the search listings for the benefit of those who don't like micros, and those that do.
Thank you. That's exactly what I have been trying to say, and *YOU* said it simply and without sarcasm! You've brought dignity back to this to the discussion.
Can we lower the threat level now?
-
I guess the threat level is my fault, so I'll see if I can't bring it back down...
My hope here was not to start a debate over the virtue of micro caches. Suffice it to say that, some of us generally like them and some of us generally don't. (And if I wasn't trying to bring the threat level down, I might add here that there are "others who seem to deny that there is any difference between a regular and a micro" -- THE WORLD IS FLAT!... though "flat" isn't really a different "type" of world, but rather just a different *shape* . . . , but I digress...).
In all seriousness, my purpose was only to ask if there are others like me out there who would like to see the cache "size" in the search results (either by a different icon or otherwise), and possibly be able to exclude unwanted types from the results. That's all.
And so from the posts Mopar refrenced:
"Short of going into each cache in turn, is there an easy way to filter on the cache size ??"
"Could you add a new cache type for micros? The current cache type listing includes the micros in with the traditional caches."
"We have a lot of micros in the Memphis area and it would be nice to filter those out..."
"I would like to offer up a suggestion to differentiate regular size caches from micro size caches."
Yeah, looks like I'm all alone!
-
You are new, you have found a handful of caches. ... with over 500 previous finds, I ...
Okay, you are the guru of geocaching and the King of everything... now that we've established that....
Would anyone like to see the cache size added to the search results screen and the ability to filter certain sizes?
-
The website is tailored to be easy to use and useful to the large majority of users. If you are not part of that majority, then use the tool provided for you, rather then try and complicate things for everyone else.
Yeah... you've figured me out... that's all I want... I'm looking to complicate things for everyone and I figured the best way to completely confound your world would be to add the cache size to the search results. I'm quite the evil genius.
- Matthew1344 (a.k.a. Simon LeGree)
Premium Member
-
I didn't say "ALL". I realize that I'm focusing on generalities.
Maybe there's a wildly exciting magnetic key case out there somewhere (with a vast assortment of plastic whistles, CD's, and travel bugs in it, apparently) that I will exclude by filtering out micros. I can handle that severe threat.
I'm sorry that the 4 micro's you've actually experienced have left such a bad taste in your mouth. Interestingly enough, when I just revisited this thread, it was right below one titled The Kind Of Logs I Like. Earlier, in that thread, I posted some pics of two AWESOME cache locations. It just dawned on me that both of those were micros. The first one is a small log only cache. Hidden very creatively, it's just 2ft off the path practically in plain sight, yet many people have trouble finding it. The second cache I posted there would also be considered a micro, yet it had a logbook, trade items, and a travel bug in it.
But WHY NOT show the existing attribute of container size on the search results page? It would seem that this could be done almost immediately, where new attributes would require all cache owners to update their existing caches (and would take a lot more work).
I'm not suggesting that this distinction is something that *everybody* will care about, but some of us will and there is no harm done to those who do not.
I'm not positive, but I would suspect every search parameter you add would also add to the server load. You would still have to search for every cache in the defined area, then filter out the micros. I'm guessing again (I don't know much about DB design) but every time anyone searched, even those people looking for all 3 cache sizes, each search would still have the added (useless) task of checking the cache size on every page. So there could be a very real "harm" to those who don't, in the form of reduced website performance. The real time free-user searches have to be a compromise between function and server load. By adding the function to the members only PQs, TPTB can limit the added drain to paying members, and also, since the PQs aren't exactly in real-time, there's probably a lower load on the system.
My question restated:
"Would anyone like to see an option to exclude
micros from search results on the site?"
Had I realized the question would raise controversy, I would have asked:
"Would anyone like to see the cache size added
to the search results screen and the ability to
filter certain sizes?"
Of course, for me that can only mean one thing: that I don't have to look through 65 caches to find 7 regulars.
About the database design issue... I *am* a database developer, and this feature would *not* pose any threats at all. (Unless the database was very poorly designed in the first place, but I don't think that is the case here.).
Again, don't worry about me. If I happen to miss 3 excellent caches by filtering out hundreds of what I consider to be bad ones, that's okay. I promise to take full responsibility for my self-inflicted horrors.
Why is it so important to you to convince me of the virtues of micro caches? I - do - not - like - them. You do? Congratulations! I hope you and your Tic-Tac case have a wonderful life together.
-
If you don't like micros, get out of the ... city!
That's exactly why I think the boundaries should be better defined, so that those of you who (generally) like micros can include them and those of us who (generally) don't can avoid them.
-
Seriously, I see your point you're trying to make, but not ALL micros are scraps of paper in a 35mm tossed under a bush, just like not ALL regular size caches are gladware tossed under a bush. You really seem to want to sort out log-only caches, which would be a cache attribute, not a cache size. Cache attributes are something that TPTB here have said is in the site's future...
I didn't say "ALL". I realize that I'm focusing on generalities.
Maybe there's a wildly exciting magnetic key case out there somewhere (with a vast assortment of plastic whistles, CD's, and travel bugs in it, apparently) that I will exclude by filtering out micros. I can handle that severe threat.
And perhaps there's a 50-gallon drum out there with nothing in it but a broken pencil and a piece of paper wrapped around it that I will INCLUDE by filtering out micros. I can deal with that possibility as well.
VERY GENERALLY, micros contain paper and pencil, where regulars contain an assortment of things that 4-year-olds go for.
A "log-only' attribute? That's great too! But WHY NOT show the existing attribute of container size on the search results page? It would seem that this could be done almost immediately, where new attributes would require all cache owners to update their existing caches (and would take a lot more work).
I'm not suggesting that this distinction is something that *everybody* will care about, but some of us will and there is no harm done to those who do not.
-
It was pretty easy to see just how much expertise/experience you have with micros, since you only have 11 physical finds. Of those, 4 are micros.
... you will start finding some (micros) that show plenty of thought and creativity.
First, I didn't say had a lot of experience (and I didn't even use the word "expertise") in finding micro caches (or any kind caches, for that matter--actually I'm pretty lousy at it). I only stated what the descriptions of most micros *say themselves* that they contain:
- "Contains only a log"
- "Contains only a log and pencil"
- "Contents: Log only. Bring your own pencil."
- "Contains only a log and pencil" (and now a drywall screw)
Why are you trying to convince me that I should like micros? I'm not trying to convince you to dislike micros. My point is NOT "micros must die!" I simply would like to see an obvious distinction between them and regulars.
SunshineSnuz, you're exactly right. What do you do if you search for zip code 55555 and a cache with "D/T" of "3/4" pops up (and the max you'll do with your child is a 2/2)? You don't check it for download, right? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO WITH MICROS, but I can't because there is no major distinction.
-
Actually, it seems you are complaining about log-only caches, not micros.
I'm not complaining about *any* cache, I'm complaining that there is little distinction on the website between two significantly different types--regular and micro.
From what I've seen, 9 of 10 micros store nothing but a log book (or should I say, a log *shred*) and (sometimes) a pencil. I once left a small drywall screw anchor in one because it was rolling around in the bottom of my bag and was the only thing I had that would fit. It bothered me not to leave *something*, even though there was nothing to take.
Anyway... I'm not suggesting that micros be wiped from existence. Perhaps even I would even like them more if it weren't for the fact that my 4-year-old looks so forward to finding the "treasure".
The fact that this discussion generates controversy "once or twice a month" is confirmation that Regulars and Micros are very different animals and deserve much greater distinctions than they currently have.
-
I wish I could filter out the stinkin' green boxes so I could just search for the real man's caches: Magnificant Micros!
This is exactly the guy whose caches I want to avoid.
*I* consider micros cheap, unimaginative, and litter on the geocaching landscape. They require no effort (financially or mentally--yeah, yeah, I know there are exceptions) on the part of the hider, and give little reward on the part of the finder. When was the last time you found something interesting in a micro? "Hey... this guy used *yellow* paper for his log! How inventive!" I'd much rather find even a virtual cache than a micro. Show a beginner a micro cache and you get, "Look, if I knew you needed a stubby pencil and a post-it note so badly I could have just reached under the seat of my car."
But this is all only *my* opinion! I realize that there are people out there who like micros! Fine! I am not suggesting that micros be taken away, I just want to be able to avoid them myself.
Why would anyone have a problem with that?
By the way, since this discussion began, I have become a premium member and can now filter out the nasty little critters. Still, I think they belong in a completely different category.
-
No.
Some micros are fun, I have hid 1 micro because there was no way I could hide a larger container.
All my hides from now on will be 5 gallon buckets (ok I got a deal on buckets)
In before the lock.
I agree... some micros are fun... so if I want to look for one I should check the "include micros" checkbox.
I'm glad to hear the feature is available for premium members. That's definitely an incentive to become one!
-
I recently read and sympathize with the article in "Today's Cacher": Where Have All the Green Boxes Gone?
Just as the author of the article, I have no problem with micro caches in themselves, but I don't care to look for them myself.
Would anyone else like to see an option to exclude micros from search results on the site?
Does Geocaching Need Micro Guidelines?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
No, no, no. Nobody is concerned about anything but traditional micros.
Why is there such insistence that this is an enormous task? All that is necessary is to put the cache size on the search results page. Sure, we size-discriminators would prefer to be able to filter them out of our results completely, but just knowing it's a micro before I get excited about it and open it up is enough.
I know that many of you out there can't understand why we want to avoid micros. For my part, it has much to do with children. My daughter loves to find "the treasure". She's not mature enough to appreciate the hunt in itself. And I must admit, when hunting a micro I find that the enthusiasm is over as soon as my eye spots the container, whereas there is still more to come when I spot the ammo can. I, too, am always excited to open the can and see what odd (or not so odd) things people have left--and to leave something myself.
I don't mean to open up the pro/anti micro debate, I just hope to explain why some of us so prefer regulars to micros. It seems there are basically 2 kinds of Geocachers: Those who want to hunt regulars (or larger) only, and those who want to hunt regulars AND micros.
It seems that there is no harm done to the latter group by putting cache size on the search results (or even by a filter-by-size option), yet it helps the former tremendously. So why not do it?