New category for nano?

[+tollerdudes]

Has it ever been considered? I mean, the size difference of a 35 mm. film container and a nano is considerable, so I thought it might make sense to have new category for nanos.

 

 

And no, this is not a place to continue the lame micro/LPC rant...

[+Jhwk]

yes, it has been considered.

 

yes, I think it is a valid problem.

 

no, there will not be a new category. imho

[Mushtang]

I would guess it would probably help people eliminate all the new nano sized caches from PQs if they wanted, but what about all the current nano caches that are already sized as a Micro? It's doubtful that enough people would go back and change their size catagory, so you'd still be left with a LOT of mis-categorized caches.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I would guess it would probably help people eliminate all the new nano sized caches from PQs if they wanted, but what about all the current nano caches that are already sized as a Micro? It's doubtful that enough people would go back and change their size catagory, so you'd still be left with a LOT of mis-categorized caches.

 

Going out on a limb and guessing here but it seems that the average life of a nano would be a fraction of other types of caches, I think eventually this would work itself out. Also, if there was a legit classification for nanos it would be okay to mention that it is a nano in your log. I like the idea but just because it was discussed here doesn't mean it is actually being considered.

[+Monkeybrad]

It looks to me like nano is a size, not a type of cache.

[+Sileny Jizda]

To classify it is fine with me. It'd clear up the difference in size between a film canister so we'd know what to expect. I know some places around my hometown that look interesting and would be to some others that would work better with a nano than a film canister. Yes, changing the logs is a regular task but that comes with anything.

[+Thrak]

Oh, this again.

[+Tsmola]

It looks to me like nano is a size, not a type of cache.

 

exactly, when are people gonna get it through their thick skulls?

 

MICROS/NANOS ARE A CACHE SIZE NOT A CACHE TYPE!

Edited August 9, 2007 by Tsmola

[Mushtang]

It looks to me like nano is a size, not a type of cache.

 

exactly, when are people gonna get it through their thick skulls?

 

MICROS/NANOS ARE A CACHE SIZE NOT A CACHE TYPE!

Well, before you completely come unglued over this, go back and re-read the thread. Nowhere does anyone in this thread (so far) claim that micro is a cache type, and not a size.

 

Who's skull is thick?

 

edit - Whoops, I found one. But that doesn't seem to justify the name calling and the screaming.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Mushtang

[+tollerdudes]

Thanks mushtang. I myself was also wondering where it was mentioned that nanos were a cache type...

[+Kit Fox]

Has it ever been considered? I mean, the size difference of a 35 mm. film container and a nano is considerable, so I thought it might make sense to have new category for nanos.

 

 

Oh, this again.

 

 

The search function is your friend

 

Nano Cache Category

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

 

I'll be glad to reiterate my opinion on this too.

 

Do you have any idea how big a "nanometer" really is?

 

A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A meter is about 39 inches long. A billion is a thousand times bigger than a million, as a number you write it out as 1,000,000,000. That is a big number and when you divide a meter into one billion pieces, well that is very small. So small you cannot see something a nanometer in size unless you use very powerful microscopes like atomic force microscopes.

 

Until cachers need Atomic Force Microscopes, no Nano size description is needed.

 

I measured a 35mm canister and it came out to 2 inches exactly. Since one nanometer is one millionth of the size of a pinhead, the difference between a 35 mm canister, and a "nano" is staggering.

 

Micro works fine for me!

Edited August 9, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+Renegade Knight]

Annoyingly small starts at micro. Smaller doesn't make it any less annoying. There is no practical reason to add catagories because a nano, pico, or any other size that someone can claim there cache is, adds do real value to geocaching.

[+Tsmola]

It looks to me like nano is a size, not a type of cache.

 

exactly, when are people gonna get it through their thick skulls?

 

MICROS/NANOS ARE A CACHE SIZE NOT A CACHE TYPE!

Well, before you completely come unglued over this, go back and re-read the thread. Nowhere does anyone in this thread (so far) claim that micro is a cache type, and not a size.

 

Who's skull is thick?

 

edit - Whoops, I found one. But that doesn't seem to justify the name calling and the screaming.

 

yeah thanks for totally insulting me when it was never meant as an insult to the original poster or anyone else to begin with, but simply my way of stating how this comes up CONSTANTLY. Show me where I specifically directed my original comment toward anyone in this topic. It especially doesn't help that I had no idea that the oringal poster was talking about a new size category, they made it sound like they wanted a new type for nanos.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Tsmola

[+Always & Forever 5]

ok smart guy, what was meant by the request for a new category for nano then?

Maybe a new size category, below "micro"?

 

What is it you are asking for? Sounds to me like you want some special new icon or something for them to me.

Maybe a new size category, below "micro"?

 

Now I remember why I hate these forums....

Why? 'Cuz you come in here, call people 'thick skulled', and wonder why they get upset?

[+the hermit crabs]

This issue will probably work istelf out on its own. Lately it seems that the meanings of the cache sizes are changing (around here, at least). If we see a new cache listed as a micro, we now automatically assume it's a nano. We've found film-canister and matchstick-holder caches listed as "small". "Regular" often means a smallish plastic container too small for whatever trade items we have with us.

 

It's very gradual, and by no means pervasive yet, but the start of the trend is there. We found a new cache this year that was labeled "small", right after a finding an older cache in the same park by the same hider, which was listed as a "micro" -- and the containers were identical!

Edited August 9, 2007 by the hermit crabs

[+edscott]

This issue will probably work istelf out on its own. Lately it seems that the meanings of the cache sizes are changing (around here, at least). If we see a new cache listed as a micro, we now automatically assume it's a nano. We've found film-canister and matchstick-holder caches listed as "small". "Regular" often means a smallish plastic container too small for whatever trade items we have with us.

 

It's very gradual, and by no means pervasive yet, but the start of the trend is there. We found a new cache this year that was labeled "small", right after a finding an older cache in the same park by the same hider, which was listed as a "micro" -- and the containers were identical!

 

Yep.. improvements come on small steps. Maybe even those that rant before they read will eventually come around.

[+Renegade Knight]

Thanks mushtang. I myself was also wondering where it was mentioned that nanos were a cache type...

 

I wouldn't mind if micro was it's own catagory. Then they could have micro, nano, pico, and Grain of rice sized caches in the catagory otherwise known as "annoyingly small"

[+hukilaulau]

This is how I made sure there would be no mistake about the size of my caches!

[+Harry Dolphin]

I wouldn't mind if micro was it's own catagory. Then they could have micro, nano, pico, and Grain of rice sized caches in the catagory otherwise known as "annoyingly small"

 

That's the answer! A new cache size category called "annoyingly small"

[+BlueDeuce]

I wouldn't mind if micro was it's own catagory. Then they could have micro, nano, pico, and Grain of rice sized caches in the catagory otherwise known as "annoyingly small"

 

That's the answer! A new cache size category called "annoyingly small"

 

Personally I think a cache rating system would address the cache size issue.

 

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go look for more firewood for the forum. Be back later.

[Mushtang]

I'll be glad to reiterate my opinion on this too.

 

Do you have any idea how big a "nanometer" really is?

 

A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A meter is about 39 inches long. A billion is a thousand times bigger than a million, as a number you write it out as 1,000,000,000. That is a big number and when you divide a meter into one billion pieces, well that is very small. So small you cannot see something a nanometer in size unless you use very powerful microscopes like atomic force microscopes.

 

Until cachers need Atomic Force Microscopes, no Nano size description is needed.

 

Micro works fine for me!

I don't understand, if the only way that the term "nano" can be applied is if the container is actually the size of a nanometer, then how are you okay with Micro? A micrometer is one millionth of a meter, which is still too smal for a pencil, log book, or trade items.

 

[+edscott]

I don't understand, if the only way that the term "nano" can be applied is if the container is actually the size of a nanometer, then how are you okay with Micro? A micrometer is one millionth of a meter, which is still too smal for a pencil, log book, or trade items.

 

 

C'mon you're trying to be rational.

[Mushtang]

ok smart guy, what was meant by the request for a new category for nano then?

You're just confusing Type categories with Size categories. I agree that micro is not a type, and that it is a size, but it is a category of size, right?

 

So, a new category for size has been requested to contain super small containers. Nanocaches, if there ever is such a thing, could still be regular, multi, unknown, etc., which are categories for Types.

 

What is it you are asking for? Sounds to me like you want some special new icon or something for them to me.

What am I asking for? Nothing. At least in this thread. If you go read post number 3 I'm suggesting that if a new category (for size) was established now it really wouldn't do much since there are so many existing caches (of various Types) in the Micro (size) category that it would leave a jumbled mess. So you see, I'm actually not asking for the new category (for size) at all.

 

Now I remember why I hate these forums....

I know a lot of people that have mentioned they don't like the forums because they're attacked and called names. Good examples of attacks and name calling can be found in this thread in posts number 8 and 13. It sure would be nice if that guy apologized for his behavior. I wonder if it'll happen?

[+Kit Fox]

I don't understand, if the only way that the term "nano" can be applied is if the container is actually the size of a nanometer, then how are you okay with Micro? A micrometer is one millionth of a meter, which is still too smal for a pencil, log book, or trade items.

 

 

C'mon you're trying to be rational.

 

My point all along, "micro" is already a misnomer, and "nano" is even worse. The best size description in this thread was "annoyingly small."

 

I have a great idea, why don't the "halve" the value of micros and make them worth only half a smiley. After all, they don't really fit the dictionary definition of a real cache.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+Corp Of Discovery]

A 'nano' size rating might be a good thing.

 

BTW: mega isn't a type but a size...

[+jtbrady01]

The only time I've seen a "nano" it only contained a coordinate to an actual larger cache as part of a multi. Would someone even have a log book that would fit in a nano? I don't think I could even write small enough to sign log book that fits into a nano.

[+Always & Forever 5]

I have a great idea, why don't the "halve" the value of micros and make them worth only half a smiley. After all, they don't really fit the dictionary definition of a real cache.

 

Neither do virtuals, events, or Earthcaches. Wanna "halve" the smileys for them, too?

 

I don't know why this is such a topic of contention. I like the idea. I know if I'm looking for a regular cache, like an ammo box...why not arm everyone with the upfront knowledge they are looking for a nano?

 

 

 

Edited to fix quotes.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Always & Forever 5

[Mushtang]

I have a great idea, why don't the "halve" the value of micros and make them worth only half a smiley. After all, they don't really fit the dictionary definition of a real cache.

If we do that, then let's double the number of smileys you get for caches larger than regular sized.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Mushtang

[+sbell111]

I have a great idea, why don't the "halve" the value of micros and make them worth only half a smiley. After all, they don't really fit the dictionary definition of a real cache.

If we do that, then let's double the number of smileys you get for caches larger than regular sized.

In general, the larger a cache is, the easier it is to find. Therefore, shouldn't nanos be worth two smilies and regular caches only be worth half a smiley?

 

Alternatively, since fun can be had finding all sizes of caches, we could just keep them all valued at one smiley each.

[+Jhwk]

I have a great idea, why don't the "halve" the value of micros and make them worth only half a smiley. After all, they don't really fit the dictionary definition of a real cache.

If we do that, then let's double the number of smileys you get for caches larger than regular sized.

In general, the larger a cache is, the easier it is to find. Therefore, shouldn't nanos be worth two smilies and regular caches only be worth half a smiley?

 

Alternatively, since fun can be had finding all sizes of caches, we could just keep them all valued at one smiley each.

thank you.

[+Kit Fox]

Neither do virtuals, events, or Earthcaches. Wanna "halve" the smileys for them, too?

 

I don't know why this is such a topic of contention. I like the idea. I know if I'm looking for a regular cache, like an ammo box...why not arm everyone with the upfront knowledge they are looking for a nano?

 

 

 

In general, the larger a cache is, the easier it is to find. Therefore, shouldn't nanos be worth two smilies and regular caches only be worth half a smiley?

 

Alternatively, since fun can be had finding all sizes of caches, we could just keep them all valued at one smiley each.

 

Boy,

 

I crack a joke and I get taken seriously.

 

It would be nice if their was an "effort value" for those of us that like high terrain, or special equipment type caches. These take far more effort to find than those caches where you drive up to a lamppost cover, and roll your window down to retrieve it. The only system like this are the "all finds" programs that chart your caching experiences.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+edscott]

The only time I've seen a "nano" it only contained a coordinate to an actual larger cache as part of a multi. Would someone even have a log book that would fit in a nano? I don't think I could even write small enough to sign log book that fits into a nano.

 

The Indiana Border Patrol must be doing their job, but believe me they will infiltrate your state also. The log is a strip of paper about 1/8 in wide and maybe 6-8 inches long. Rolling it back up and getting it back in the cache during a driving rain is one of the greatest joys in caching.

[Dinoprophet]

I don't understand, if the only way that the term "nano" can be applied is if the container is actually the size of a nanometer, then how are you okay with Micro? A micrometer is one millionth of a meter, which is still too smal for a pencil, log book, or trade items.

 

 

C'mon you're trying to be rational.

 

My point all along, "micro" is already a misnomer, and "nano" is even worse. The best size description in this thread was "annoyingly small."

But where do you get "nanometer" from? Meters don't come into it. The term is "nanocache", i.e. 1 billionth of a cache. Now, my last containers were a little large, at 4L. Let's say a typical regular cache is a little less, about 3L. A film can is 1oz, so that's 0.0098 of an ammo can. So film cans are more like a centicache. You could probably fit a couple dozen nano containers in a film can, so let's just round it off and call them millis (Combine that with the ice cream metaphor for justifying these cache types and you have Milli Vanilla!).

 

Or maybe we should just consider "nano" to be an abbreviation for "an annoyingly small cache"

 

How about Mega-Events? 30 or 40 million people?

Edited August 10, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[+Kit Fox]

But where do you get "nanometer" from? Meters don't come into it. The term is "nanocache", i.e. 1 billionth of a cache. Now, my last containers were a little large, at 4L. Let's say a typical regular cache is a little less, about 3L. A film can is 1oz, so that's 0.0098 of an ammo can. So film cans are more like a centicache. You could probably fit a couple dozen nano containers in a film can, so let's just round it off and call them millis (Combine that with the ice cream metaphor for justifying these cache types and you have Milli Vanilla!).

 

Or maybe we should just consider "nano" to be an abbreviation for "an annoyingly small cache"

How about Mega-Events? 30 or 40 million people?

 

Oh now that is brilliant!

[+sbell111]

It would be nice if their was an "effort value" for those of us that like high terrain, or special equipment type caches. These take far more effort to find than those caches where you drive up to a lamppost cover, and roll your window down to retrieve it. The only system like this are the "all finds" programs that chart your caching experiences.

Doesn't one of those sites that spin data out of your finds PQ already do this for you?

 

Either way, I've never been successful logging LPCs without getting out of the car. The WJ is too big and the Allante is too small (and too expesive to get that close to light poles).

 

Back to the topic:

 

I've been kind of against the idea of adding a new size category for nanos, but I'm warming to it. It would be useful to those that love or hate nanos and it wouldn't hurt anything. (Although, I suppose the argument could be made that it would further 'legitimize' micros. Micro-haters would, therefore, be against this idea.)

[+Tsmola]

I'm going to ask a moderator to delete all my posts on here. I never directed the comment in my first topic towards anyone that was in here and I'm sorry it was heard that way, and yes I jumped the gun on the second post and that was uncalled for but so was taking my own post and belittling me with it when I didn't even realize what the original poster was talking about. Thanks for totally ruining this forum for me people. Just freaking drop what I said and at least grant me the dignity of not having my name bashed when I'm not here because I'm done posting in this forum.

 

And for the record no, this is not how things are done in Michigan, we don't jump down people's throats just because they make a mistake in a post on a message board, you guys take this way too seriously.

 

And lastly for the record I'm a HE NOT A SHE!

Edited August 10, 2007 by Tsmola

[Mushtang]

I know a lot of people that have mentioned they don't like the forums because they're attacked and called names. Good examples of attacks and name calling can be found in this thread in posts number 8 and 13. It sure would be nice if that guy apologized for his behavior. I wonder if it'll happen?

 

to be honest I never read the whole topic, second I never directed that thick headed comment at anyone, I was making a broad generalization. Third I'm not apologizing for anything on an internet message board, it's the internet after all.

 

Now that I read more about what the original poster is saying about it I still think it's stupid, nano/micro they are the same in my eyes, don't like em, then read cache pages ahead of time and you'll never have to hunt one again.

 

This is why MIGO's forums are 10X better, they don't all whine and cry about stupid things like micro cache size categories on the site all the freaking time.

 

Go ahead, start quoting everything I've just said here and write your own stupid little paragraph for each part you have a problem with, I really don't care. BTW this is the last I'm posting in this pointless topic.

I don't think anything I say will show anyone anything that you didn't just show them yourself.

 

Good job.

[+Always & Forever 5]

to be honest I never read the whole topic, blah...blah...blah...

 

Good job! So, you pop into a forum, half scan what's there, mouth off and insert your rude comments, disappear again for a while, pop back in and claim "it's the internet" (?) which justifies your lack of need to apologize?

 

Wow...that's how they do things in Michigan, is it?

 

Oh, to stay OT...I still like the idea.

[+sbell111]

... Third I'm not apologizing for anything on an internet message board, it's the internet after all. ...

wow

 

Oh, to stay OT...I still like the idea.

Me, too. Edited August 10, 2007 by sbell111

[+AV Dezign]

I would guess it would probably help people eliminate all the new nano sized caches from PQs if they wanted, but what about all the current nano caches that are already sized as a Micro? It's doubtful that enough people would go back and change their size catagory, so you'd still be left with a LOT of mis-categorized caches.

 

I don't know about that, when the small size came out, I went back and edited the small ones I had. I would do the same with the nanos I have (3).

 

PS, the first nano I placed was back August of 2004 (GCK8FV) and was called TiniMiniMi , everybody who found it liked that this was the smallest thing they had ever seen. Of course back then it was unknown. Now they are everywhere.

 

PPS. I want to get in with the name calling bits. "You, you, YOU POSTERS YOU!"

[+edscott]

to be honest I never read the whole topic, <snippity..snippity..snip...>I really don't care. BTW this is the last I'm posting in this pointless topic.

 

Reminds me so much of my old days on the playground. Problem was they always came back.

[Dinoprophet]

Nano nano

[+baloo&bd]

Reminds me so much of my old days on the playground. Problem was they always came back.

 

Luckily, not this one. Looking at past posts, she whines and then disappears.

 

OT: I can't think of a reason that this would be a bad idea, other then if it detracts from working on site performance. Put me down for a yes.

[+Renegade Knight]

... It would be nice if their was an "effort value" for those of us that like high terrain, or special equipment type caches. These take far more effort to find than those caches where you drive up to a lamppost cover, and roll your window down to retrieve it. The only system like this are the "all finds" programs that chart your caching experiences.

 

For a couple of years a few of us had access to the Skydiver point system. It wasn't really geared on difficulty but it did reward caches seldom found which does at least relate to difficulty. Caches that were found less were worth more points. Caches found more often less. It added a fun twist to caching, and motivated people to take the path less taken. When Groundspeak started clamping down on stats things became a lot of work and ultimatly died off.

 

Skydiver is now a banned member. Amazing how times change.

[+Renegade Knight]

...This is why MIGO's forums are 10X better, they don't all whine and cry about stupid things like micro cache size categories on the site all the freaking time.... BTW this is the last I'm posting in this pointless topic.

 

Going back to MIGO? Cool. This is a better forum already.

[Mushtang]

...This is why MIGO's forums are 10X better, they don't all whine and cry about stupid things like micro cache size categories on the site all the freaking time.... BTW this is the last I'm posting in this pointless topic.

 

Going back to MIGO? Cool. This is a better forum already.

I wonder if I went and posted some in the MIGO forums would she call me names again, scream at me again, and then complain that the MIGO forums are full of name callers and screamers?

 

"Nobody ever called people names here until that jerk Mushtang showed up"

 

And to stay on topic... I still haven't changed my mind about the nano (size) category. I still think that it may, or may not, be a good idea.

[+Quiggle]

And to stay on topic... I still think that it may, or may not, be a good idea.

Fixed.

 

Let's keep it on-topic, folks, and leave the personal attacks out of it, ok?

 

Thanks.

[+Renegade Knight]

...And to stay on topic... I still haven't changed my mind about the nano (size) category. I still think that it may, or may not, be a good idea.

 

Fence Sitter. Now I'm going to have to adjust your attitude using that plan B you mentioned.

[+WebChimp]

Do you have any idea how big a "nanometer" really is?

 

I used to have a nanometer, but I see so few nanos these days that need to be measured, I've quit carrying it around. Just think, I could have saved the $17.95 plus shipping I paid on ebay for the "new, never used, leather nanometer deluxe carrying case". Just think.

Edited August 14, 2007 by WebChimp

[+StarBrand]

Annoyingly small starts at micro. Smaller doesn't make it any less annoying. There is no practical reason to add catagories because a nano, pico, or any other size that someone can claim there cache is, adds do real value to geocaching.

agreed