Jump to content

Do we need more cache sizes in report form?


Kohavis

Recommended Posts

Perhaps the PTB need to reevaluate the size options offered when listing a new cache.

 

Example - "Micro" is the category used for everything from a nano to a large pill bottle or a 35mm film canister. They have drastically different search approaches: the nano would be "fondle and caress" while the 35mm can would be "step back and look carefully for something that doesn't belong".

 

Another example - The sizes jump from "rubbermaid or ammo can" (regular) to "5 gallon bucket" (large).

 

I don't know what impact it would have on the caches out there if they added a few more sizes to the fray. Maybe all that would be needed would be CO edits to the cache pages.

 

At the least, we really need a size smaller than the 35mm canister since there are so many out there in the "nano" category.

 

Maybe something like:

 

Nano (or "Blinkie" - holds log only, no swag)

Tiny (Bison tube or similar - holds log only, no swag)

Small (Altoids can, matchstick tube or mag. keyholder - holds sm. swag, log + sm. pencil)

Medium (1/2 qt. lock-lock or tupperware - holds log, pencil and all swag)

Large (Ammo can, 3-lb. coffee can or large lock-lock/tupperware)

Jumbo (5 gallon bucket or lg. laundry detergent bucket)

Other (Smaller than a nano or larger than a Jumbo -please describe)

 

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, so I apologize if it's been covered :anicute:

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Perhaps the PTB need to reevaluate the size options offered when listing a new cache.

 

Example - "Micro" is the category used for everything from a nano to a large pill bottle or a 35mm film canister. They have drastically different search approaches: the nano would be "fondle and caress" while the 35mm can would be "step back and look carefully for something that doesn't belong".

 

Another example - The sizes jump from "rubbermaid or ammo can" (regular) to "5 gallon bucket" (large).

 

I don't know what impact it would have on the caches out there if they added a few more sizes to the fray. Maybe all that would be needed would be CO edits to the cache pages.

 

At the least, we really need a size smaller than the 35mm canister since there are so many out there in the "nano" category.

 

Maybe something like:

 

Nano (or "Blinkie" - holds log only, no swag)

Tiny (Bison tube or similar - holds log only, no swag)

Small (Altoids can, matchstick tube or mag. keyholder - holds sm. swag, log + sm. pencil)

Medium (1/2 qt. lock-lock or tupperware - holds log, pencil and all swag)

Large (Ammo can, 3-lb. coffee can or large lock-lock/tupperware)

Jumbo (5 gallon bucket or lg. laundry detergent bucket)

Other (Smaller than a nano or larger than a Jumbo -please describe)

 

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, so I apologize if it's been covered :anicute:

 

Thoughts?

Your smalls are actually micros. A decon container or a sandwich container are what the small size was intended to be. Anyhow, I think that more sizes would just make it more convoluted than it is now. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I agree that a better decsription would be extremely helpful in actually locating the cache. Generally I don't rule one out because of the size but it definitely helps once I get to GZ.

 

A number of times the description will explain what you are looking for but as we see in this other thread (How many people don't read the descriptions) not everyone takes the time to see if a size is listed.

 

Personally, both would be great but I doubt that would happen. If it was a required part of the 'base information' that would cover descriptions that don't include it.

Link to comment

I think it would be a plus if they added more cache sizes to choose from.

 

For example... someone logged a DNF on one of our caches last week stating they are "going to quit looking for micro caches." This gives me the impression they may have been looking for something tiny, such as a nano, when it is actually a something a bit larger hidden here, but does not meet the requirements of the small cache description.

 

I suppose we could list in our description what type of container they should be looking for, but if we did that we might as well tell them where it is also located. :anicute:

Link to comment

Perhaps the PTB need to reevaluate the size options offered when listing a new cache.

 

Example - "Micro" is the category used for everything from a nano to a large pill bottle or a 35mm film canister. They have drastically different search approaches: the nano would be "fondle and caress" while the 35mm can would be "step back and look carefully for something that doesn't belong".

 

Another example - The sizes jump from "rubbermaid or ammo can" (regular) to "5 gallon bucket" (large).

 

I don't know what impact it would have on the caches out there if they added a few more sizes to the fray. Maybe all that would be needed would be CO edits to the cache pages.

 

At the least, we really need a size smaller than the 35mm canister since there are so many out there in the "nano" category.

 

Maybe something like:

 

Nano (or "Blinkie" - holds log only, no swag)

Tiny (Bison tube or similar - holds log only, no swag)

Small (Altoids can, matchstick tube or mag. keyholder - holds sm. swag, log + sm. pencil)

Medium (1/2 qt. lock-lock or tupperware - holds log, pencil and all swag)

Large (Ammo can, 3-lb. coffee can or large lock-lock/tupperware)

Jumbo (5 gallon bucket or lg. laundry detergent bucket)

Other (Smaller than a nano or larger than a Jumbo -please describe)

 

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, so I apologize if it's been covered :rolleyes:

 

Thoughts?

 

I want to see at least a Nano Cache (A Blinkin's Small Geocache Container) Category added. There seems to be more and more placed nowadays. It is not always mentioned in the cache page that it is a Nano Cache. If you do not know that you are looking for a Nano it can be frustrating as it can be repainted and can blend easily into its surroundings.

Link to comment

Perhaps the PTB need to reevaluate the size options offered when listing a new cache.

 

Example - "Micro" is the category used for everything from a nano to a large pill bottle or a 35mm film canister. They have drastically different search approaches: the nano would be "fondle and caress" while the 35mm can would be "step back and look carefully for something that doesn't belong".

 

Another example - The sizes jump from "rubbermaid or ammo can" (regular) to "5 gallon bucket" (large).

 

I don't know what impact it would have on the caches out there if they added a few more sizes to the fray. Maybe all that would be needed would be CO edits to the cache pages.

 

At the least, we really need a size smaller than the 35mm canister since there are so many out there in the "nano" category.

 

Maybe something like:

 

Nano (or "Blinkie" - holds log only, no swag)

Tiny (Bison tube or similar - holds log only, no swag)

Small (Altoids can, matchstick tube or mag. keyholder - holds sm. swag, log + sm. pencil)

Medium (1/2 qt. lock-lock or tupperware - holds log, pencil and all swag)

Large (Ammo can, 3-lb. coffee can or large lock-lock/tupperware)

Jumbo (5 gallon bucket or lg. laundry detergent bucket)

Other (Smaller than a nano or larger than a Jumbo -please describe)

 

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, so I apologize if it's been covered :anicute:

 

Thoughts?

[/quote

I have found a lot of caches that are listed as small that hold TB's so when I set out to drop a TB I download only small or larger caches. I did just that this weekend and both were so small you had to bring your own pencil. They were smaller than a 35mm size. I didn't have the time to look for any other caches to drop the TB's. I don't know if we should change the size type or the criteria in the listing.

Link to comment

 

I want to see at least a Nano Cache (A Blinkin's Small Geocache Container) Category added. There seems to be more and more placed nowadays. It is not always mentioned in the cache page that it is a Nano Cache. If you do not know that you are looking for a Nano it can be frustrating as it can be repainted and can blend easily into its surroundings.

 

I gave found that there are quite a few cache hiders that paint the container or make it blend easily into its surrounding with the specific intent on making it more difficult to find. For one local cache it wouldn't matter if it was painted magenta as it is placed in a spot such that it's impossible to see it from any direction. Pretty much everyone that has looked for it assumed it is a nano even based on the location though the cache listing has it as "Not Listed".

 

I agree with others that making the size category more granular will either make some caches too easy or will generate complaints when the listed size doesn't meet he finders expectations.

Link to comment
Anyhow, I think that more sizes would just make it more convoluted than it is now.
People can't get it right with the choices they have now. Half the "small" caches I find are actually micros. Adding more hair-splitting choices will just make the situation worse.

I agree with this. People can't get it right now. I constantly go to drop a larger TB into a "regular," only to get there and end up finding a 2x3x5 lock and lock that couldn't even hold a medium size TB. That's not a regular. It's a small.

 

Plus, part of the fun is not knowing exactly what you're looking for. Most of the time, I wouldn't want to approach ground zero and know that detailed the size of the container I'm seeking. If it's a micro, I like the unknown factor of knowing it's something pill bottle size or smaller.

 

Pretty much everyone that has looked for it assumed it is a nano even based on the location though the cache listing has it as "Not Listed".

I'm not really sure why people list caches as "Not Listed." Almost every cache listed that way ends up being a micro. I can only think of one that we've done that wasn't.

Link to comment

I think there are too many choices for categories as it is. The more information you give about a cache the less the finder has to figure out on their own.

 

I'd prefer not to have to check boxes that describes exactly what size of container I used, what color it is (or what the camo looks like), the method of the hide, if it's underneath something, what it's under, if it's hanging, what it's hanging on, etc.

 

If you'd like to describe the exact size of your cache container in your description, knock yourself out. But I'm glad it's not required on all the caches I'm looking for.

Link to comment

I think there is a need for a Nano size designation, but most of the others could be accommodated by what there is now. If the cache owner wants to be more explicit, they can describe the container more in the description. I give a better size description in almost all of my hides, and I don't think it makes them any easier to find. I do this because I hate finding no size indicated at all! If the cache owner wants to make their cache harder to find, then hide it better rather than leave out the size to make it tougher!

Link to comment

People can't get it right with the choices they have now. Half the "small" caches I find are actually micros.

 

Yes, and many micro caches I found actually fit the "small" criteria as they can hold more than a couple bits of swag on top of the logbook. Another one that nobody seems to be able to agree on is the grey line between small and regular when using lock-and-lock containers just under a litre in volume. I've seen them go as both several times.

 

I think more choices are not what's needed, but better descriptions and examples.

 

Still, the "nano" category would deserve its own, as the market forces have come to realize it as.

They are distinct cache types.

 

The line between micro and nano I would propose is:

If you have a strip of paper for the log, and you have to write names/dates next to each other horizontally, then roll it up side to side, it's a nano;

If you can write logs in descending rows, then roll it up vertically, it's a micro.

 

The problem is, on that scale of display, with a micro being a tiny box, what would a nano be represented as? A pixel?

Edited by Zarya.
Link to comment

People can't get it right with the choices they have now. Half the "small" caches I find are actually micros. Adding more hair-splitting choices will just make the situation worse.

 

Eek. I went hunting for a couple of multis by a new cachers today. He seems to think that any first or intermediate stage of a multi is a 'nano'. No. The film canister is not a nano. The tennis ball hanging from the tree with a coat hanger is a cute hide, but it is NOT a nano! A tennis ball is probably a 'small'.

Link to comment

When I started geocaching there were three sizes: regular, large, and micro. There was also the option for unknown and for virtual (which I guess was only supposed to be used for virtual caches). And there were many existing caches whose sizes was 'not given' - I assume these were caches that were hidden before the site had any sizes.

 

Small was added because many people found that caches at the smaller end of regular didn't have room for many travel bugs and that some larger micros could in fact hold smaller travel bugs. The new size was added to support the people who were having trouble finding a cache to drop off a travel bug in. I would guess that a micro is anything too small to leave a travel bug in (except perhaps a loose tag or a smaller sized coin), a small can hold small travel bugs, a regular can hold most travel bugs usually attached to a small stuffed animal or a some other similar sized trinket, a large can hold a 'big' travel bugs such as bowling pins or ammo cans.

 

There doesn't need to be any more sizes. The sizes do not need to be better defined. The size is a guideline that the hider has used to give you some idea of whether that travel bug that has been sitting in your bag for two months will fit in the cache. Sometime the cache will be full of stuff that you don't want to trade for and the travel bug still won't fit. Its only meant as a guideline.

Link to comment

I think my only grumble is that "regular" covers such a wide variety from Lock & Locks to large ammo cans. Most of the time that's not a problem, but it is an issue when you've picked up a large TB and need to find somewhere to drop it off. Also, if I had a better idea of the cache size I would know when I should or shouldn't bother taking larger swag items with me.

Link to comment

The current options are fine. There is enough confusion with the 4 choices we now have. Adding more will only add to the confusion. There is no way we are going to get most cache owners to go back and change their cache sizes if we implement new ones, so there are going to be hundreds of thousands of caches out there that

do not conform to any new standards.

Link to comment

I think there should be a requirement that the blinkies must be activated as well to make it easier to find them.

 

Other than that I'm perfectly happy with the choices we already have.

Since there are over 600,000 active caches out in play already, and it's quite likely that fewer than 42% of them will get properly updated, adding more size options will have less benefit than intended anyway.

Link to comment
I think my only grumble is that "regular" covers such a wide variety from Lock & Locks to large ammo cans.

That's not really true for lock and locks. The size of the box should determine if it's a regular or a small. We've seen very small lock and locks and some that are almost as big as an ammo box. Just because it's a lock and lock doesn't make it a regular.

Link to comment

Heck, it's funny that sometimes individual cache owners can't decide what their caches are.

 

One person around here hid a series of caches in the country -- all of the caches are hide-a-key containers. Roughly half of them are listed as Micro and the other half listed as Small with a smattering listed as Unknown.

 

I've never bothered to calculate the volume to determine if a hide-a-key contains less space than a 35mm film canister so while my gut says "Micro" I don't know if that meets the current definition or not.

Link to comment

Heck, it's funny that sometimes individual cache owners can't decide what their caches are.

 

One person around here hid a series of caches in the country -- all of the caches are hide-a-key containers. Roughly half of them are listed as Micro and the other half listed as Small with a smattering listed as Unknown.

 

I've never bothered to calculate the volume to determine if a hide-a-key contains less space than a 35mm film canister so while my gut says "Micro" I don't know if that meets the current definition or not.

 

Here's what I'd like to see...

 

Nano..blinkie or something like that. anyhting smaller than a bison tube.

Micro... bison, hide a key, waterproof match container, etc.

Small... anything too small to hold a couple of decks of cards

Regular... anything larger than the above, up to a .50 cal ammo can

Large... larger than a .50 cal ammo can

 

What say you?

Edited by Okiebryan
Link to comment
Heck, it's funny that sometimes individual cache owners can't decide what their caches are.

 

One person around here hid a series of caches in the country -- all of the caches are hide-a-key containers. Roughly half of them are listed as Micro and the other half listed as Small with a smattering listed as Unknown.

 

I've never bothered to calculate the volume to determine if a hide-a-key contains less space than a 35mm film canister so while my gut says "Micro" I don't know if that meets the current definition or not.

Here's what I'd like to see...

 

Nano..blinkie or something like that. anyhting smaller than a bison tube.

Micro... bison, hide a key, waterproof match container, etc.

Small... anything too small to hold a couple of decks of cards

Regular... anything larger than the above, up to a .50 cal ammo can

Large... larger than a .50 cal ammo can

 

What say you?

I'd change small to 'smaller than a sandwich'. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Small... anything too small to hold a couple of decks of cards

 

What say you?

I think your small is a bit small. I'd say anything under 6 or 7 inches is a small.

 

I don't mean this to start an argument, but lately (at least around here), very few new caches that are coming out are regular sized containers like a 50 cal ammo can. Again, just making an observation, not wanting this to digress into a "ban the micros" thread.

 

As new people start up, maybe they aren't seeing many true regular size caches and, naturally, think a medium sized lock and lock is a regular, when it may actually be a small. On a similar note, of the couple 50 cal ammo cans that were recently placed, the owner called them larges. Again, maybe thinking that a medium lock and lock is a regular, so the ammo can must be a large since it's bigger.

Link to comment

A nano category isn't going to happen, TPTB already spoke out against the idea.

 

A list of four previous "nano threads" in the 5th nano thread

 

I'm sorry guys, but not this time. We're still not convinced that further subdividing the cache sizes will add appreciably to the site.

 

Thank you for all the discussion on the subject. It was noted and discussed. The decision to not add an additional cache size remains. The current sizes fit the needs of the majority of the community.

Again thank you all for the input.

 

 

The best change the Groundspeak could do would require micro caches to be at least the size of a 35mm canister. Most threads regarding destruction of the environment, old stone walls, planters, are due to tiny micros.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment
What say you?

I say that I'd rather see the sizes reduced to:

 

Log only ... any cache that is too small for trade items

Regular ... any cache that can fit trade items.

 

Any other information that the cache owner wants to list, just as specific container size, he's free to add to the description, hint, cache name, etc.

Link to comment

The best change the Groundspeak could do would require micro caches to be at least the size of a 35mm canister. Most threads regarding destruction of the environment, old stone walls, planters, are due to tiny micros.

So instead of requiring that we label vanilla ice cream as French vanilla, artificial vanilla flavor, or vanilla bean you would prefer that artificial vanilla be banned. :laughing:

 

Personally if I were to encounter a micro or a nano in a old stone wall, I'd be less likely to disassemble the wall when searching for the cache. I'd assume that the smaller cache was hidden in plain sight, perhaps in a crack between stones and would do a thorough search without even touching the wall. If the cache were a regular container or even some small containers, I'd start looking for loose stones that can be moved thinking that the cache was probably hidden behind such a stone. Of course, I understand that some cachers aren't as logical as I am in deciding when its likely you need to move a stone in an old wall to find a cache or aren't as logical in hiding a cache and may put a micro behind a stone that is supporting the wall. So I would recommend against putting any sized cache in a old stone wall or other structure that could be easily damaged.

Link to comment
Heck, it's funny that sometimes individual cache owners can't decide what their caches are.

 

One person around here hid a series of caches in the country -- all of the caches are hide-a-key containers. Roughly half of them are listed as Micro and the other half listed as Small with a smattering listed as Unknown.

 

I've never bothered to calculate the volume to determine if a hide-a-key contains less space than a 35mm film canister so while my gut says "Micro" I don't know if that meets the current definition or not.

I think Toz nailed it best. Smalls (empty) should support most TBs. The volume of a small is typically the same volume as your fist. Keep in mind that there are large micros and small micros. An Altoids is a large micro, but it is still a micro because very few TBs will fit inside an Altoids tin. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
What say you?

I like your list, as it seems less subjective than the existing one, and I agree that the addition of the nano size will benefit seekers in the long term. That being said, as Kit pointed out, TPTB are not motivated to your cause, so I won't hold me breath. The current system works, most of the time, so maybe they see it as one of those, "If it ain't broke" scenarios.

Link to comment
The best change the Groundspeak could do would require micro caches to be at least the size of a 35mm canister. Most threads regarding destruction of the environment, old stone walls, planters, are due to tiny micros.

Or, maybe people could just use common sense and realize that a "deviously hidden micro" in a stone wall as some owners do is going to cause the stone wall to get destroyed. :laughing:

 

I don't think a blinkie on a sign is really going to damage the environment.

Link to comment

I say that I'd rather see the sizes reduced to:

 

Log only ... any cache that is too small for trade items

Regular ... any cache that can fit trade items.

 

Any other information that the cache owner wants to list, just as specific container size, he's free to add to the description, hint, cache name, etc.

 

This is one of the easiest and best descriptions i've seen to date.

 

This is far less complicated than the current system, and it would do away with the unknown size used mostly for nanos.

Link to comment

I think adding a nano category would help. I've heard from cachers in other parts of the US that they label nano hides as size not known and then put in the log nano. I always mark my nano hides as micro because the description for micro says 35mm film canister or smaller, and my nano magnets are smaller than a 35mm film canister.

 

Apparently us Northeast US cachers "do it wrong" according to the Southwest cachers!

Link to comment
I think adding a nano category would help. I've heard from cachers in other parts of the US that they label nano hides as size not known and then put in the log nano. I always mark my nano hides as micro because the description for micro says 35mm film canister or smaller, and my nano magnets are smaller than a 35mm film canister.

 

Apparently us Northeast US cachers "do it wrong" according to the Southwest cachers!

In CT, most people label a nano as a micro, but you're right about other places doing it differently. If I see a cache listed as "unknown," it's almost always a micro so why not just call it a micro?

Link to comment

It seems to me that a nano choice would be helpful, but there's so much disagreement on the issue...

 

I say that I'd rather see the sizes reduced to:

 

Log only ... any cache that is too small for trade items

Regular ... any cache that can fit trade items.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense!

Link to comment

I say that I'd rather see the sizes reduced to:

 

Log only ... any cache that is too small for trade items

Regular ... any cache that can fit trade items.

 

Any other information that the cache owner wants to list, just as specific container size, he's free to add to the description, hint, cache name, etc.

 

This is one of the easiest and best descriptions i've seen to date.

 

This is far less complicated than the current system, and it would do away with the unknown size used mostly for nanos.

The problem with this idea is that it will mix regulars with micros because many people will view tiny trickets as trade items. So if they did that I would have no way of filtering out microspew. So I do not like this idea one tiny bit. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
The line between micro and nano I would propose is:

If you have a strip of paper for the log, and you have to write names/dates next to each other horizontally, then roll it up side to side, it's a nano;

If you can write logs in descending rows, then roll it up vertically, it's a micro.

I consider a micro-cache to be a nano-cache when the custom log fills the container, leaving no room for sig tokens, small coins, etc. And yes, I consider smaller bison tubes to be nano-caches.

 

I don't think the "orientation of the signatures" distinction works. I've found custom containers that are clearly nano-caches, but where the signatures were one below the other. The cache itself was about the size of blinker, only shaped differently.

Link to comment

A nano category isn't going to happen, TPTB already spoke out against the idea.

 

A list of four previous "nano threads" in the 5th nano thread

 

I'm sorry guys, but not this time. We're still not convinced that further subdividing the cache sizes will add appreciably to the site.

 

Thank you for all the discussion on the subject. It was noted and discussed. The decision to not add an additional cache size remains. The current sizes fit the needs of the majority of the community.

Again thank you all for the input.

 

 

The best change the Groundspeak could do would require micro caches to be at least the size of a 35mm canister. Most threads regarding destruction of the environment, old stone walls, planters, are due to tiny micros.

Thanks for posting the links to the old thread. As you stated, the thread contained links to other threads. The first of which was the thread in which my opinion on this issue was changed by the words of other wise posters. Here's my post from that thread:
Initially, I was going to go against the OP's idea. I couldn't think of a good idea to add an additional size. In fact, I've ignored this thread for the last several days. Then, I read the thread and was moved to reply by Markwell's post. Markwell convinced me that it would be better for the game if there was a 'nano' size.

 

Markwell made the argument that having a size of 'nano' would encourage people to hide nanos. He further opined that environmental damage is inversely proportional to cache size. The part that he missed is that if one knows what he/she is looking for, they are less likely to cause damage, at all. The simple fact is, the cache search is totally different if you are looking for an ammo box, a decon container, a bison tube, or a nano. If someone told you that you were hunting a nano, you would limit your search first to those metallic items that a nano would be stuck to. You wouldn't initially search every location that would hide a bison tube. In other words, you'd keep your mitts off the bushes. (An additional benefit is that there will never, ever be a bomb squad deployed to investigate a nano.)

 

Therefore, I believe that the size of 'nano' would be good for the game.

Link to comment

I think adding a nano category would help. I've heard from cachers in other parts of the US that they label nano hides as size not known and then put in the log nano. I always mark my nano hides as micro because the description for micro says 35mm film canister or smaller, and my nano magnets are smaller than a 35mm film canister.

 

You're right. That's what you get for actually take the time to read AND understand the guidelines.

Whenever people ask "Should nanos have a size listing?" I always respond "They do already."

 

To me the need for another size designation is based heavily on whether or not there is value in filtering caches based on that new size. Can I see a situation where I would want to separate nanos from bison tubes? Not really. If I'm willing to look for something "smaller than a 35mm film canister" then I don't need to filter out nanos. If I don't want to look for anything that small then I can filter them out in one shot.

 

Contrast this to Small vs. Regular. Often in the winter I will filter out small containers because under a blanket of snow they take a lot of poking to find whereas something in the Regular category tends to be easier to find in those conditions. There is a logical reason to make them distinct.

 

EDIT: To clarify: When I say "You're right", I'm referring to your practice of listing nanos as micros. We are still on different sides of the fence when it comes to whether or not a nano category would help.

Edited by DanOCan
Link to comment

One would think that the very fact that many people have asked for the 'nano' size to be proof that some think that there would be utility in having that new size, either becuase they wish to be able to filter in or out nanos is only one such reason that the new size indicator would be useful.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
What say you?

I say that I'd rather see the sizes reduced to:

 

Log only ... any cache that is too small for trade items

Regular ... any cache that can fit trade items.

 

Any other information that the cache owner wants to list, just as specific container size, he's free to add to the description, hint, cache name, etc.

 

Problem with that is that I've found film canisters with trade items and some pretty big containers with only a log.

Link to comment

One would think that the very fact that many people have asked for the 'nano' size to be proof that some think that there would be utility in having that new size, either becuase they wish to be able to filter in or out nanos is only one such reason that the new size indicator would be useful.

First, I'm not all that convinced that a lot of people have have asked for a new 'nano' size. In any case, if you go by the forums, a lot of people have asked for eliminating micros or bringing back virtuals and I know that you would not say we should do those things just because a lot of people have asked for them. I agree that many people either want to filter in or out nanos. Some people find them to hard to find while others find them challenging. But does having a new size really help? As soon as there is a new size, there will be a controversy over what a nano is. There will be micros classified as nanos and nanos classified as micros. There is a continuum of sizes of tiny containers and people will always want to argue about where to draw the line. Sure we have that problem today between small and micro or between small and regular. But generally we can except the gray area between the existing sizes. People aren't generally trying to filter in or out Altoids tins - so if some are listed as small and others are micros it is something most people can live with. With nanos, people will have strong feelings on what is a nano and may complain if some nanos are miscategorized as micros or if micros get miscategorized as nanos. Finally there is the use of the unknown size. Already many nanos use the unknown size. This is not just because people choose unknown because there is no nano size. Unknown is chosen because the challenge in finding a nano is not knowing what you are looking for. Once you know you are looking for a nano your search technique changes. I find if I know it's a nano, they are actually pretty easy to find. Unfortunately, nanos are so popular that now when I see unknown I know to look for nanos. Listing them as micros actually makes them harder to find. If there were a nano size I would guess that many people will continue to use the unknown size just to make the hunt challenging. Some people many even continue to use micro for the same reason. I'd run out of popcorn following all the threads there will be because someone used the 'wrong' size for their cache. :anicute:

Link to comment

Perhaps the PTB need to reevaluate the size options offered when listing a new cache.

 

Example - "Micro" is the category used for everything from a nano to a large pill bottle or a 35mm film canister. They have drastically different search approaches: the nano would be "fondle and caress" while the 35mm can would be "step back and look carefully for something that doesn't belong"....Thoughts?

 

We are good as we are. You don't need so many graduations where you need calipers or a trip to the post office or airport to size your cache like they do mail and luggage now.

 

Example.

Micro is too small for a decent pencil and log. Every variation of micro has that problem. Pretty simple.

Link to comment
I would guess that many people will continue to use the unknown size just to make the hunt challenging.
But is that ethical? They'd be falsifying the basic info to make it more challenging.

 

What's the difference between that and the hated practice of skewing the coordinates to make it tougher?

Link to comment
I would guess that many people will continue to use the unknown size just to make the hunt challenging.
But is that ethical? They'd be falsifying the basic info to make it more challenging.

 

What's the difference between that and the hated practice of skewing the coordinates to make it tougher?

 

Good questions. I think it's worth pointing out that not providing a cache size isn't falsifying anything. It's merely not giving out full information. That's differen than stating the wrong cache size or the wrong coordinates.

Link to comment
I would guess that many people will continue to use the unknown size just to make the hunt challenging.
But is that ethical? They'd be falsifying the basic info to make it more challenging.

 

What's the difference between that and the hated practice of skewing the coordinates to make it tougher?

 

Good questions. I think it's worth pointing out that not providing a cache size isn't falsifying anything. It's merely not giving out full information. That's differen than stating the wrong cache size or the wrong coordinates.

Like if I don't fill out all the coordinate digits, I'm not falsifying anything - I'm leaving it out :)

 

I think the difference is splitting hairs. The agreement when we join, at least implied, is that we will fill out the minimum necessary information on a hide. I happen to believe that the size of the cache is a vital statistic because it helps me decide how to search and what I can bring in the way of TBs or swag.

 

If you want to make it more difficult, why not fill in the size and just hide it better?

 

I guess it's a matter of personal opinion :D

Link to comment
I agree that many people either want to filter in or out nanos. Some people find them to hard to find while others find them challenging. But does having a new size really help?

For me, having a shiny new sign designation is not about whether a cache is difficult to locate or not. It's all about search technique. My search style is drastically different when I'm hunting a known micro vs. hunting a known nano.

 

As soon as there is a new size, there will be a controversy over what a nano is.

I would hope that, should Groundspeak ever choose to readdress this issue, they wouldn't base their decision on the probability of controversy. There will always be controversy, as evidenced by the fact that a small minority of cachers mislabel their hides. This would undoubtedly continue if nanos were added, but since it would be a small percentage of cachers mislabeling things, the overall result would still be a benefit.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...