Should micros be a seperate cache type?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Yikes! Yet another micro thread!

 

Worse, it's an idea that has been tossed out here fairly often over the years.

 

My hope is that this thread can remain narrowly focused and not spin down into uselessness.

 

In this thread I am seeking validation or rejection of my idea that micros should be a different cache type.

 

I'm not asking if you like them or don't like them or any other question but "Should micros be a seperate cache type?"

 

It's the sort of question we really need a poll feature for, to derive just a straight Yes/No popular vote instead of a controversy.

 

Caveat #1: I checked my logged stats and 1397 or 54.3 % of my finds are micros, so I am certainly not anti-micro.

 

Caveat #2: I love finding caches, all of them, but I gotta say that there is nothing TO ME as interesting and exciting as a nicely-stocked well-hidden ammo can in an interesting location.

 

Just so y'all know where I am coming from.

 

Now for my thinking behind asking this question...

 

Groundspeak has defined a geocache as a container with a log in it. I wish they'd go a step further. A cache, to my mind, should also contain STUFF! That has throughout history been what a cache is. I'm all about micros, obviously, but I have come to believe that they should be a seperate cache type, not size... so that by definition a geocache contains stuff, a microcache contains only a log.

 

That's not to say that you can't drop Pathtags or whatever swag fits into a film can, nothing is absolute... but this idea would give clear distinction between caches not just by size but by type.

 

If there is popular support for this idea I will post it to the website suggestions area, but right now it's a question, not a suggestion.

 

So, how many others believe that a geocache type should contain stuff and a microcache type contain only a log?

[+Renegade Knight]

While micro's fit the general description for a traditional cache they are different enough the caching experience to warrant their own "kind". Call it the angst factor, or the needle in the haystack factore. Either way I think they are worthy of being spun off as their own catagory.

[+ventura_kids]

no.

[+StarBrand]

I just have to ask - "to what end?"

 

If the desire is an easy way to filter them in/out - you can already do that. Howver, if you can answer that question another way - I'd might see enough reason.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I just have to ask - "to what end?"

 

If the desire is an easy way to filter them in/out - you can already do that. Howver, if you can answer that question another way - I'd might see enough reason.

To me hunting a micro is a different type of experience.

 

As indicated by the fact that the majority of my finds have been micros I have nothing whatsoever against them.

 

I do think, however, that the game would be well-served and the angst over micros reduced if that 'different experience' were clearly delineated.

 

I see it in much the same way that puzzles have their own cache type... they are a different experience than hunting either ammo boxes or nanos and so a seperate cache type makes sense for them.

 

I think that there is enough of a difference in hunting micros and ammo cans that they deserve distinct cache types.

[+briansnat]

A traditional cache is one that is at the posted coordinates (in most cases). If a micro is at the posted coordinates then it is a traditional.

 

As others have stated, micro is a SIZE, not a TYPE.

 

What if you have a micro puzzle, micro multi or micro letterbox, do you add a type for each? If so it can get out of hand and just add to the confusion.

 

We have cache sizes and types and that already creates enough confusion. Let's not add to it by turning a size into a type.

 

Micros are indeed a different experience and that is already noted in the size box.

Edited November 24, 2008 by briansnat

[+Prime Suspect]

I can already select or filter out by size. So this adds nothing. Seems pointless.

[Skippermark]

ventura_kids & Brian said what I would have.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

A traditional cache is one that is at the posted coordinates (in most cases). If a micro is at the posted coordinates then it is a traditional.

 

As others have stated, micro is a SIZE, not a TYPE.

 

Yup, right now. Things can change. That's the purpose of the question... to discover whether most folks think that this is a valid change.

 

What if you have a micro puzzle, micro multi or micro letterbox, do you add a type for each?

 

No, the existing types that you mention already alert the geocacher that it is a different experience, no more definition need be given.

 

If so it can get out of hand and just add to the confusion.

 

We have cache sizes and types and that already creates enough confusion. Let's not add to it by turning a size into a type.

 

If a system is confusing it's either poorly designed or explained... mostly the first; good systems don't take much explanation.

 

Micros are indeed a different experience and that is already noted in the size box.

 

Sure, but why not take it a step further and make them a distinct cache type? It's the type of experience that makes it different, not the size.

Edited November 24, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+infiniteMPG]

Hmmm, brings up a strange thought, is the cache size the size of the container itself (including camo), or the size of the volume inside that can hold items? I can see making a 5-gallon bucket that's filled with concrete except for a waterproof match holder cast into the top, according to the classifications, that would have to be listed as Large (5 gallon bucket)

[Skippermark]

What if you have a micro puzzle, micro multi or micro letterbox, do you add a type for each?

 

No, the existing types that you mention already alert the geocacher that it is a different experience, no more definition need be given.

But if it's a puzzle that's a micro size, does it get listed as a puzzle or a micro since the micro would be it's own type?

 

Edited to fix up quote issues.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Skippermark

[+Hrethgir]

Micros can be filtered out in PQs, so I think that's all the filtering you need. If you don't want to go Premium to use PQs, then that's just something you'll have to learn to live with.

[+infiniteMPG]

But if it's a puzzle that's a micro size, does it get listed as a puzzle or a micro since the micro would be it's own type?

TYPE of cache (traditional, puzzle, multi, etc) is a totally different attribute in the listing as SIZE (micro, small, regular, large, etc). So a puzzle cache would still get a size listed... that's already there.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Yikes! Yet another micro thread!

 

Worse, it's an idea that has been tossed out here fairly often over the years.

 

My hope is that this thread can remain narrowly focused and not spin down into uselessness.

 

In this thread I am seeking validation or rejection of my idea that micros should be a different cache type.

 

I'm not asking if you like them or don't like them or any other question but "Should micros be a seperate cache type?"

 

It's the sort of question we really need a poll feature for, to derive just a straight Yes/No popular vote instead of a controversy.

 

Caveat #1: I checked my logged stats and 1397 or 54.3 % of my finds are micros, so I am certainly not anti-micro.

 

Caveat #2: I love finding caches, all of them, but I gotta say that there is nothing TO ME as interesting and exciting as a nicely-stocked well-hidden ammo can in an interesting location.

 

Just so y'all know where I am coming from.

 

Now for my thinking behind asking this question...

 

Groundspeak has defined a geocache as a container with a log in it. I wish they'd go a step further. A cache, to my mind, should also contain STUFF! That has throughout history been what a cache is. I'm all about micros, obviously, but I have come to believe that they should be a seperate cache type, not size... so that by definition a geocache contains stuff, a microcache contains only a log.

 

That's not to say that you can't drop Pathtags or whatever swag fits into a film can, nothing is absolute... but this idea would give clear distinction between caches not just by size but by type.

 

If there is popular support for this idea I will post it to the website suggestions area, but right now it's a question, not a suggestion.

 

So, how many others believe that a geocache type should contain stuff and a microcache type contain only a log?

 

I can see your point, but it would not be found at the top of my list of things that need to be changed. I also see this as being a major rework of the system. There would be two types of caches; Traditional, Puzzle, etc. that are micros and Traditional, Puzzle, etc. that are not. The size listing would become redundant too.

 

How about listing micros on a different service?

[+StarBrand]

I just have to ask - "to what end?"

 

If the desire is an easy way to filter them in/out - you can already do that. Howver, if you can answer that question another way - I'd might see enough reason.

To me hunting a micro is a different type of experience.

 

As indicated by the fact that the majority of my finds have been micros I have nothing whatsoever against them.

 

I do think, however, that the game would be well-served and the angst over micros reduced if that 'different experience' were clearly delineated.

 

I see it in much the same way that puzzles have their own cache type... they are a different experience than hunting either ammo boxes or nanos and so a seperate cache type makes sense for them.

 

I think that there is enough of a difference in hunting micros and ammo cans that they deserve distinct cache types.

I'm not convinced by this argument. Size is enough to make the distinction.

[+vw_k]

No, micro is a size, not a cache type, if you don't want to find micros you can simply read the cache description to see what size a cache is!

[Mushtang]

Making micros a type makes about as much sense as making all blue containers a type. Actually even less sense, as you can filter out micros already.

 

I see no benefit. I read your posts, but don't agree that the size of the container has any bearing on the hunt and makes it a different enough experience.

 

And it doesn't surprise me that Team Geoblast wants to ban micros from this site.

[Skippermark]

But if it's a puzzle that's a micro size, does it get listed as a puzzle or a micro since the micro would be it's own type?

TYPE of cache (traditional, puzzle, multi, etc) is a totally different attribute in the listing as SIZE (micro, small, regular, large, etc). So a puzzle cache would still get a size listed... that's already there.

 

Exactly, but TAR specifically asked if micros should be listed as a different TYPE of cache.

 

In this thread I am seeking validation or rejection of my idea that micros should be a different cache type.

[Skippermark]

My question was rhetorical, asking how you would classify a cache as a puzzle type and a micro type if micro becomes a new type, not size, of cache.

[Mag Magician]

As so eloquently stated by another poster............NO

[Clan Riffster]

How about listing micros on a different service?

I think that's a great idea. We all have our own inner idea of what constitutes a "cache". Some believe that anything that makes it past the reviewers must be a cache. Others believe that caches, historically, are for storing stuff. While yet others fall somewhere in between. All of these opinions are equally valid. My belief system echos the storage idea, yet I don't necessarily consider a scrap of paper qualifies as "stuff". So, in accordance with my own caching aesthetics, a micro is not a cache.

 

But to answer Ed's question: No, I don't think that having nothing inside them but a scrap of paper necessitates changing the cache type.

 

As an offshoot question:

If Jeremy woke up one day and decided he didn't want micros listed on the Geocaching .com website, creating another site just for them, (Ittybittycaches .com?), would you still hunt them? The Riffster Clan's hunting preferences depends utterly on who is along for the ride. If it was just me, probably not, as they typically don't appeal to me. If my better half was along, we'd definitely hunt them.

[+MountainRacer]

As an offshoot question:

If Jeremy woke up one day and decided he didn't want micros listed on the Geocaching .com website, creating another site just for them, (Ittybittycaches .com?), would you still hunt them? The Riffster Clan's hunting preferences depends utterly on who is along for the ride. If it was just me, probably not, as they typically don't appeal to me. If my better half was along, we'd definitely hunt them.

I think that question was answered when virtuals were turned into waymarks. Some people flipped, but a lot didn't because they no longer counted for those golden smileys.

Edited November 25, 2008 by MountainRacer

[+Markwell]

If it were needed and were something that would enhance the filtering process and not confuse the issues, I would say yes.

 

But since we already have a size designation, if we move Micro to a cache type, could a micro be labeled as size "Large" or "Regular"?

 

But beyond that, if this is what you're proposing, I would say "No" -

 

The top section is how Chicago area caches look now. The bottom is what I think you're proposing.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Markwell

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

As an offshoot question:

If Jeremy woke up one day and decided he didn't want micros listed on the Geocaching .com website, creating another site just for them, (Ittybittycaches .com?), would you still hunt them? The Riffster Clan's hunting preferences depends utterly on who is along for the ride. If it was just me, probably not, as they typically don't appeal to me. If my better half was along, we'd definitely hunt them.

I think that question was answered when virtuals were turned into waypoints. Some people flipped, but a lot didn't because they no longer counted for those golden smileys.

This assertion always reminds me of a comment Jeremy made in a post a while back, something to the effect that geocaches are just waypoints with a cache at the location.

 

It may have been totally off-hand, but ever since reading it I have expected Waymarking to absorb Geocaching!

[+doingitoldschool]

No, they should not.

Perhaps we could start, instead, a seperate forum dedicated to micro-angst-spew-haters, so that the rest of us do not have to see "I hate micros" as every fourth thread.

[Clan Riffster]

I'm wondering, if there weren't so many people turned off by the average micro, would we have gobs of "Micros Are Bad" threads?

After all, I've never seen a thread in here titled "I hate well hidden ammo cans in unique locations!"

Just wondering...

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If it were needed and were something that would enhance the filtering process and not confuse the issues, I would say yes.

 

But since we already have a size designation, if we move Micro to a cache type, could a micro be labeled as size "Large" or "Regular"?

 

But beyond that, if this is what you're proposing, I would say "No" -

 

The top section is how Chicago area caches look now. The bottom is what I think you're proposing.

 

Actually I am not sure I set the premise in a way that a clear answer can be had.

 

I am thinking that determining cache type and size have little to do with one another.

 

The word micro is where the confusion comes in.

 

Currently caches have both a size and a type attribute, and I am not suggesting that we change that.

 

We appear to agree that hunting a puzzle cache or a multi-cache is a different experience than hunting a traditional cache where one container is located at specified coordinates. We handled that by giving them different cache types. Size does not enter the picture in determining which type it is.

 

To me hunting a container with swag is a quite different experience than hunting a bison tube. It's not just a matter of size, it's deeper than that.

 

To the folks tempted to veer OT, yes, micros can be filtered by size, but that has nothing to do with this topic. Obviously I like micros, almost 54% of my finds are micros, so this isn't about how to avoid them.

 

I'm trying to explore cache type (the hunt experience) seperate from size.

 

Perhaps what I am after is a new cache type... caches without swag.

Edited November 25, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+ventura_kids]

Let's clarify the real issue.

It has nothing to do with angst against micros.

 

Being one who has major contact with thousands of geocachers....

I can positively state..... geocachers love micros.

 

There is once again a tiny group of "forum" cachers that create these issues in their own minds.

The forums in no way reflect the majority of geocachers.

The forums are a place to banter, reflect, and discuss.

 

These discussions NEVER reflect the larger group of geocachers.....EVER.

 

Change for the sake of change is never a good choice either.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... Change for the sake of change is never a good choice either.

 

True! But when's the last time you saw 4 or 5 angsty threads about puzzles on one forum page?

 

People recognize that puzzles and traditionals are different and the cache type clearly shows that they are. No problems.

 

What if a new cache type, perhaps called 'swagless caches' instead of 'micros', had such a clearly indicated cache type?

 

Would a minor change in order to reduce or eliminate the great micro controversy be a good reason for that change?

[+bflentje]

I'd rather see virtuals reinstated, but that isn't going to happen either.

[+Hrethgir]

... Change for the sake of change is never a good choice either.

 

True! But when's the last time you saw 4 or 5 angsty threads about puzzles on one forum page?

 

People recognize that puzzles and traditionals are different and the cache type clearly shows that they are. No problems.

 

What if a new cache type, perhaps called 'swagless caches' instead of 'micros', had such a clearly indicated cache type?

 

Would a minor change in order to reduce or eliminate the great micro controversy be a good reason for that change?

 

No, because it's change for the sake of change, but it isn't going to make an actual difference. Why call a micro a swag-less cache? It's a micro, which is clearly small and highly unlikey to have any swag, no mater what you want to call the type. People don't complain about puzzle caches because people who don't want to do them just skip them, and I don't see why people aren't doing the same thing about micros if they hate them so much. I don't sit around and bitch about micros, I filter them out of my PQ, so it's totally a non-issue. In your scenario, people would be able to filter out "Swagless" cache types, but right now, they can already filter out micros, so it's the same thing by a differnt name. As for swag, it isn't the reason I hunt anyways, I want to have fun.

 

On a side note, is there a way to filter forum topics with the word "micro" out of the forum view? I'm getting sick of seeing so many different threads about the same thing. Or maybe the mods can make a sub-forum for micros and all the micro-haters can go in there and stop clogging up this area. Or just a sticky called "I Hate Micros", something keep all the angst in one place where I can easily ignore it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

On a side note, is there a way to filter forum topics with the word "micro" out of the forum view? I'm getting sick of seeing so many different threads about the same thing. Or maybe the mods can make a sub-forum for micros and all the micro-haters can go in there and stop clogging up this area. Or just a sticky called "I Hate Micros", something keep all the angst in one place where I can easily ignore it.

HondaH8r... worried about microH8ters!

 

Surely you don't read microH8ting into my posts, I have twice in this thread stated "Obviously I like micros, almost 54% of my finds are micros, so this isn't about how to avoid them."

[+Lacomo]

No, micro is a size, not a cache type.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'm at 22% micro finds. Nope. It's not a type. It's a size. No different from kayaking caches. They're still traditionals. Cache is at coordinates listed = traditional.

[Neos2]

I see no propose in calling a 'size' a 'type'.

 

Every size of cache has it's own flavor of the hunt. Caches are well served by being separated by size, type, difficulty and terrain, all of which greatly enhances my ability to know how to hunt them (or choose not to hunt them).

[+briansnat]

If it were needed and were something that would enhance the filtering process and not confuse the issues, I would say yes.

 

But since we already have a size designation, if we move Micro to a cache type, could a micro be labeled as size "Large" or "Regular"?

 

But beyond that, if this is what you're proposing, I would say "No" -

 

The top section is how Chicago area caches look now. The bottom is what I think you're proposing.

 

This shows the absurdity of the idea in a better way than I could ever explain. Mind if I trot this chart out the next time this topic makes its semi-annual appearance?

 

Perhaps what I am after is a new cache type... caches without swag.

 

Swag or no swag, they are still either a traditional, letterbox, puzzle or multi. If you have a no-swag multi, do you list it as a no-swag cache or a multi?

 

How about an swagless attribute? I can support that idea.

Edited November 25, 2008 by briansnat

[+hydnsek]

No, micro is a size, not a cache type.

What they, and several others, have already said. Another vote against.

[+TrailGators]

If Jeremy woke up one day and decided he didn't want micros listed on the Geocaching .com website, creating another site just for them, (Ittybittycaches .com?), would you still hunt them?

I don't think they'd call it Ittybittycaches.com. To go along with Waymarking.com, they'd probably call it Waytoosmall.com.

 

But seriously, I don't think the problem that some people have with micros is size, so this idea won't accomplish anything. Besides that many people are now using the small size to describe what used to be a micro.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Moderator, my question is answered, I go down in resounding defeat on this idea! Close 'er up, please!

[Mag Magician]

This shows the absurdity of the idea in a better way than I could ever explain. Mind if I trot this chart out the next time this topic makes its semi-annual appearance?

 

Briansnat! You mean semi weekly, don't you? I vote for the filter in the forum to take care of the micro angst threads, instead.

[+3doxies]

I think I actually understand what TAR is asking...it kinda emulates the thought process we sometimes undergo in deciding where to cache/what to seek that day. Sometimes micros in town, sometimes micros on the mountain, sometimes other things of varying sizes. And sometimes we just don't think...we cache for whatever.

 

A swagless attribute is an interesting idea. You can have "swag-positive" micros, as well. But I'm not sure whether swag is present or not addresses TAR's point RE the experience. Frankly, we've found some larger caches that yield about the same experience as a LPC...and had a few of the dreaded micros that are just as fun of a hunt as most ammo cans.

 

In a bit of roundabout way, TAR has highlighted the instance from which so many seem to draw some sort of offense from: how their perception of a particular caching experience differs from their desire/expectation (or, in some cases, how it differs from what they believe your desire/expectation ought to be). What he seems to be seeking is another indicator to help folks gauge their possible experience. I personally would love to see the evolution of such a measure - if it worked. But an experience is so very much what WE make of it through the filters of our own desires, biases and personalities...as is our reaction to that perceived experience. In that the only thing we can truly control in that case is our reaction, perhaps when it comes to micros it is best to heed the advice of Dr. Sidney Freedman - just pull down your pants and slide on the ice.

Edited November 25, 2008 by 3doxies

[+DanOCan]

No.

 

What is the deal lately? It seems every thread on the forums lately ends up with people wanting a new cache type. Are we that desperate for new icons or what?

[+Mudfrog]

... Change for the sake of change is never a good choice either.

 

True! But when's the last time you saw 4 or 5 angsty threads about puzzles on one forum page?

 

People recognize that puzzles and traditionals are different and the cache type clearly shows that they are. No problems.

 

What if a new cache type, perhaps called 'swagless caches' instead of 'micros', had such a clearly indicated cache type?

 

Would a minor change in order to reduce or eliminate the great micro controversy be a good reason for that change?

 

Swagless would not work. I've been ftf on a couple of regular size containers, i think one was an ammocan, that had nothing in them except a logbook and pen.

 

As far as adding micro as a seperate cache type, i don't think it is needed. Imo, the "caching experience" when finding one is just not that different from a regular sized cache to warrant a change. And for those who dislike them, they are easily filtered with a query.

 

As someone posted above, it's very apparant that the angsty threads about micros aren't representative of the total caching population. There wouldn't be so many placed if it was really true that most cachers despised them!

[+The Jester]

Hunting caches in a forest is a different experience from hunting caches in a desert. Hunting night caches is a different experience from hunting caches in daylight. There are many different experiences in geocaching, we can't have an icon for each.

[+Star*Hopper]

Considering micros CAN hold swag....well, micro-swag, but diamonds are small too.....

I can kinda see your point but I think your purpose would be better served if instead, they instituted a new SIZE category for 'Nanos'. And the guideline for them would state they hold a log-strip/sheet, only. If size were to be a criteria, just by way of suggestion I'd offer: Less than half the size of a 35mm film can.

 

That's something I'd be ALL for.....and have been for some time now. And noting I've seen this suggestion (for a Nano size listing) several times around here, so it's not like I'm alone with this thought.

 

~*

[+traildad]

... Change for the sake of change is never a good choice either.

 

True! But when's the last time you saw 4 or 5 angsty threads about puzzles on one forum page?

 

People recognize that puzzles and traditionals are different and the cache type clearly shows that they are. No problems.

 

What if a new cache type, perhaps called 'swagless caches' instead of 'micros', had such a clearly indicated cache type?

 

Would a minor change in order to reduce or eliminate the great micro controversy be a good reason for that change?

If you had a very small multi, would that be a multi, a swagless or a swagless multi? It seems that the idea would create problems and not really solve anything. Since we can filter by size, what would be gained other than a different label for them. A micro by any other name is still a micro.

[Skippermark]

Let's clarify the real issue.

It has nothing to do with angst against micros.

 

Being one who has major contact with thousands of geocachers....

I can positively state..... geocachers love micros.

ventura_kids always beats me to the good replies. Must be the time zone difference.

 

I agree with everything said and have also talked with people in different areas and find that the majority of cachers love micros.

 

The number of people who use the forums compared to the overall number of geocachers is minuscule. There are thousands and thousands of cachers who have never been to the forums, so things said here aren't a good representation of the overall caching community.

[Mushtang]

Let's clarify the real issue.

It has nothing to do with angst against micros.

 

Being one who has major contact with thousands of geocachers....

I can positively state..... geocachers love micros.

ventura_kids always beats me to the good replies. Must be the time zone difference.

 

I agree with everything said and have also talked with people in different areas and find that the majority of cachers love micros.

 

The number of people who use the forums compared to the overall number of geocachers is minuscule. There are thousands and thousands of cachers who have never been to the forums, so things said here aren't a good representation of the overall caching community.

Yup. All one has to do is look at the huge numbers of finds the micros have in order to see that lots and lots of people like them.

 

Even boring LPCs with only a view of a parking lot are found way more often than the average boring ammo can in the woods under an Unnatural Pile of Sticks.

 

People love them.

[+Okiebryan]

The only angst I see regarding micros is in the forums. And of course, we all know that a very small percentage of cachers visit the forums. Equating the forums to geocaching opinion is about like equating talk radio opinion to politics in general.

 

I don't see a problem.

[+Too Tall John]

How about an swagless attribute? I can support that idea.

That's what I was thinking...