Jump to content

Can Nanos be their own size?


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I just list as micro then in my script i will let them know if it's a nano.

 

Nuff said

 

Yeeeah... that is what most people do...

 

But if "micro" says it, why bother having to tell people in the cache page that it's not a micro, it's a nano?

 

I guess because it's different.

 

And since it's different...

 

Maaaaaybe it should have it's own size designation.

 

Just sayin'.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

I just list as micro then in my script i will let them know if it's a nano.

 

Nuff said

 

Yeeeah... that is what most people do...

 

But if "micro" says it, why bother having to tell people in the cache page that it's not a micro, it's a nano?

 

I guess because it's different.

 

And since it's different...

 

Maaaaaybe it should have it's own size designation.

 

Just sayin'.

 

:laughing:

"Micro" is the size. "Nano" is a description. Lots of cache pages, of all sizes, include additional descriptions of the container. That doesn't make 'em different. Just sayin'.

Link to comment

I'd be happy if people would stop using the unknown size for every second micro.

 

I don't understand the "Unknown" size designation myself. Obviously the hider knows the size of the cache, what is the point of the "Unknown" designation? And I would be OK with a "Nano" size, but I don't think it's needed. Anyways, it would just be one more thing for me to check under sizes to not find in my urban area PQ :laughing:

Link to comment

At this point, I assume Micro means Nano unless I end up finding otherwise. Should Nano be a separate size designation for a Traditional? I'm in favor of it and can't think of a reason why this would not be a sensible improvement.

 

Couldn't agree more. A nano is not a micro.

 

Of course you'll get the standard response that we still live in the olden days and that you need to get with the times.

 

How about getting rid of specific definitions and listing cache sizes on a broader general scale? Is it okay to at least talk about it?

Link to comment

At this point, I assume Micro means Nano unless I end up finding otherwise. Should Nano be a separate size designation for a Traditional? I'm in favor of it and can't think of a reason why this would not be a sensible improvement.

 

Couldn't agree more. A nano is not a micro.

 

Of course you'll get the standard response that we still live in the olden days and that you need to get with the times.

 

How about getting rid of specific definitions and listing cache sizes on a broader general scale? Is it okay to at least talk about it?

 

I know aint nothing gonna change. I was just in a mood the other day and wanted to fuss about something.

 

Seriously, if any change could be done, I'm in agreement with removing more information. First, I'd take away the Unknown size because nobody knows how to use it, anyway. Then, I'd reduce it to Big and Small. If COs want to describe things further, they can. As far as I've seen, people enjoy searching based on experience, not based on knowing upfront exactly what they're looking for. As a paranormal investigator, I kinda understand the thrill of going in not knowing exactly what you're going to find.

Link to comment

"Micro" is the size. "Nano" is a description. Lots of cache pages, of all sizes, include additional descriptions of the container. That doesn't make 'em different. Just sayin'.

 

Nano is a size. Bison tube is a description.

XXL is a size. "Well officer, the geocacher was about 4 foot 10, had a glass eye (from all of that bushwacking), bald, and smelled like wintergreen." is a description. :)

Link to comment

"Micro" is the size. "Nano" is a description. Lots of cache pages, of all sizes, include additional descriptions of the container. That doesn't make 'em different. Just sayin'.

 

Nano is a size. Bison tube is a description.

XXL is a size. "Well officer, the geocacher was about 4 foot 10, had a glass eye (from all of that bushwacking), bald, and smelled like wintergreen." is a description. :)

Please tell me that was a joke. As a rebuttal it is lame and inefectual.

 

Main Entry: nano-

Function: combining form

Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Greek nanos dwarf

 

1 : one billionth (10−9) part of <nanosecond>

2 : nanotechnology <nanomachine>

3 : nanoscale <nanoparticle> <nanotube>

 

I.E. a size!

 

Main Entry: bison tube 1

Function: noun

 

1 : a small, metal, water-tight cylindrical container made by Bison Designs

 

Main Entry: bison tube 2

Function: noun

Etymology: Goecaching Vocabulary, from Bison Designs key chain pill containers

 

1 : descriptor for small, metal, water-tight cylindrical container

 

It seems that no matter what main entry you use for bison tube you still end up with it being a description.

Oh by the way, XXL is not a size it is the abbreviation for a size.

 

All of that aside those of use who are right are wrong no matter what side we stand on and it doesn't matter any which way.

GS doesn't want to currently entertain a single logical argument for the proposed change because it will not profit them and if this thread does not get ignored by us users then they will lock it.

There is only one way to get them to add nano and that is for a significant amount of PM's to drop their subscriptions citing the lack of said addition as their reason.

Link to comment

"Micro" is the size. "Nano" is a description. Lots of cache pages, of all sizes, include additional descriptions of the container. That doesn't make 'em different. Just sayin'.

 

Nano is a size. Bison tube is a description.

XXL is a size. "Well officer, the geocacher was about 4 foot 10, had a glass eye (from all of that bushwacking), bald, and smelled like wintergreen." is a description. :)

Please tell me that was a joke. As a rebuttal it is lame and inefectual.

 

Main Entry: nano-

Function: combining form

Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Greek nanos dwarf

 

1 : one billionth (10−9) part of <nanosecond>

2 : nanotechnology <nanomachine>

3 : nanoscale <nanoparticle> <nanotube>

 

I.E. a size!

 

Main Entry: bison tube 1

Function: noun

 

1 : a small, metal, water-tight cylindrical container made by Bison Designs

 

Main Entry: bison tube 2

Function: noun

Etymology: Goecaching Vocabulary, from Bison Designs key chain pill containers

 

1 : descriptor for small, metal, water-tight cylindrical container

 

It seems that no matter what main entry you use for bison tube you still end up with it being a description.

Oh by the way, XXL is not a size it is the abbreviation for a size.

 

All of that aside those of use who are right are wrong no matter what side we stand on and it doesn't matter any which way.

GS doesn't want to currently entertain a single logical argument for the proposed change because it will not profit them and if this thread does not get ignored by us users then they will lock it.

There is only one way to get them to add nano and that is for a significant amount of PM's to drop their subscriptions citing the lack of said addition as their reason.

Whoa, loosen up a little! Of course I was serious! :D:D:anibad:

Link to comment

"Micro" is the size. "Nano" is a description. Lots of cache pages, of all sizes, include additional descriptions of the container. That doesn't make 'em different. Just sayin'.

 

Nano is a size. Bison tube is a description.

XXL is a size. "Well officer, the geocacher was about 4 foot 10, had a glass eye (from all of that bushwacking), bald, and smelled like wintergreen." is a description. :P

Please tell me that was a joke. As a rebuttal it is lame and inefectual.

 

Main Entry: nano-

Function: combining form

Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary, from Greek nanos dwarf

 

1 : one billionth (10−9) part of <nanosecond>

2 : nanotechnology <nanomachine>

3 : nanoscale <nanoparticle> <nanotube>

 

I.E. a size!

 

Main Entry: bison tube 1

Function: noun

 

1 : a small, metal, water-tight cylindrical container made by Bison Designs

 

Main Entry: bison tube 2

Function: noun

Etymology: Goecaching Vocabulary, from Bison Designs key chain pill containers

 

1 : descriptor for small, metal, water-tight cylindrical container

 

It seems that no matter what main entry you use for bison tube you still end up with it being a description.

Oh by the way, XXL is not a size it is the abbreviation for a size.

 

All of that aside those of use who are right are wrong no matter what side we stand on and it doesn't matter any which way.

GS doesn't want to currently entertain a single logical argument for the proposed change because it will not profit them and if this thread does not get ignored by us users then they will lock it.

There is only one way to get them to add nano and that is for a significant amount of PM's to drop their subscriptions citing the lack of said addition as their reason.

I was doing fine with this topic until I saw this post. Do you understand that a Bison tube is a specific type of container and they can be very small or somewhat large? Thanks for the attempt at dictionary definitions that only fit your viewpoint.

 

What should I do about a container that I make that is about one foot long but only has an opening for a log that is the size of what is currently thought of as a nano? Should that be an extra long nano? Too many attempts to pigeon hole the game. Maybe we need to be discussing the other end of the spectrum. If a 30 cal. ammo can is a regular shouldn't a 50 cal. be a large? A 50 cal. is a whole lot smaller than a 30 gallon container.

 

How about doing a better job of encouraging (requiring) cache owners to properly list and describe the containers they use? Any micro should be able to fit in any small many times over and any small should be able to fit in any regular... Get rid of the unknown cache size and get cachers to actually read the caceh page. Seems simple to me.

Link to comment

 

All of that aside those of use who are right are wrong no matter what side we stand on and it doesn't matter any which way.

GS doesn't want to currently entertain a single logical argument for the proposed change because it will not profit them and if this thread does not get ignored by us users then they will lock it.

There is only one way to get them to add nano and that is for a significant amount of PM's to drop their subscriptions citing the lack of said addition as their reason.

 

ummmmmm...... so what makes your opinion weigh more than others who have the opinion of letting it the way it is? Tell me honestly why should GS cave in to those who have the biggest temper tantrum? Isn't part of the fun of the sport searching? So you get to a lamp post, lift the skirt, and if it isn't there, start looking for a nano. I don't get the attitude that every C & D should be a literal C & D; stop the car, leave it running, hop out, mark the log and off you go to the next. So it is a nano and you gotta look a little more, so it is the same as 30 other ones, big deal. eventually you run across one that was well hid, or has a different twist on it that makes it enjoyable.

 

I dunno :laughing::P:laughing: ...just don't see what the big deal is to the point that GS needs to be run down and then a call for a boycott. I wonder if you would drop your PM if you wouldn't still use the site??? Fighting over the nano issue is a waste of time that could be put into caching.

Link to comment

GS doesn't want to currently entertain a single logical argument for the proposed change because it will not profit them and if this thread does not get ignored by us users then they will lock it.

There is only one way to get them to add nano and that is for a significant amount of PM's to drop their subscriptions citing the lack of said addition as their reason.

I haven't seen a single logical argument for the proposed change. What purpose does it serve?

The current micro size includes the nano-size caches. A new size would by definition mean that the definition of micro would also change. All the existing caches with a size of micro would have to be reviewed to see if they are micro or nano. That is not going happen because most cache owners, once they hide their cache are not going to make changes to the size just because some new size was added.

 

We have evidence of this from the last time a new size was added. That was when small was added between micro and regular. That was a real mess because it affected the definition of both micro and regular. Very few cache were changed to small from micro or regular. And to this day there are many cachers who will continue to list a small tupperware container as regular or an Altoids tin as micro. Small size had a purpose. Smaller regular caches could only hold smaller trade items, particularly travel bug that were attached to small item. Larger micros could also hold some small trade items. The small size was meant to indicate that the cache could hold some smaller trade items - particularly travel bugs and most geocoins which would not fit in the new definition of micro - but could not hold a larger trade item that need something close to ammo can size to fit in.

 

The addition of nano would not serve this purpose unless it was meant for caches that were unable to hold any swag. Some people feel a swagless attribute or even a no trades cache type would better serve this purpose than a nano size. Unless there is underlying need for the new size (and knowing that you are looking for a button or bison tube instead of a 35mm film can is not a need) there is no point in creating a new size.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

 

All of that aside those of use who are right are wrong no matter what side we stand on and it doesn't matter any which way.

GS doesn't want to currently entertain a single logical argument for the proposed change because it will not profit them and if this thread does not get ignored by us users then they will lock it.

There is only one way to get them to add nano and that is for a significant amount of PM's to drop their subscriptions citing the lack of said addition as their reason.

 

ummmmmm...... so what makes your opinion weigh more than others who have the opinion of letting it the way it is? Tell me honestly why should GS cave in to those who have the biggest temper tantrum? Isn't part of the fun of the sport searching? So you get to a lamp post, lift the skirt, and if it isn't there, start looking for a nano. I don't get the attitude that every C & D should be a literal C & D; stop the car, leave it running, hop out, mark the log and off you go to the next. So it is a nano and you gotta look a little more, so it is the same as 30 other ones, big deal. eventually you run across one that was well hid, or has a different twist on it that makes it enjoyable.

 

I dunno :laughing::P:laughing: ...just don't see what the big deal is to the point that GS needs to be run down and then a call for a boycott. I wonder if you would drop your PM if you wouldn't still use the site??? Fighting over the nano issue is a waste of time that could be put into caching.

Actually I'm not a PM anymore, the title never dropped. I'll also add that it is not because of the nano vs. micro issue, it's more about the refusal to allow people to keep disusing it and a few other debates I have had the pleasure of laughing at both sides on. I'm also not calling for a boycott, I was only stating the only method that would work judging from the past behavior concerning this subject.

 

WRASTRO,

If you want to get super technical all bison tubes should be listed as small according to the manufactures general description. I was merely citing the common argot of the on/off site geocaching community as a whole.

I have also considered the concept of getting rid of the Unknown size but it occurred to me that one would just be looking for a small, regular or large that is actually a micro, actually much easier (and cheaper) to just put into the guidelines "if you think it is a nano then list it as unknown". Hey as far as I am concerned large covers from a 2.5 gal bucket to a tanker trailer.

Heck according to a lose interpretation of the guidelines my one and only micro could be called a small because it contains more than a log. One that I am planning could easily be considered a small because it has a log book a pencil and still has room for multiple 50 cent pieces. Any suggestions on water proofing a mini Altoids tin that will be listed as a micro? Water proofing is the only thing holding it back.

Consider this, what size description belongs to a cinder block with a hole drilled into it and the smallest bison tube glued into it? I say micro but I know an anti microer that made one and calls it large. His reasoning is it stopped being a search for a micro as soon as it became a permanent part of something much larger.

I know how pointless the reasoning for nano is, what I cant figure out is why are none GS personnel are so against the category.

Lets look at it like this:

Who would a nano category hurt?

The only reasonable answer I can see is GS, ya know time and money lets not forget the great corporate credo that spills into mom&pops now a days "Minimum effort for maximum pay out"

Who would a nano category help?

Every one that wouldn't mind searching for a film canister (or even one cut down to 1/4 height) but despises looking for something you can't even crush a cigarette butt into.

 

If it isn't clear, I'm pro nano category but I'm anti nano.

Give them their category and go one step better. Allow a second set of size, terrain and difficulty ratings that are user implemented. That way mister cinder block micro would get called out.

I might forget that something that is only level 2 terrain for me could be level 4 for 95% of the community.

You may even end up placing a cache that you think is only a level 1 hide but you're so experienced in the hunt that only 1 in 30 agree with you.

 

One more time. Who does adding the category hurt?

 

~~~edit~~~

bad grammar that only got slightly better.

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to comment

That is not going happen because most cache owners, once they hide their cache are not going to make changes to the size just because some new size was added.

 

We have evidence of this from the last time a new size was added. That was when small was added between micro and regular. That was a real mess because it affected the definition of both micro and regular. Very few cache were changed to small from micro or regular. And to this day there are many cachers who will continue to list a small tupperware container as regular or an Altoids tin as micro. Small size had a purpose. Smaller regular caches could only hold smaller trade items, particularly travel bug that were attached to small item. Larger micros could also hold some small trade items. The small size was meant to indicate that the cache could hold some smaller trade items - particularly travel bugs and most geocoins which would not fit in the new definition of micro - but could not hold a larger trade item that need something close to ammo can size to fit in.

 

It's troubling that it's just accepted that COs will leave their caches as is after hiding. I suppose it's enough to ask that they maintain them physically. Is it too much to ask that they maintain them on the website, too?

 

I don't really see the purpose in the Small, not in the way that you've explained it. Psychologically, I see the standard as Regular. This might be because Regular is named Regular, another word for Standard. Deviations from the Standard are then Micro, Nano, Small and Large. Maybe this is why there's always such a fuss about micros? They're not standard or "regular" to the game. Each type of container is going to have a different capacity for what it can hold in swag and TBs so I don't see much of a need for "can only hold some" and "can hold more than some" and even "can hold a whole lot". I'm holding a TB that cannot go into any of my Regular caches... but my Regulars are Regulars and I got the thing from a Regular. So it's a roll of the die within sizes... what's the point of a Small? But that's my view of things.

 

I kinda like your other mention (which I haven't quoted) where you went into Swag and No Swag.

 

But, hey, if we need to ask people to maintain cache pages for accuracy on their own hides... obviously it's just too big of a change! :laughing::P

Link to comment

GS doesn't want to currently entertain a single logical argument for the proposed change because it will not profit them and if this thread does not get ignored by us users then they will lock it.

 

I don't anticipate a moderator locking this thread unless it gets ridiculously inflammatory, becomes a circular argument, goes so far off-topic that it's no longer about cache sizing, or people start posting photos of Groundspeak crew like some cultish fan club.

 

To add to your argument, I think there is a difference between Micro and Nano that's significant enough. It's significant enough for COs to write "nano" in the description, so people know they aren't looking for a medicine bottle or film canister. They're looking for a tiny little friggin thing and will probably need tweezers.

 

HEY... there's another thing... when do we get an Attribute for Tweezers?

Link to comment

GS doesn't want to currently entertain a single logical argument for the proposed change because it will not profit them and if this thread does not get ignored by us users then they will lock it.

 

I don't anticipate a moderator locking this thread unless it gets ridiculously inflammatory, becomes a circular argument, goes so far off-topic that it's no longer about cache sizing, or people start posting photos of Groundspeak crew like some cultish fan club.

 

To add to your argument, I think there is a difference between Micro and Nano that's significant enough. It's significant enough for COs to write "nano" in the description, so people know they aren't looking for a medicine bottle or film canister. They're looking for a tiny little friggin thing and will probably need tweezers.

 

HEY... there's another thing... when do we get an Attribute for Tweezers?

People also write ammo can or lcok & lock into the cache descriptions but I don't see anyone clamoring for additional sizes to handle them.

 

This argument is one that has each side claiming there is no valid reason for the opposing viewpoint. I just don't see any reason or need for a nano size category and none of the arguments that have ever been put forth have given me any reason to change my opinion.

Link to comment

Most geocachers now use nano in the description as shorthand for a blinky/mr. magneto type of container. So many do not see it as a size smaller than micro but as a particular kind of micro. While the name - nano - comes from the tiny size of these containters, it is possible to imagine new containers in the future that will have different impact on the hunt. These may be just as small as nanos today, or they may be just slightly larger. A arbitrary division between nano and micros may not have the desired effect and in any case will result in a lot of geocachers being confused about what is a nano and what is micro, just as many are now confused about whether something is micro or small.

 

In reality the micros size is the most diverse in terms of what the container can be. It can be a small Altoids tin, a pill bottle, a 35mm film can, a preform tube, a bison tube, a blinky, a tic-tac container, a hollowed out bolt, ....

And these can be camouflaged by hiding them in something bigger like a piece of artificial fruit, a hole drilled in a rock or piece of wood, etc.

 

I tend to think that is the variety of micro hides that make them difficult for some people. And also may result in people enjoying some micros while not wanting to even look for others.

 

When nano is defined in a certain way, my guess is that people who either like or don't like that kind of hide, would like some way to filter these separate from other kinds of micros. But where would this stop. People who like ammo cans but not Tupperware would want different "sizes" for this. People who want to find a 35 mm film can cleverly disguised as something else but don't want to find 35 mm film cans under lamp pole skirts would want to have these be different sizes.

 

The purpose of size is primarily not to tell you what kind of cache you are looking for. It turns out that for regulars, most smalls, and (if nano was a size) nanos, know the size often helps one find the cache. But the real idea is to let you know what kind of swag you might be able to trade and whether you should bring a pencil and possibly tweezers. In addition to the standard sizes, cache ownersare given the choice of not specifying a cache size if they don't want to give this information to the finder, and the choice of other if they feel that their cache doesn't fit into the standard sizes. If other size is selected the cache can describe the container in the cache description. This is what many people who think nano should be its own size already do.

Link to comment

I don't care if they add a new size or not, it drives me nuts that the standard seems to be slipping in my area. All nanos are consdered micros.( I agree) however there are so many nanos, that a film canister is now labled as small(my opinion its a Micro) a decon container and larger is regular.

Chris

Link to comment

GS doesn't want to currently entertain a single logical argument for the proposed change because it will not profit them and if this thread does not get ignored by us users then they will lock it.

 

I don't anticipate a moderator locking this thread unless it gets ridiculously inflammatory, becomes a circular argument, goes so far off-topic that it's no longer about cache sizing, or people start posting photos of Groundspeak crew like some cultish fan club.

 

To add to your argument, I think there is a difference between Micro and Nano that's significant enough. It's significant enough for COs to write "nano" in the description, so people know they aren't looking for a medicine bottle or film canister. They're looking for a tiny little friggin thing and will probably need tweezers.

 

HEY... there's another thing... when do we get an Attribute for Tweezers?

 

This isn't the Geocaching Cult Club? Dang it.

 

Anyway, it's not the size that matters, it's how you use it... metaphoricly speaking. Fits just fine under nano if, and I mean if people indicate nano in the description. I'm just sayin- :P

Link to comment

I think the question originally was, "Can Nanos be their own size?" (Not "should")

The obvious answer is, "Of course!" If TPTB recognize that the differing sizes are there because we, their customers, utilize different approaches based upon our expectations, (including the expected container size), then it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them to realize that the average cacher approaches a known nano differently than a known micro.

 

Naturally the forum nay sayers are going to "pooh pooh" the idea. It's what they do. Is that a valid reason against a change? I hope not. This topic comes up every so often, which, from a public relations standpoint should be enough for Groundspeak to at least ponder the idea. If, after due consideration, they elect to not make any changes, that is their right. If they notice, in the future, folks bringing it up again, maybe they should reevaluate their choice.

Link to comment

How about doing a better job of encouraging (requiring) cache owners to properly list and describe the containers they use? Any micro should be able to fit in any small many times over and any small should be able to fit in any regular... Get rid of the unknown cache size and get cachers to actually read the caceh page. Seems simple to me.

(bold text is from me)

I couldn't agree more! Remove the "Not Selected" and "Other" parts of the cache building form and require some selection! At lease one would know the size range they are searching for. Unknown is simply way too wide of a range for me.

I've found many a cache where it was a regular but the size not selected. Just laziness (or to be charitable, ignorance) in setting up the cache page in my opinion. Forcing a size selection would solve that.

Edited by BC & MsKitty
Link to comment
Just laziness (or to be charitable, ignorance) in setting up the cache page in my opinion. Forcing a size selection would solve that.

I don't think it's that at all. It actually takes EFFORT to choose "Other" or "Not Selected" - it's not a default choice. Some cache owners want the size of the cache to be part of the mystery of the hunt. You don't know what you're looking for. Personally, I don't like it as I got zinged a while ago with that scenario, but it's their choice. It's also my choice not to hunt those caches.

 

I set my preloaded caches into my GPS based on a polygon search in GSAK that also excludes caches of certain terrain and diffculty levels, certain cache types and certain cache sizes. I specifically exclude cache size of "other" or "not listed" - but that just means that there are less for me to worry about. As it is in my standard load by applying my criteria, I only load about 9% of the caches within about 50 miles of my home, but that still gives me over 400 caches to find.

 

If you don't like caches with "Not Selected" or "Other" don't search for them.

Link to comment
Just laziness (or to be charitable, ignorance) in setting up the cache page in my opinion. Forcing a size selection would solve that.

I don't think it's that at all. It actually takes EFFORT to choose "Other" or "Not Selected" - it's not a default choice. Some cache owners want the size of the cache to be part of the mystery of the hunt. You don't know what you're looking for. Personally, I don't like it as I got zinged a while ago with that scenario, but it's their choice. It's also my choice not to hunt those caches.

 

I set my preloaded caches into my GPS based on a polygon search in GSAK that also excludes caches of certain terrain and diffculty levels, certain cache types and certain cache sizes. I specifically exclude cache size of "other" or "not listed" - but that just means that there are less for me to worry about. As it is in my standard load by applying my criteria, I only load about 9% of the caches within about 50 miles of my home, but that still gives me over 400 caches to find.

 

If you don't like caches with "Not Selected" or "Other" don't search for them.

 

Actually, "Not Chosen" is the default. If you jump right past the cache size field and continue, it will publish as size not chosen with a little red x in the size box line..... at least that is how it works on my computer.

 

I agree that some may choose to not reveal the size for their own reasons, but I don't completely buy the idea that it is their choice to play the game the way they want in this area, and we are left with having to filter them out. If that were completely true, then why require the terrain and difficulty settings. That would certainly make the hunt harder for those that have their own reasons for not publishing those details. There has to be some degree of control on how a cache is presented. At least we agree that we don't like the "Not chosen" caches. :D Choosing a size should be mandatory.

 

As for the original question, nanos will fit into the micro category, just like a 5 gallon pail or larger will fit into the large category..... as long as some size is chosen!

Link to comment
Naturally the forum nay sayers are going to "pooh pooh" the idea. It's what they do. Is that a valid reason against a change? I hope not.

My personal reasoning behind not wanting a nano size category is the hobby is called, "geocaching." While this site defines a geocache as having at least a log, the idea behind the hobby is the trinkets. At present all sizes include at least the ability to have trinkets. Adding a nano size would pretty much create a trinket-less size. This is dangerous direction to go, IMHO. The hobby is already moving away from the original design. Higher and higher percentages of micros are being placed and an ever increasing percentage of those are trinket-less.

 

IMHO, a nano is as different from from your "traditional" cache as a virtual was. It's little different than a code word cache. The primary differences are the form of proof.

 

I vote "no" to a nano size.

 

...or any manner of movement away from the early form of geocaching.

Link to comment
I think there's too many categories for caches as there is. I don't need a category for every single container size anymore than I need a category for every hide technique. Hiders need to tell me less about caches, not more.

Agreed!

 

I'd like to see a maximum of 3 sizes. There's already a lot of confusion over what's a small and what's a micro. Adding more sizes will only add to the confusion.

 

As far as the Unknown size, except in a few rare cases, they are almost always micros.

Link to comment
One more time. Who does adding the category hurt?

It will get confusing. Until I went to FL, I always thought a "nano" was those little round magnetic things 1/2" tall and 3/8" in diameter. We were looking for a cache that said it was a nano, but what we found was something bigger than than and smaller than a bison tube. In FL, the little things I was looking for are called Mr. Magentos, and a nano is about the same diamater but about 3/4" in length and made to hang, just like a bison tube.

 

So what is the correct size of a nano? CT says it's a little magnetic black thing, but FL says it's more like a small bison tube that can hang.

 

After GS adds a new nano type, there will be complaints because people will get confused and not sure what to call their containers. It's small, but it's not quite the size of a Mr. Magneto (Nano), so do I size it as a nano or a micro. Before long, people will be wanting an additional type of container to differentiate. And then, you still have the mighty bison tube. It's much smaller than a 35mm film container and much bigger than a nano, so you should probably have a size for that too...

Link to comment

At this point, I assume Micro means Nano unless I end up finding otherwise. Should Nano be a separate size designation for a Traditional? I'm in favor of it and can't think of a reason why this would not be a sensible improvement.

 

Micro and small is enough to be a PITA and generate a lot of angst. We don't need another size. However a new catagory separating Micro from Tradtional would be nice.

Link to comment

I just list as micro then in my script i will let them know if it's a nano.

 

Nuff said

 

Yeeeah... that is what most people do...

 

But if "micro" says it, why bother having to tell people in the cache page that it's not a micro, it's a nano?

 

I guess because it's different.

 

And since it's different...

 

Maaaaaybe it should have it's own size designation.

 

Just sayin'.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Variations on a theme. Large covers a lot of ground but the hunt for a mortor tube is different than the hunt for a 5 gallon bucket.

A bison tube is a different hunt than a film canister which in turn is a different hunt than a magnetic nano. Size, Shape, Method of attaching. All change the hunt and potential hiding spots.

Then you have that nobody knows the difference between a nano, pico, or micro and call them a mix of all the same things even when talking about the same container.

Link to comment
One more time. Who does adding the category hurt?

It will get confusing. Until I went to FL, I always thought a "nano" was those little round magnetic things 1/2" tall and 3/8" in diameter. We were looking for a cache that said it was a nano, but what we found was something bigger than than and smaller than a bison tube. In FL, the little things I was looking for are called Mr. Magentos, and a nano is about the same diamater but about 3/4" in length and made to hang, just like a bison tube.

 

So what is the correct size of a nano? CT says it's a little magnetic black thing, but FL says it's more like a small bison tube that can hang.

 

After GS adds a new nano type, there will be complaints because people will get confused and not sure what to call their containers. It's small, but it's not quite the size of a Mr. Magneto (Nano), so do I size it as a nano or a micro. Before long, people will be wanting an additional type of container to differentiate. And then, you still have the mighty bison tube. It's much smaller than a 35mm film container and much bigger than a nano, so you should probably have a size for that too...

All sizes are arbitrary and difficult to define. One could define sizes in some standard measurable way but any definition trying to use a standard measurement would be difficult to implement. Most geocachers don't have go around with the tools needed to do standard measurements. And standard measures would not work for all caches anyhow. One thread proposed that a nano was anything with a volume of one barn-megaparsec or less. (Look up the definition of barn-megaparsec to see how ridiculous it is to use standard measurements).

 

Since standard measurements are out of the question, we have cache size that are roughly defined by giving some examples. Many caches are misclassified, simply because it is not clear what size some container is. Some argue that there should be a nano size since the existing sizes seem to be define roughly byorders of magnitude: about 10 micros fit in a small, 10 smalls in a regular, and 10 regulars in a large. So since nanos are so much smaller than 35 mm sized micros and you could put at least ten nanos in a 35mm film canister, there should be a nano size. But the current sizes don't actually fit this model all that well, and in anycase this doesn't help address what to do with in between sizes. Micros come in all sizes for the smallest nanos to 35 mm film canisters, medicine bottles, and preform tubes.

 

Originally there were no sizes listed for geocaches. The first cache was a five gallon bucket; so I guess all caches were large. It did not take long till small caches (called micros at the time) were hidden. Cachers discover that smaller and smaller micros afforded the opportunity to hide caches in place where larger caches tended to go missing. Somewhere along the line it was decided to add a cache size to the attributes for listing a cache. I'm not sure of the rationale behind this. Some cachers may have wanted to have an idea of what size trade items would fit in a cache. Others no doubt felt that knowing the size helps in finding the cache. Some of these cachers wanted the option of not specifying a "standard" size. The felt that if a cache owner wanted to give this information they could put it in the description.

 

For a long time, three sizes (large, regular, and micro) along with 'Not Specified' and 'Other' was sufficient for defining the size caches. Then there was a demand to add a new size. Small was added in between micro and regular because many people moving travel bugs found they wouldn't always fit in the smaller regular caches of the time. The new size was supposed to let caches know that a larger travel bug would fit in regular but not in a small. Small travel bugs would fit in either a small or regular. With the addition of the small class, however, some micros got reclassified as small. A travel bug that consisted of just the tag and a very small item and most geocoins could fit in these containers so what used to be called micro was all of a sudden small.

 

Geocaching.com uses a self-reporting system for caches. The cache owner gets to set the cache size, difficulty, and terrain. The owner also selects the cache type and attributes. The reviewers only check the cache type because the guidelines refer to the cache type. A few reviewers may ask the cache owner if they made a mistake if the size, difficulty, or terrain appear inconsistent with the cache description. For example the cache may be on a island in the middle of a lake and the description may say something about using a boat. If the cache is not a terrain 5, the reviewer may say something, but the cache would still be published assuming it meets the guidelines. A few reviewers have insisted that use of the wheelchair attribute requires the terrain is 1 star. I doubt there would be serious consideration of any change that asked the reviewers to check the size attribute. One could have cache finders post a needs maintenance if the cache is classified the wrong size. But cache owners can delete these notes and given the arbitrariness of the sizes I can guess what would happen should somebody post an SBA on cache because an owner won't change the size.

 

I would also like to address the use of the 'Not Specified' size. This is often used because the cache is a unique container and posting the size would give away some of the surprise in finding the cache. I can think of two examples of caches I actually found like this. In one the description talked about finding an ammo can. That cache was a micro size ammo can hanging in a tree. The other the description talked about finding a 35 mm film can. That cache was a metal cylinder about 12 inches in diameter and 35 mm high. It was a can from a reel of 35mm movie film. Both caches had me looking for something else and stumped me until I put aside my assumptions about what I was going to find. Taking away the 'Not Specified' option would eliminate the surprise of clever caches like these.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

All sizes are arbitrary and difficult to define. One could define sizes in some standard measurable way but any definition trying to use a standard measurement would be difficult to implement. Most geocachers don't have go around with the tools needed to do standard measurements. And standard measures would not work for all caches anyhow. One thread proposed that a nano was anything with a volume of one barn-megaparsec or less. (Look up the definition of barn-megaparsec to see how ridiculous it is to use standard measurements).

 

Since standard measurements are out of the question, we have cache size that are roughly defined by giving some examples. Many caches are misclassified, simply because it is not clear what size some container is. Some argue that there should be a nano size since the existing sizes seem to be define roughly byorders of magnitude: about 10 micros fit in a small, 10 smalls in a regular, and 10 regulars in a large. So since nanos are so much smaller than 35 mm sized micros and you could put at least ten nanos in a 35mm film canister, there should be a nano size. But the current sizes don't actually fit this model all that well, and in anycase this doesn't help address what to do with in between sizes. Micros come in all sizes for the smallest nanos to 35 mm film canisters, medicine bottles, and preform tubes.

 

Originally there were no sizes listed for geocaches. The first cache was a five gallon bucket; so I guess all caches were large. It did not take long till small caches (called micros at the time) were hidden. Cachers discover that smaller and smaller micros afforded the opportunity to hide caches in place where larger caches tended to go missing. Somewhere along the line it was decided to add a cache size to the attributes for listing a cache. I'm not sure of the rationale behind this. Some cachers may have wanted to have an idea of what size trade items would fit in a cache. Others no doubt felt that knowing the size helps in finding the cache. Some of these cachers wanted the option of not specifying a "standard" size. The felt that if a cache owner wanted to give this information they could put it in the description.

 

For a long time, three sizes (large, regular, and micro) along with 'Not Specified' and 'Other' was sufficient for defining the size caches. Then there was a demand to add a new size. Small was added in between micro and regular because many people moving travel bugs found they wouldn't always fit in the smaller regular caches of the time. The new size was supposed to let caches know that a larger travel bug would fit in regular but not in a small. Small travel bugs would fit in either a small or regular. With the addition of the small class, however, some micros got reclassified as small. A travel bug that consisted of just the tag and a very small item and most geocoins could fit in these containers so what used to be called micro was all of a sudden small.

 

Geocaching.com uses a self-reporting system for caches. The cache owner gets to set the cache size, difficulty, and terrain. The owner also selects the cache type and attributes. The reviewers only check the cache type because the guidelines refer to the cache type. A few reviewers may ask the cache owner if they made a mistake if the size, difficulty, or terrain appear inconsistent with the cache description. For example the cache may be on a island in the middle of a lake and the description may say something about using a boat. If the cache is not a terrain 5, the reviewer may say something, but the cache would still be published assuming it meets the guidelines. A few reviewers have insisted that use of the wheelchair attribute requires the terrain is 1 star. I doubt there would be serious consideration of any change that asked the reviewers to check the size attribute. One could have cache finders post a needs maintenance if the cache is classified the wrong size. But cache owners can delete these notes and given the arbitrariness of the sizes I can guess what would happen should somebody post an SBA on cache because an owner won't change the size.

 

Not really a comment on the above statement as it doesn't seem to offer an opinion on the original topic, but it really did make me think of this:

Judge Chamberlain Holler: Mr. Gambini?

Vinny: Yes sir?

Judge Chamberlain Holler: That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection.

Vinny: Thank you, your honor.

Judge Chamberlain Holler: Overruled.

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment
One more time. Who does adding the category hurt?

It will get confusing. Until I went to FL, I always thought a "nano" was those little round magnetic things 1/2" tall and 3/8" in diameter. We were looking for a cache that said it was a nano, but what we found was something bigger than than and smaller than a bison tube. In FL, the little things I was looking for are called Mr. Magentos, and a nano is about the same diamater but about 3/4" in length and made to hang, just like a bison tube.

 

So what is the correct size of a nano? CT says it's a little magnetic black thing, but FL says it's more like a small bison tube that can hang.

 

After GS adds a new nano type, there will be complaints because people will get confused and not sure what to call their containers. It's small, but it's not quite the size of a Mr. Magneto (Nano), so do I size it as a nano or a micro. Before long, people will be wanting an additional type of container to differentiate. And then, you still have the mighty bison tube. It's much smaller than a 35mm film container and much bigger than a nano, so you should probably have a size for that too...

I personally would solve the issue's that most voices have by being less vague.

You start off by stating internal volumes. Just throwing these out as an examples, they are not exactly what I think they should be.

 

Size hidden= umm yeah.

Large= 5 gallons or more

Regular= 1 gallon or more but less than 5

Small= 1 cup or more but less than 1 gallon

Micro= 1teaspoon or more but less than 1 cup

Nano= less than 1 teaspoon

All you need is:

1 teaspoon

1 8oz cup

1 gallon jug

water

Now you can find the size of everything. Frell if you're really industrious then you only need the teaspoon and water.

 

How do you solve the external issue, like the case of the micro cinder block?

By allowing the option of a hybridization letter.

That cinder block with the micro in it would be a Micro/L or because we all know a cinder block will fit in a standard 5 gal bucket, Micro/R.

 

That gives 5 size choices 10 hybrids and an undisclosed.

Using this method would allow a hider to be as vague as they wanted and if they needed more detail...

 

Frankly they are the type to put it in the description anyway.

 

This would also allow seeker much more control over what they are looking for.

I'm going out with the grand kids so we only want Regular, Regular/L and Large.

 

I hate Nanos so none for me or Size hidden.

Link to comment

I haven't seen a single logical argument for the proposed change. What purpose does it serve?

 

Make size designations a matter of function.

 

Large is big enough to be a real treasure trove, though it probably won't be after the first five finds. It's big enough to contain anything you could carry on your back.

 

Regular is no great treasure trove, but it holds pocket-sized items, like a GPS. Lunchbox-sized.

 

Small barely holds anything. It's a micro that just happens to have a few things crammed in.

 

Micro only has room for a log sheet with room for stickers, and long names like mine.

 

Nano doesn't even have room for stickers, and people like me can't even write more than a few letters of their geocaching names.

 

Some people see size designation as a means for finding the thing easier. In this case, a small test tube embedded in a log seems like a regular. However, I would argue that the size designation is for helping people avoid caches that would disappoint them. For example, I get no joy from nanos (or micros with needlessly small log sheets), because I like to use stickers. I live for the stickers. I'll take a micro or larger, but not a nano. My wife likes swag, but she's happy with the small stuff. She'll take a small or bigger.

 

There's a principle in marketing that states the importance of having people get what they expect, or at least have them expect what they're going to get. Size is a factor when it comes to people's anticipation in caching. The question is, are there enough people who would look forward to finding a micro, but be disappointed in finding a nano instead, that we should make a new category? You're right. Most people aren't like me. Most people would be equally appreciative of or disappointed in a micro as much as a nano.

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...