Jump to content

Can you give me your opinions please.


Eric Tenders

Recommended Posts

I recently received this email on one of my caches, I have removed the Cachers name and just posted his email, is he right???? This is a cache that I have at a park and it is a Nano under a bench, in the cache I did not have a size, or much or a hint. When the cacher posted his find he posted that it was a nano. I simply asked him to remove the part of his post that said what the cache was (Nano) and I did it nicely, he never emailed me for a hint or anything, when he had a problem not finding it and other cachers have found it with no problems in fact one said it was a great cache and he only had 12 Finds....well anyway here is the angry cachers email and this is what he said.

 

"People need to know what size the cache is that they are looking for especially when its a NANO. I had looked 4 other times with no luck. When I realized from someone another post what size it was I knew what to look for. Its just a game and people are supposed to be able to find the cache. People will look differently if they know what size it is. Since I have over 700 finds and it took me 4 tries to find it people that aren't as experienced might just give up on the cache. I am not sure if I will remove the NANO reference or not."

 

Please let me know your thoughts.

 

Eric Tenders

Link to comment

..... Its just a game and people are supposed to be able to find the cache.

 

:) This is just a game? :D

 

This is a perfect example of why there should be a cooling off period for logs..... :)

 

I agree with you !

If you as the hider don't want something posted on your page, then you ultimately have the power to delete that log. :P

 

but.... to take both sides.... I sometimes get mad when I can't find a cache.

Usually that temperment is changed as soon as I find it.

 

I love the part about 700 finds.... :D

at 16,500+ finds I still have dozens of DNFs each weekend.

 

and we LOVE Nanos :)

Link to comment

Sounds like someone is just a bad sport.

After all, the object of geocaching is trying to find the cache.

If you don't succeed... try, try again.

 

It doesn't bother us if the size is not listed... just makes it a bit more challenging.

Plus, you can't always rely on the size that is listed anyway.

A micro may turn out to be a small in another person's opinion.

Link to comment

Your cache, you decide what is listed. Not specifying the size just adds to the challenge.

 

If he doesn't take "nano" out of his log as you requested, you can always delete his log and tell him he is more than welcome to repost when he is ready to do so without revealing the size of the cache. Be sure to explain that not revealing the size is your choice as the cache owner and is part fo the challenge of this cache.

Link to comment

Personally, I'd like to know the cache size. As stated above, the size does dictate the way you'd look.

 

Also, as someone who occasionally caches with youngsters... it's not as easy to keep them interested if they think the end of the search is only going to yield a wad of paper.

Link to comment

Do I think the cache size should be listed on every cache? absolutely

 

Do you as the cache owner have the right to withhold that information since a) its your cache & b ) it's not required? once again, absolutely

 

Yes, knowing the size of the cache does change the way I look but it doesn't change whether I look or not. The fun is in the hunt not necessarily if I find it or not. Posting a DNF would make me cranky but not at the CO for placing a cache that I can't find. I would be upset at myself for not finding it.

 

I think you did right in nicely asking that the log be modified. If it isn't then I support you deleting any log that contains spoilers.

Edited by DiamondDaveG
Link to comment

I agree that the size should be listed unless it's a mystery. Some people prefer not to search for certain things and having that information upfront would be useful.

 

Not worth getting mad over, but annoying just the same. But as the cache owner, it's up to you. Personally, I will just skip the ones without the size listed. Most of them turn out to be nanos anyway.

Link to comment

Personally, I'd like to know the cache size. As stated above, the size does dictate the way you'd look.

 

Also, as someone who occasionally caches with youngsters... it's not as easy to keep them interested if they think the end of the search is only going to yield a wad of paper.

 

SD Marc, not picking on or flaming because I used your post to respond. I have only 58 finds but I have learned that the GZ area for a Cache dictates how to look, unless it is a Nano it the woods. JMO

Edited by BrrrMo
Link to comment

I want to know the approx size of the container I am looking for. All listings should reflect that as accurately as possible.

 

and....

 

Not worth the effort to get stressed about what somebody has said in a log unless it was a blatent spoiler. Another few finds and it will drop off of the page.

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment

I agree that the size should be listed unless it's a mystery. Some people prefer not to search for certain things and having that information upfront would be useful.

 

Not worth getting mad over, but annoying just the same. But as the cache owner, it's up to you. Personally, I will just skip the ones without the size listed. Most of them turn out to be nanos anyway.

I feel the same way. I prefer that people indicate the correct size. I also wish people would quit listing micros as smalls. That is more annoying.
Link to comment

It wouldn't bother me one way or the other as a finder. I like nanos (smalls) as much as any other cache size.

 

If I looked for a cache in a park near a park bench but didn't immediately spot it and the cache didn't have a size marked, I'd presume it might be a very small container and start thinking "nano" and look for something like that. I would have done that after the first handful of caches I hunted, when I became aware that there are very small cache containers. It wouldn't take me hundreds of caches to think that way, and it wouldn't make me give up the game, either. I know that is true because some of the first few I found were nanos--notice I said that I found them. They were fun.

 

As a cache owner, if I put out a tiny container and I don't tell you the size, I am doing that because it would be far too easy to find otherwise and it would spoil your fun. If I think the searcher might need to know the size in order to have fun and not frustration, I tell them the size.

 

If I didn't put some bit of information on my cache page, it's because I didn't want it there. If someone else gave it out, I'd ask them to remove it or at least make it more subtle. Some of us actually enjoy not knowing exactly what we are hunting.

 

If you don't delete it, it will eventually fall to the bottom of the page and drop off the logs pulled up on things like GSAK. People will have to scour the whole cache page to find it. Anyone doing that isn't having fun any more and is looking for some help anyway. They might agree with your anonymous finder/poster. So he/she will only potentially ruin the fun of a few people.

Link to comment

I only have 51 finds, but out of those 51 a few of the more imaginative hides were nanos ..... I appreciate the creative ingenuity that went into them. I don't need to know what size it is before I hunt. That is certainly able to be part of the fun. As a matter of fact, I think there is one that I have listed as a DNF that might be a nano - but, oh well. I'll look for it again another day. I don't think the size should be a 'requirement' to list. Leave it up the the hider. Seekers are free to search only for those that list the size if it is that important to them.

 

Oh, and in answer to taking off the nano listing from the log - by all means, do so. The cache belongs to the owner, and that request should be honored. If not, remove the log. It doesn't matter if the log scrolls of the page soon or not - I often read several pages of logs!

Edited by ameryan
Link to comment

Do I think the cache size should be listed on every cache? absolutely

 

Do you as the cache owner have the right to withhold that information since a) its your cache & b ) it's not required? once again, absolutely

 

Yes, knowing the size of the cache does change the way I look but it doesn't change whether I look or not. The fun is in the hunt not necessarily if I find it or not. Posting a DNF would make me cranky but not at the CO for placing a cache that I can't find. I would be upset at myself for not finding it.

 

I think you did right in nicely asking that the log be modified. If it isn't then I support you deleting any log that contains spoilers.

 

Mostly agree with this. As a new cacher it would be nice to have the size in the cache description when it's a nano. just because there is no such classification in the "standard" list. I've seen a Micro that was a medium size prescription bottle, and that's a big difference from a nano that's about the size if my thumbnail. It's still up to the CO how they want to do it. If they want to be mean an sneaky, that's their prerogative. :)

Link to comment

I wish every cache owner would be honest about the cache size, but it is their decision. So I assume that unkown usually means a nano or heavy cammo. When hunting an unknown size cache that is the assumption I go with unless there is other evidence in the cache page or the logs that would suggest otherwise. I wouldn't delete the logs, rather I would just let them slide down off of the page.

Link to comment

I wish every cache owner would be honest about the cache size, but it is their decision. So I assume that unkown usually means a nano or heavy cammo. When hunting an unknown size cache that is the assumption I go with unless there is other evidence in the cache page or the logs that would suggest otherwise. I wouldn't delete the logs, rather I would just let them slide down off of the page.

 

ayep.

Link to comment

Whether it is 70, 700 or 7000 finds there is no stipulation anywhere that says you have to tell the size. I personally enjoy the challenge when the size is not given. As a geocache hider you can place the stipulations of the find any way you want. If the finder does not like looking for unknown sizes then they can look somewhere else. With 800,000 hides out there it's not like there isn't something else for them to look for.

 

Should you state that it is a nano, absolutely not. I have had to go back for a particular hide 6,7 or even 8 times before finding it. It's all part of geocaching. Heck the way they are talking why don't you put a big neon arrow showing where the cache is as to not inconvenience them. Sheesh, have fun with your hides and as you get better. Get more evil once in a while. It keeps the more experienced geocachers on their toes and provides challenge to the rest. Above all, have fun and don't listen to the nay-sayers.

 

-HHH :laughing:

Link to comment

Whether it is 70, 700 or 7000 finds there is no stipulation anywhere that says you have to tell the size. I personally enjoy the challenge when the size is not given. As a geocache hider you can place the stipulations of the find any way you want. If the finder does not like looking for unknown sizes then they can look somewhere else. With 800,000 hides out there it's not like there isn't something else for them to look for.

 

Should you state that it is a nano, absolutely not. I have had to go back for a particular hide 6,7 or even 8 times before finding it. It's all part of geocaching. Heck the way they are talking why don't you put a big neon arrow showing where the cache is as to not inconvenience them. Sheesh, have fun with your hides and as you get better. Get more evil once in a while. It keeps the more experienced geocachers on their toes and provides challenge to the rest. Above all, have fun and don't listen to the nay-sayers.

 

-HHH :laughing:

I agree with all of this but I would caution that we need to make sure when we are placing caches and listing them that we do everything we can to make sure over zealous searchers don't/won't leave a trail of destruction near GZ. I enjoy all hide types but I do not enjoy arriving at a cache site and finding the vegetation ripped up. I know it will likely recover but in my mind it was a poor hide or not properly described. Heck, I whack all of my ferns back every year and they are better for it. I know nature is resilient. But we shouldn't be encouraging behavior in this game that puts us in a poor light with the general public.

 

Unknown has a place in the game but it needs to be used well. Using unknown for a nano on the back of a stop sign isn't a good use. Of course I happen to think that hide is rarely, if ever, a good hide, but that is a different discussion.

Link to comment

I'm not sure what the point is to being so secretive over the size of a cache. It's almost like they DON'T want them found, which always makes me wonder why they put them out at all. Generally if it's not listed I just assume it's a nano and go from there. I search for all sizes, but as others have stated, if the grandkids are with us we try to seek out the larger sizes because they hold more interest for the younsters.

Edited by obxnomad
Link to comment

I'm not sure what the point is to being so secretive over the size of a cache. It's almost like they DON'T want them found, which always makes me wonder why they put them out at all. Generally if it's not listed I just assume it's a nano and go from there. I search for all sizes, but as others have stated, if the grandkids are with us we try to seek out the larger sizes because they hold more interest for the younsters.

 

Probably not wise to assume "Unkown Size" is a nano. I've seen several unique cache hides that did not fit any other category of size but were definately not nanos. As a matter of fact I've hidden one as an unknown for that same reason and have had no complaints. People have enjoyed finding it.

Link to comment

I'm not sure what the point is to being so secretive over the size of a cache. It's almost like they DON'T want them found, which always makes me wonder why they put them out at all. Generally if it's not listed I just assume it's a nano and go from there. I search for all sizes, but as others have stated, if the grandkids are with us we try to seek out the larger sizes because they hold more interest for the younsters.

 

Probably not wise to assume "Unkown Size" is a nano. I've seen several unique cache hides that did not fit any other category of size but were definately not nanos. As a matter of fact I've hidden one as an unknown for that same reason and have had no complaints. People have enjoyed finding it.

 

Point taken, but for me it's just easier to start out thinking small and then expand my horizons, so to speak. If I'm looking small I generally don't miss something bigger.

Link to comment

There seems to be type of geocachers. One group feels that the hider should always provide the correct size, an accurate description, and a useful hint so that geocacher can find the cache. Caches are meant to be found by geocachers and are only hidden to keep muggle from accidentally finding them. The other group believes that caches can be hidden to provide a challenge to the finder. After all there is a difficulty rating. If you want you can hide one star caches that are easy to find but you can also hide 3, 4, or 5 star caches that are meant to be ones where cachers may have to make several visits to find. You should be able to give as little information as you like and perhaps even to put some misdirection in the description. We have one guy here how hide cans that are meant to hold reels of 35mm movie film. He lists the cache as unknown size and says in the description that you are looking for a 35mm film can. About the only think most people agree on is that the coordinates should be reasonably accurate. But there are even some who put in purposely bad coordinates to "make the find harder".

 

I find that if I know a cache is a nano (particularly if that means one of those little magnetic buttons) they are pretty easy to find. Some hiders may want to make the hide a little more difficult by not specifying the size.

 

I'm in the group that likes a challenging hide. If I don't find it I log a DNF, but I will usually ask for no hints because I will keep going back and trying (so long as I think the cache is still there). I'll often scan logs of other finders looking for a hint, though. And I get pretty upset when someone has put in a spoiler. In a cache like the OP, it may already be obvious that the cache is a nano and I wouldn't get too upset that the log states this outright. But if the cache page is really set up to make be unsure about what I'm going to find and someone logged that this was a nano, I would feel I was cheated out of the opportunity to find a challenging cache. By giving away the cache size in their log, the finder may be changing a 3 difficulty cache to 1 or 1.5 stars.

 

I've seen several unique cache hides that did not fit any other category of size but were definately not nanos. As a matter of fact I've hidden one as an unknown for that same reason and have had no complaints. People have enjoyed finding it.
There are actually two options: Not listed and Other. Not Listed (or unknown) is meant for when the hider chose not to list the cache size. Other is there because the the caches doesn't easily fit into one of the other sizes and the intent is that the hider will give more details in the description. Some people who insist that a nano should be a different size than micro, have taken to listing nanos as other and then providing the size in the description. But this is a whole other argument. Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I'll take a different side.........

There is NO Nano size in the choices !

Therefore.... you had to pick unknown. :laughing:

Hehe. There is no nano size bacause the smallest size defined is a micro and that includes everything from the largest micro on down. I think micro works just fine. And a reasonable cache page description helps a lot!

Link to comment

I recently received this email on one of my caches, I have removed the Cachers name and just posted his email, is he right???? This is a cache that I have at a park and it is a Nano under a bench, in the cache I did not have a size, or much or a hint. When the cacher posted his find he posted that it was a nano. I simply asked him to remove the part of his post that said what the cache was (Nano) and I did it nicely, he never emailed me for a hint or anything, when he had a problem not finding it and other cachers have found it with no problems in fact one said it was a great cache and he only had 12 Finds....well anyway here is the angry cachers email and this is what he said.

 

"People need to know what size the cache is that they are looking for especially when its a NANO. I had looked 4 other times with no luck. When I realized from someone another post what size it was I knew what to look for. Its just a game and people are supposed to be able to find the cache. People will look differently if they know what size it is. Since I have over 700 finds and it took me 4 tries to find it people that aren't as experienced might just give up on the cache. I am not sure if I will remove the NANO reference or not."

 

Please let me know your thoughts.

 

Eric Tenders

 

I feel the same as many of the others here. It's YOUR cache, and YOUR listing. If you want to keep the size a secret to make the cache a little bit harder, then that's fine. Please make sure the cache is listed as an unknown size if you do.

 

If you feel the spoiler log gives away too much, delete it and send the finder an email stating why it was removed and that he/she is welcome to re-log the find without the giveaway.

Link to comment

We just had a new cache of ours published right now.

 

We did not list the size, but stated... "The size is a surprise!" :laughing:

 

I have learned No Size = nano. Nano's sort to the bottom of the list.

 

Jim

 

I haven't had this experience at all. I find "No Size" usually means magnetic keyholder or bison tube. And a couple of magnetic containers slightly smaller than my hand, with combination locks!

I never use "No Size", but if there is a valid reason in the hider's mind, then that's his/her prerogative! Definitely more challenging.

And, that being said, adding a spoiler to the log is nasty and rude, and a good reason for deleting the log.

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...