Another cache size question

[+BCandMsKitty]

Wanting opinions.

 

I anm putting together a cache that is a "Monkey Puzzle" sort of thing. A large jug filles with film canisters where only one (marked) canister has the log. You can only get one canister out at a time, and that with some manipulation.

 

The question ... would the cache be classed as a large (so people know what they are searching for), or as a micro because the actual log container is a film canister?

 

I'm leaning toward micro with some info in the description. I know those that filter out micros would not see the listing, but I don't think that's much of a problem in our area, because we have so few caches that we all try to find whatever there is, and can't afford to get too selective!

[+sbell111]

Wanting opinions.

 

I anm putting together a cache that is a "Monkey Puzzle" sort of thing. A large jug filles with film canisters where only one (marked) canister has the log. You can only get one canister out at a time, and that with some manipulation.

 

The question ... would the cache be classed as a large (so people know what they are searching for), or as a micro because the actual log container is a film canister?

 

I'm leaning toward micro with some info in the description. I know those that filter out micros would not see the listing, but I don't think that's much of a problem in our area, because we have so few caches that we all try to find whatever there is, and can't afford to get too selective!

I could be convinced otherwise, but I would argue that the actual container is the film can with the log. Therefore, it's a micro.

 

This kind of goes back to the debate as to whether it is the inside or outside of a container that determines it's listed size.

[+StarBrand]

I have one of those.

 

I classify it as a large - while the log may be difficult to locate and sign - there is plenty of room for other items. Many of the film cans in mine contain foriegn coins and other trinkets. In addtion there are several matchbox cars and other trade items that can slip out the same hole as the film cans.

[+knabino]

I found one of these in Indiana. It was classified as a Micro, and once we found it, that made perfect sense. If you put it together the way the one I found was, there would really not be any room in the container for trade/trackable items. All free space would be taken up by the 'extra' film cans. Each of the extra's had a little sheet in them that said something to the effect of "not this one, keep looking".

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Keep 'em guessing and list the size as "Unspecified".

[+Stargazer22]

I would list it as large.

 

One of the main reasons for listing container size is to help identify which places to search.

If you think you're looking for a large container (which you are in this case) you can eliminate looking for blinkies on the back of signs, bison tubes hanging from tree limbs, etc...

If you list it as a micro, you will have people looking in all the places where a very small container can be hidden. They may overlook the forest by concentrating on the trees, so to speak.

[GOF and Bacall]

Keep 'em guessing and list the size as "Unspecified".

 

One of the few times I'd agree with using the unspecified size description. It can be viewed as an integral part of the cache. Usually it is used to fool PQs.

[CoyoteRed]

Wanting opinions.

 

I anm putting together a cache that is a "Monkey Puzzle" sort of thing. A large jug filles with film canisters where only one (marked) canister has the log. You can only get one canister out at a time, and that with some manipulation.

 

The question ... would the cache be classed as a large (so people know what they are searching for), or as a micro because the actual log container is a film canister?

 

I'm leaning toward micro with some info in the description. I know those that filter out micros would not see the listing, but I don't think that's much of a problem in our area, because we have so few caches that we all try to find whatever there is, and can't afford to get too selective!

Here's my thinking.

 

The inside of the container determines the size when there is a major volume difference. In this case, the only "real" container is the single film can--that you're specifying. Of course, there has to be some room in the main container for manipulation. Right? So what if someone drops a coin in the main container? What about any other small trinket? What's to prevent someone thinking the whole container is the cache and the "trick" is simply finding the right "log container" to sign to properly log online? I guess you could say so on the cache description, but that would give away the surprise.

 

Any time you place a cache you really need to think "down the road" without over thinking it.

 

Me, I'd list it as whatever size the main container is and let folks leave whatever trinkets that will fit through the neck of the container. Personally, I think it would be interesting to see what folks left and what items added to difficulty of having to be manipulated out in order to find the log. In the description I'd only mention the small size of the opening and advise to bring trinkets of the appropriate size--leave the multiple log containers a surprise. I'd allow for trinkets simply because you're going to get trinkets even if you specify in huge bold red letters "No Trinkets."

[+Renegade Knight]

Wanting opinions.

 

I anm putting together a cache that is a "Monkey Puzzle" sort of thing. A large jug filles with film canisters where only one (marked) canister has the log. You can only get one canister out at a time, and that with some manipulation. ...

 

It seems like a puzzle to me, but for size I'd go large. When you have the jug in hand you are holding the cache. There is no mystery as to where the cache is.

 

IF you were looking for a film canister drilled into a rock I'd go micro. If you created the rock out of foam and painted it nice (but you would know it was a cache when you touched it becaue it would feel different) I'd go large.

 

There is judgment here and reading the posts above mine different opinions. Most of them are just as valid as any other until the chosen one pounds the gavel and gives a bright line ruling we can all understand.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Happy Bubbles]

I`d list it as micro or unknown. People are more upset by finding unexpectedly small containers than they are by finding unexpectedly large containers.

 

Scenario 1: You list it as large. Too-lazy-to-read-the-description cacher goes to the site with trade items in hand, expecting a large so they can finally dump the TB that`s been burning a hole in their pocket. They can`t, and they`re grumpy.

 

Scenario 2: You list it as micro. Too-lazy-to-read-the-description cacher goes to the site expecting planning to search for a micro. But if they`re looking closely enough to find a micro, it`s unlikely that they`ll miss the unnatural pile of rocks or whatever it is that`s concealing your larger container. As long as the cache is clearly marked as a cache and isn`t hidden in some devilishly tricky fashion, simply looking for the wrong size is unlikely to make people have trouble finding it, and so it`s unlikely that they`ll be upset about the size difference.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Yeah, but in scenario #2, they left that TB in the car because they didn't expect to find a large one to deposit it in. Now they have to hike back again.

 

Bad planning....

 

Seems to me that the container size is dependent on what you brought to the site. If it's a large wine barrel with a thousand nanos inside, it's still a "large". Oh, wait, if the wine barrel matches the other ones already there.... Now what.....

Edited April 17, 2009 by Cache O'Plenty

[+Sol seaker]

Keep 'em guessing and list the size as "Unspecified".

 

I've always seen "unspecified" used for wierd containers, such as fake rocks or hollowed out logs, etc. If you list it as unspecified then they'll be looking at all the reflectors on the nearby signs. The point in the size is so they (we) know what to look for and where. If you say it' a micro then this does not accomplish that. If you say it's a large, then people will know what to look for.

 

How to tell what to put is to answer the question of WHY do we put the cache size on the form to begin with?

 

It doesn't matter if someone is disapointed they can't put their bug in if they can't find it anyway because they're looking for a magnet on the bottom of the picnic table rather than looking under the tree.

 

I think the size is to know what we're looking for first. Second, to know whether to fill our pockets with tradeables.

[+mfamilee]

I vote for 'unspecified'

 

We have a 'handmade' container which has a smaller container inside as the actual cache. This is the only time we have not listed the size. To date... nobody has complained about it.

 

It's like a surprise!

[+BCandMsKitty]

Well, after reading all the opinions I think I'll go with large.

 

I detest "Unspecified" as a way to fool cachers on a traditional cache. IMO, make the hide tough, not the description, unless it is a puzzle cache. That's one reason I am struggling with the size designation. I'm trying to hide in the manner I like to find, with a clear idea of the size I'm looking for on a traditional.

I'll list it as large, but with no place for trinkets, and tell them that the real challenge won't be to find the cache, but will be to sign the log.... I don't have much sympathy for those that don't read the cache page, so that aspect of it doesn't bother me much.

 

Thanks for the different perspectives.

 

BC