Jump to content

Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional"


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I'm really confused here and I guess if this proposal goes ahead (into the masses) it will become even more confusing. So can someone provide a definition of a 'micro/nano' type cache and also differentiate between 'micro/nano' size and 'micro/nano' type?

 

I'm thinking ahead here and I have found a large writing pad that fits snugly into a largish ammo box. There is no room for anything else so you will have to bring your own pen. Is this a 'micro/nano' type cache?

 

I also have a lock-n-load plastic container that I have stuffed full of swag and a few TBs. There wasn’t any more room so I put in a nano logbook. Is this a 'micro/nano' type cache?

 

Also a recently published 'nano' sized container was saved as a traditional. A newbie, who is a lawyer by trade, is so used to searching the detail that he is first to find the cache. Without realising that you are supposed to leave space for the next finders, he fills the logbook telling us how great it is to find a new hobby and how his pet dog helped him sniff out the cache. If this cache was a 'micro/nano' type cache does it become a 'traditional' type cache?

 

As a bit of fun and to spice things up a little, I have a Rubbermaid container that I have packed full of packaging filler or leaves. The fun after finding the cache is to root through the packaging (or leaves) to find the 'nano' sized logbook. Is this a 'micro/nano' type cache?

 

BTW it's still no and no from me.

Edited by Tavisman
Link to comment

Not that I am by any means an expert, but the way I see the type or category of a cache determines how you get to GZ.

 

Traditional - You are given the co-ordinates to GZ.

Offset – You are given the coordinates to one location-based clue that gives the co-ordinates to GZ.

Multi – You are given the co-ordinates to location-based clues that you build up to find the co-ordinates to GZ.

Series - You are given the co-ordinates to caches with clues that you build up to find the co-ordinates to GZ of the bonus cache.

Puzzle – You are given clues which you can work out at home (i.e. locationless) to find the co-ordinates to GZ.

Night – You are given the co-ordinates to the start of a trail which you then follow reflector tacks to get to GZ.

 

I’m sorry but I don’t understand how the 'micro/nano' type cache determines how you get to GZ.

Link to comment

I agree with your main point, but I have just a few quibbles...

Series - You are given the co-ordinates to caches with clues that you build up to find the co-ordinates to GZ of the bonus cache.
This isn't really a separate cache type. The bonus is usually a mystery/puzzle cache (you get its coordinates from the clues in the other caches), and the caches with the clues are usually traditionals (although they could be any type with a physical container).

 

Puzzle – You are given clues which you can work out at home (i.e. locationless) to find the co-ordinates to GZ.
FWIW, some of my favorite puzzles have been the ones where you show up at GZ, figure out what the puzzle is, and figure out how to get coordinates from the puzzle. And I've found a couple where the cache is at the posted coordinates, but you have to solve a puzzle before you can open it and sign the log.

 

Night – You are given the co-ordinates to the start of a trail which you then follow reflector tacks to get to GZ.
That's a common type of night cache, but not all night caches use reflectors. Some use fluorescent paint (and you need to bring a UV light). And a few use other techniques to make them more difficult (or even impossible) during the day.
Link to comment

Series

This isn't really a separate cache type. The bonus is usually a mystery/puzzle cache (you get its coordinates from the clues in the other caches), and the caches with the clues are usually traditionals (although they could be any type with a physical container).

Yes 'Series' is the one odd-ball that you get when your try and categorise things. However, you seem to have sussed this out as what you have explained is exactly what I was thinking. I have done a couple of these and it is the last (final) cache that I was categorising. No co-ordinates are given to GZ but you work that out from clues collected from the other caches (containers) that are most usually traditionals. In my experience these final caches are classed as mutlis, but from what you are saying they are also classed as puzzles (both the wrong classification in my opinion).

 

Perhaps the term 'Series' should not be used as it will become confusing with a series of traditional caches based on a theme, or a series of caches based on a trail (a 'power trail').

 

Puzzle

...some of my favourite puzzles have been the ones where you show up at GZ, figure out what the puzzle is, and figure out how to get coordinates from the puzzle.

You see this is what I would term an offset (one location) or a multi (multiple locations). It doesn't matter that you have to read the co-ordinates stamped on aluminium or sort out a riddle or hieroglyphics from location clues. I've come across a few churchyard and monument caches that use this technique to hide the cache away from the churchyard/memorial where some people regard as disrespectful.

 

And I've found a couple where the cache is at the posted coordinates, but you have to solve a puzzle before you can open it and sign the log.

I have never done one like this, but I would love to. This is a tricky one, but I guess I would call that a traditional. It would be the same for a cache container stored inside a monkey puzzle, or even an ammo can can be a puzzle for newbies. :anitongue:

 

Night

...not all night caches use reflectors. Some use fluorescent paint (and you need to bring a UV light). And a few use other techniques to make them more difficult (or even impossible) during the day.

Yeah, I was being too specific with 'reflectors'.

 

The contrary to this is a cache type where you are given the co-ordinates to the trail head and follow clues that lead you to GZ. However, the clues are more difficult (or even impossible) during the night. The best example here would be a photo trail, where you identify and follow objects from photos posted on the cache webpage to lead you to GZ. I've seen a couple listed but I have never done one. These I call 'Day Caches'. I originally called these 'Trail Caches' but that would, by definition, include night caches.

 

Back to the thread, and the point I'm trying to put across is that the type or category of any system should be based on the fundamental principles of that system. Anything else are attributes. The fundamental principle of Geocaching is the use of co-ordinates to a physical location, the 'geo' in Geocaching kinda' gives it away!

Edited by Tavisman
Link to comment

OK...with the merged topic...

 

Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional"

 

No, as has been said earlier...Micro/Nano is a size...while Traditional is a category...

 

If you are asking should there be a separation between micro and nano...then maybe...

I'm all for a micro/nano differentiation! :anitongue:

Link to comment
I'm all for a micro/nano differentiation!

Why? How fine of a distinction should there be? Should we skip these intermediate steps of breaking out sizes and just go with a designation of which container is used? A=Ammo Can, B=Bison, L=Lock-n-Lock, F=Film Can, etc. Then size is the size within that category. AR = Ammo Can, Regular. BL=Bison, Large. Would that suffice?

Link to comment
I'm all for a micro/nano differentiation!

Why? How fine of a distinction should there be? Should we skip these intermediate steps of breaking out sizes and just go with a designation of which container is used? A=Ammo Can, B=Bison, L=Lock-n-Lock, F=Film Can, etc. Then size is the size within that category. AR = Ammo Can, Regular. BL=Bison, Large. Would that suffice?

We are not proposing that level of itemization in sizing. Simpley micro/nano are thir own...and all else larger are traditional.

Link to comment

Not that I am by any means an expert, but the way I see the type or category of a cache determines how you get to GZ.

 

Traditional - You are given the co-ordinates to GZ.

....I’m sorry but I don’t understand how the 'micro/nano' type cache determines how you get to GZ.

It doesn't.

 

This is how it would work.

 

Traditional. Go to GZ, Look for cache. It's not a needle in the haystack. You may trade swag if you like.

Micro. Go to GZ, Look for the needle in the haystack. There probably won't be swag or room for swag.

 

The difference is entirly the angst of the type, the swag(normally none) and the search method once you are there plus a dash of what you do with the container when you do find it (swag).

 

The main supporters of the status quo are (mostly) hanging their hat on it being traditioal and like a traditional. Yet even they have to admit they do stand apart for a lot of reasons as evidened by the forums and discussion for years over Micro's vs. everthing else.

Link to comment
We are not proposing that level of itemization in sizing. Simpley micro/nano are thir own...and all else larger are traditional.

You're confusing size with type.

 

a66ac16b-e783-4d88-9c03-c6a0c273289e.jpg

 

They are two different things.

Yep...seems to be confusing Size and Type/Category...seems to have been confused from the very start of this thread...

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment
Traditional. Go to GZ, Look for cache. It's not a needle in the haystack. You may trade swag if you like.

Micro. Go to GZ, Look for the needle in the haystack. There probably won't be swag or room for swag.

FWIW, not all micros are needles in haystacks. Actually, a lot of them are in locations where there aren't many hiding places, so they're quick finds. And not all needles in haystacks are micros; some are smalls (and even regulars).

 

The main supporters of the status quo are (mostly) hanging their hat on it being traditioal and like a traditional. Yet even they have to admit they do stand apart for a lot of reasons as evidened by the forums and discussion for years over Micro's vs. everthing else.
There are lots of reasons why caches "stand apart" other than the cache type. Do we create a separate type for 5-star terrain? After all, the requirement for special equipment makes them "stand apart" and creates "angst" that is different from other traditional caches. Ditto for 5-star difficulty. What about caches in playgrounds? What about "stealth required" caches? What about caches with "soft coordinates"? What about caches in "dangerous" locations? And so on. In various ways, they "stand apart" and create "angst" for some.

 

Caches have several attributes: type, size, difficulty, terrain, the cache description, etc. All of that information is useful, and it is more useful when we don't create confusion over what the different attributes mean.

Link to comment
seems to be confusing Size and Type/Category

Just to offer a bit of Devil's Advocacy here; in reading the OP, and the subsequent posts, I don't think they are confused about size and type. The OP seems to be up to speed on what these terms mean, at this website. What I think is that they want a particular size of cache to be "moved" from size to type. And yes, I agree with the majority that this would result in a lot of confusion.

Link to comment

I'm taking a step back to understand WHY some people want micros to have their own category. If I understand it correctly, they want the ability to filter out micros, such as when caching with kids, so they don't have to search for them. Or, when they do include micros in their download, they want the ability to identify micros in their GPS so they can search differently.

 

The funny thing is, both of these can already be accomplished. You can order a PQ and filter out micros, and you can use 3rd party software to change the icon of micros.

 

Is there any other reason to advocate for change?

Link to comment
seems to be confusing Size and Type/Category
Just to offer a bit of Devil's Advocacy here; in reading the OP, and the subsequent posts, I don't think they are confused about size and type. The OP seems to be up to speed on what these terms mean, at this website. What I think is that they want a particular size of cache to be "moved" from size to type. And yes, I agree with the majority that this would result in a lot of confusion.

Moving micros to the type category makes about as much sense as moving short people to the race column: white, black, Hispanic, Asian, ... short. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
I submit that a micro is not a "traditional" cache to begin with. A "traditional" cache is accessed via a single waypoint without any extra machinations required and the cache contains a log and swag. Any variant to that is, to my mind, a different type.

You are wrong. Traditional caches are clearly defined and it specifically says they might not contain swag, only a logbook (or logsheet).

 

Traditional Cache

This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location for the cache.

According to that definition, a micro is a traditional cache.

 

No, I'm not wrong, you misunderstood my point. I didn't say I was quoting the guidelines. I was making reference to what a geocache traditionally is. If the earliest stashes set the precedent, or "tradition" if you will, that a cache contains swag, then that makes caches that do not contain swag something of a different type. If the purity of what a cache should be was a part of the discussion that got virtuals and locationless caches banned, then it should be a valid point of discussion for other potential types.

 

As for waht's "clearly defined", well, that's been known to change too.

 

Just sayin'. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
seems to be confusing Size and Type/Category
Just to offer a bit of Devil's Advocacy here; in reading the OP, and the subsequent posts, I don't think they are confused about size and type. The OP seems to be up to speed on what these terms mean, at this website. What I think is that they want a particular size of cache to be "moved" from size to type. And yes, I agree with the majority that this would result in a lot of confusion.

Moving micros to the type category makes about as much sense as moving short people to the race column: white, black, Hispanic, Asian, ... short. ;)

So...instead of describing myself as a short, white, balding fat man...I can just say short...SWEET!!!

:rolleyes:;):anicute:

Link to comment

I submit that a micro is not a "traditional" cache to begin with. A "traditional" cache is accessed via a single waypoint without any extra machinations required and the cache contains a log and swag. Any variant to that is, to my mind, a different type.

 

The argument of a micro type conflicting with multi's and unknowns holds no water. We have that now. Some multi's end in micros, some in regular-size trads. We have puzzles that can also end with either kind of cache and can be 1 or several stages. What would be the difference in this situation?

 

Of course, all this comes form a guy that was trained in data base design to the fourth normal form. :rolleyes:

 

The perspective is skewed. It isn't that confusion doesn't exist in the current system but rather that the proposed change will aggravate that situation rather than alleviate it.

 

Sorry, I don't see any skewed perspective here. I'm not saying there are no cross-over issues now. Clearly there are. My point was simply that not making the change because of the cross-overs is not a particularly compelling reason in and of itself as it seems to me that the cross-overs have not been that big of problem, but maybe that's just me. I'm no reviewer so I have no idea what they deal with on this issue.

Link to comment
I didn't say I was quoting the guidelines. I was making reference to what a geocache traditionally is. If the earliest stashes set the precedent, or "tradition" if you will, that a cache contains swag, then that makes caches that do not contain swag something of a different type.
Okay, so let's say that Groundspeak creates a new "Log Only" type, since caches that do not contain trade items are "something of a different type".

 

Should they create a single "Log Only" type? Or should they create multiple "Log Only", "Log Only Multi", "Log Only Mystery/Puzzle", and "Log Only Letterbox Hybrid" types?

 

Can someone submit a "Log Only" cache with a size other than micro?

 

If I leave a small trade item in a "Log Only" cache, should the owner change it to a Traditional?

Link to comment

No need to re-simplify what is already so simple.

But, to cast my 'vote' I will re-state what has already been stated.

 

Traditional is a 'style' (the co-ordinates are for the actual location of the container, which contains (at a minimum) the log for signing.

 

Micro (nano, femto, large, small et.al) indicate the size of the container.

 

Would that all hiders of nanos should choose the 'Micro' option, and state the cache is a nano in the description, but misdirection and sleight-of-hand are becoming more pervasive facets of the game. The size option 'Not Chosen' leads directly to this.

 

In conclusion, I am in favor of a 'Nano' container size, but it might be a 'Traditional', the final for a 'Multi-Cache', or the solution of a 'Puzzle/Mystery'.

 

As an aside, I WOULD like to see the 'Challenge' caches broken out of the 'Puzzle/Mystery' category.

Link to comment

I'm taking a step back to understand WHY some people want micros to have their own category. If I understand it correctly, they want the ability to filter out micros, such as when caching with kids, so they don't have to search for them. Or, when they do include micros in their download, they want the ability to identify micros in their GPS so they can search differently.

 

The funny thing is, both of these can already be accomplished. You can order a PQ and filter out micros, and you can use 3rd party software to change the icon of micros.

 

Is there any other reason to advocate for change?

 

Can you mention the name of this third party software?

Link to comment
seems to be confusing Size and Type/Category

Just to offer a bit of Devil's Advocacy here; in reading the OP, and the subsequent posts, I don't think they are confused about size and type. The OP seems to be up to speed on what these terms mean, at this website. What I think is that they want a particular size of cache to be "moved" from size to type.

 

Clan Riffster - you are correct. Due to the size limitations micros/nanos are burdened with, they are hunted, or not hunted, based solely on that. I am not sure I know anyone who avoids amo cans,lock n locks, etc but I know loads that choose to or not to hunt if something is a micro/nano based on many factors. If I could tell, without looking at the cache listing for the size, it would be great! Great for me and you. I am drawing the line in the proposal there. Do not say what if this, and what if that. That proposal alone is enough and would not cause an issue in any way, to anyone. And it would benefit many. Or hey, make the icon differentiation a choice when creating yur PQ. Then all are happy. :lol:

Link to comment

I'm taking a step back to understand WHY some people want micros to have their own category. If I understand it correctly, they want the ability to filter out micros, such as when caching with kids, so they don't have to search for them. Or, when they do include micros in their download, they want the ability to identify micros in their GPS so they can search differently.

 

The funny thing is, both of these can already be accomplished. You can order a PQ and filter out micros, and you can use 3rd party software to change the icon of micros.

 

Is there any other reason to advocate for change?

 

sure..that is what is done now. ....and everytime I want to cache, I need to then...:

 

A- consider who I am going with,

B- boot up the computer,

C- go to GEOCACHING.COM

D- log in

E- download the apropriate PQ,

F- go to my email,

G- log in,

H- find the email/query,

I- unzip it,

J- hook up the GPS,

K- upload it,

L- remove any unwanted GPX files previously on the GPS,

M- remove GPS

N- verify upload was a success

O- cache my pants off

 

REPEAT NEXT TIME YOU CACHE WITH A NEW PARTY.

 

OR!... OR you could give the option of a different type, therefore a different ICON and we could keep ALL our caches on my GPS. Or create the option in PQ's for a different icon on one size or another. We would then enjoy caching that much more.

 

And to stop the next statement from someone...I know 3rd party software may be able to d this. But then my list above would likely go all the way to "Z". :lol:

Link to comment

sure..that is what is done now. ....and everytime I want to cache, I need to then...:

 

A- consider who I am going with,

B- boot up the computer,

C- go to GEOCACHING.COM

D- log in

E- download the apropriate PQ,

F- go to my email,

G- log in,

H- find the email/query,

I- unzip it,

J- hook up the GPS,

K- upload it,

L- remove any unwanted GPX files previously on the GPS,

M- remove GPS

N- verify upload was a success

O- cache my pants off

 

REPEAT NEXT TIME YOU CACHE WITH A NEW PARTY.

 

OR!... OR you could give the option of a different type, therefore a different ICON and we could keep ALL our caches on my GPS. Or create the option in PQ's for a different icon on one size or another. We would then enjoy caching that much more.

 

And to stop the next statement from someone...I know 3rd party software may be able to d this. But then my list above would likely go all the way to "Z". :lol:

 

I'll ignore the fact that I can do it in a couple of steps with my 3rd party software...if it's reducing steps/time, why can't you:

 

A go out with your already loaded GPSr

B pull up the list of closest caches

C look at the description of the cache

D decide if it's one the group wants to attempt

E if so, GO, if not, repeat steps B-D until you find one you like

 

The few minutes you might spend looking at something in the field seems just a minor inconvenience if you don't want to plan out your caching trip before leaving the house.

 

All of the pertinent information is in the GPX file, so if Garmin wants to take on showing different icons, great. I'd prefer the developers here to keep working on bigger items given there are a number of workarounds for what you're trying to do.

Link to comment
And to stop the next statement from someone...I know 3rd party software may be able to d this. But then my list above would likely go all the way to "Z". :lol:

I don't use GSAK with my Oregon or Colorado, but it does come in handy for my 60CSx.

I don't need to work my way through any additional steps, as every cache that is loaded gets assigned a unique alphanumeric that tells me, at a glance, the type, size, difficulty, terrain and part of the name. I also use GSAK to further ease my hunts, by changing the displayed icons to match my needs. (green circle, orange circle, etc) A traditional, micro, 2/2 called Wake The Dragon would show up on my GPSr screen as a green circle, labelled TM22 WakeDragon. Clicking the cache gets me most, if not all of the hint.

 

This is not something that needs to be done every time I cache. They export that way automatically, based on options I selected.

 

The reason I don't do this with my other units is the data is right at my fingertips.

I see a green box on the GPSr screen, with a label of Wake The Dragon.

I click on it and view the cache page, learning that it is a micro 2/2.

 

I use 3rd party software because it makes my life easier, not harder.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment
Traditional. Go to GZ, Look for cache. It's not a needle in the haystack. You may trade swag if you like.

Micro. Go to GZ, Look for the needle in the haystack. There probably won't be swag or room for swag.

FWIW, not all micros are needles in haystacks. Actually, a lot of them are in locations where there aren't many hiding places, so they're quick finds. And not all needles in haystacks are micros; some are smalls (and even regulars)....
....

 

After you make the quick find, then you know it wasn't a needle in a haystack. Going in you don't know that. Yes, you can see the lamp post...yet that in itself is another reason the micros stand out.

 

As for the needle in a haystack with a larger container that happens on occasion. Fair point. Yet put a micro there and it's yet more of a needle in a haystack.

Link to comment

I'm taking a step back to understand WHY some people want micros to have their own category. If I understand it correctly, they want the ability to filter out micros, such as when caching with kids, so they don't have to search for them. Or, when they do include micros in their download, they want the ability to identify micros in their GPS so they can search differently.

 

The funny thing is, both of these can already be accomplished. You can order a PQ and filter out micros, and you can use 3rd party software to change the icon of micros.

 

Is there any other reason to advocate for change?

 

Take one step further back.

In software terms, micro's have a different look and feel than standard traditionals. The times they don't is the exception to the rule.

 

Since we can filter them out and becuse in spite of the different look and feel they fit the traditional description, this change would be very low priority. You can focus on the "look and feel" you like with the present tools. Exactly like you said.

Link to comment

... so let's say that Groundspeak creates a new "Log Only" type, since caches that do not contain trade items are "something of a different type".

 

Should they create a single "Log Only" type? Or should they create multiple "Log Only", "Log Only Multi", "Log Only Mystery/Puzzle", and "Log Only Letterbox Hybrid" types?

 

Can someone submit a "Log Only" cache with a size other than micro?

 

If I leave a small trade item in a "Log Only" cache, should the owner change it to a Traditional?

 

If creating a "type" doesn't work then how about a "Log Only" attribute? A new attribute would be easy to implement, not confusing, and filter-able.

 

BTW, I don't consider a Letterbox Hybrid to be log-only, there is an exchange. Although the stamp remains with the box - you leave a stamp image (your signature stamp) and take a stamp image (the box's stamp).

Link to comment

... so let's say that Groundspeak creates a new "Log Only" type, since caches that do not contain trade items are "something of a different type".

 

Should they create a single "Log Only" type? Or should they create multiple "Log Only", "Log Only Multi", "Log Only Mystery/Puzzle", and "Log Only Letterbox Hybrid" types?

 

Can someone submit a "Log Only" cache with a size other than micro?

 

If I leave a small trade item in a "Log Only" cache, should the owner change it to a Traditional?

 

If creating a "type" doesn't work then how about a "Log Only" attribute? A new attribute would be easy to implement, not confusing, and filter-able.

 

BTW, I don't consider a Letterbox Hybrid to be log-only, there is an exchange. Although the stamp remains with the box - you leave a stamp image (your signature stamp) and take a stamp image (the box's stamp).

 

A log only attribute makes more sense than a cache type. Bring it up in the website forum.

Let 'em ignore it in the proper forum instead of ignoring it here.

Link to comment

I don't think that a nano cache should be anything but a "traditional" cache unless there is a puzzle or a multi or some other factor. If it's a plain old "go to these coordinates and look for the cache" type of scenario, then nano is merely the size.

 

It would make more sense to classify a nano as it's own size class, one step under that of a micro.

Link to comment

No to Category - They are still "Traditional"

 

YES to Nano's having their own size. One step down from Micro.

 

I have hunted and enjoyed both sizes, but I really appreciate knowing if a cache is a Micro (film canister size) or a Nano (tiny button) without having to read the entire description (if hider indicates a nano). I find it frustrating to hunt for a micro, only to find that it is a nano after all.

Link to comment

Zolgar will say that he would like to see the difference between a 'micro' (altoids tin, pill bottle) and a 'nano' (pill fob, bison tube, whatever the hell those little magnetic dot ones are) defined on the site, but that is all.

 

Zolgar does not agree that micro/nanos are different from all other caching. The style of hide may be different, and how you look for them may be different, but the methods are still similar enough that they are traditionals.

Link to comment

From a reviewer's standpoint (and no, I'm not a reviewer), I can just see the issues; say a cache is in the queue. The reviewer has to make a determination as to whether the cache is a micro or a non-micro (similar to the old virtual test). Then, when the reviewer does, the owner gets torqued off because "It's not really a micro," or the finders get there and expect something larger, and find a Mr. Magneto (or Bison Tube, film can, etc).

I can see it now:

Greetings,

 

This geocache was brought to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit, because it appears to be the wrong size container. The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either replace it with a larger container or archive it, after picking up any geo-litter. See the maintenance section of the Geocache Listing Guidelines.

 

I've bookmarked this cache, and I will check back in two weeks or so to be sure that the maintenance has been done or at least a note posted here indicating your intentions. If no note is posed, I may be forced to archive the cache.

 

Thank you,

 

-Your friendly neighborhood reviewer-

Geocaching.com - Volunteer Reviewer

I wouldn't wish that upon anyone.

 

The easiest remedy (besides banning micros, and I'm not opening that can of worms!), is to make sure the cache owner marks cache size on the description page.

Link to comment

From a reviewer's standpoint (and no, I'm not a reviewer), I can just see the issues; say a cache is in the queue. The reviewer has to make a determination as to whether the cache is a micro or a non-micro (similar to the old virtual test).

While I think the idea of splitting it off is rubbish, it's not for this reason. Reviewers don't get involved in size issues now (with, I'm sure, a very few exceptions). That's generally left up to the owner's discretion. It's not likely to change.

Link to comment

From a reviewer's standpoint (and no, I'm not a reviewer), I can just see the issues; say a cache is in the queue. The reviewer has to make a determination as to whether the cache is a micro or a non-micro (similar to the old virtual test).

While I think the idea of splitting it off is rubbish, it's not for this reason. Reviewers don't get involved in size issues now (with, I'm sure, a very few exceptions). That's generally left up to the owner's discretion. It's not likely to change.

 

so this is about the reviewers...and not about the paying or non=paying members? My error. ;)

Link to comment

I'm really confused here ...

 

Having read your post. You are not confused at all. Those who play devils advocate do so best when they understand the topic. Which you do.

 

To answer your questions. If I shoehorn myself into a smart car, I barey fit becasue it's small car. However if I gain 600 lb and baretly fit into a trick, I didn't turn the tuck into a smart car.

Link to comment

NO....NO.....NO and then some...why is someone always trying to fix something that Aint broke. for goodness sake let's just go geocaching and have fun with all the cache types. stay safe.

 

I would be much happier of 1/1 P&G micros were retroactively reduced to a value of 1/8 of a smiley ;) .

 

As for changing micros into another category, Mushtang had a great idea. Cache sizes would be reduced to two. Those that hold trade items, and those that don't.

 

As for a nano size category:

 

Those that run this site have spoken against the nano category, "There is no need for a nano type. As mentioned above the Micro type includes nanos. It also includes picos. even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro. At some point there has to be a cap on types. The Micro was a good point to stop. "

 

Add another cache size to selection

 

Feature request: Nano cache size, Smaller than micro

 

Nano Caches why is there not a new size on the website for nano sized caches

 

Feature Request: Nano size option Discussion on adding nano to the size options for listing

 

Nano cache category

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

Link to comment

From a reviewer's standpoint (and no, I'm not a reviewer), I can just see the issues; say a cache is in the queue. The reviewer has to make a determination as to whether the cache is a micro or a non-micro (similar to the old virtual test).

While I think the idea of splitting it off is rubbish, it's not for this reason. Reviewers don't get involved in size issues now (with, I'm sure, a very few exceptions). That's generally left up to the owner's discretion. It's not likely to change.

 

so this is about the reviewers...and not about the paying or non=paying members? My error. :D

 

No. That's pretty much the exact opposite of my point. But your last sentence is correct. ;)

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 4
×
×
  • Create New...