New cache size request

[+bittsen]

OK, so we all would love to see a nano container size but their seems to be little site support for such a container size. So, here's an alternative.

 

Since the majority of container sizes seem to be micros and there seems to be so many nanos among the mocro category, why not start calling "nanos" "micros". We could call the micros that aren't nanos "small" and then the "small" containers will become "regular" sized. Of course, now it seems that when you come across an ammo can it seems like a large container compared to the rest but there are still some really large containers we could call "JUMBO" containers.

 

All in all, I think the range of container sizes would support this, even if the powers that be don't.

 

What do you all think?

[GOF and Bacall]

I think this is in the wrong forum.

[+bittsen]

I think this is in the wrong forum.

 

Nonsense. We've discussed cache sizes here before and the wanting for an added category of "nano".

[+The Blorenges]

I like this plan,

 

My aunt has one of these jumbo containers I can use...

 

 

MrsB

[+Allanon]

[+flask]

OK, so we all would love to see a nano container size but their seems to be little site support for such a container size. So, here's an alternative.

 

 

no, we wouldn't.

 

and we've been belldingerd again.

 

slow day?

[+DanOCan]

OK, so we all would love to see a nano container size but their seems to be little site support for such a container size.

 

Uh, no we wouldn't.

 

Since the majority of container sosizes seem to be micros and there seems to be so many nanos among the mocro category, why not start calling "nanos" "micros".

 

First, I am not convinced that the majority of containers are micros. Second, all nanos are in the micro category by definition. And, I already call nanos "micros" since that is what they are.

 

We could call the micros that aren't nanos "small" and then the "small" containers will become "regular" sized. Of course, now it seems that when you come across an ammo can it seems like a large container compared to the rest but there are still some really large containers we could call "JUMBO" containers.

 

All in all, I think the range of container sizes would support this, even if the powers that be don't.

 

What do you all think?

 

I think I need to check my calendar and see if today is April 1 because none of this makes the slightest bit of sense to me. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

[+bittsen]

OK, so we all would love to see a nano container size but their seems to be little site support for such a container size.

 

Uh, no we wouldn't.

 

Since the majority of container sosizes seem to be micros and there seems to be so many nanos among the mocro category, why not start calling "nanos" "micros".

 

First, I am not convinced that the majority of containers are micros. Second, all nanos are in the micro category by definition. And, I already call nanos "micros" since that is what they are.

 

We could call the micros that aren't nanos "small" and then the "small" containers will become "regular" sized. Of course, now it seems that when you come across an ammo can it seems like a large container compared to the rest but there are still some really large containers we could call "JUMBO" containers.

 

All in all, I think the range of container sizes would support this, even if the powers that be don't.

 

What do you all think?

 

I think I need to check my calendar and see if today is April 1 because none of this makes the slightest bit of sense to me. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

 

Just a way to separate "nano" sized micros from larger sized micros.

There is a HUGE difference when searching if you are looking for a film canister or a small bison tube (or smaller) yet they live in the same category.

You go into the woods, knowing it's a micro but when you get there, you don't know if you are looking for a 2oz container or a 1/8oz size container.

 

Based on the range of sizes being used for caches, I believe the micro size is all too inclusive. My thoughts is to open up the range to more correctly represent the range of caches being used. Change the curve, so to speak.

 

Yes, it's a slow day

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Moving to the Geocaching.com website forum as that is the correct place for feature requests.

 

Geocaching.com Web site

Discuss new features (or feature requests), bugs, etc. specific to the Geocaching.com site.

[+bittsen]

Moving to the Geocaching.com website forum as that is the correct place for feature requests.

 

Geocaching.com Web site

Discuss new features (or feature requests), bugs, etc. specific to the Geocaching.com site.

 

Oh, I should have worded it different to keep it in the forum for which it was intended.

 

I should have worded it to reflect more of a "should we have" instead of a "I would like to have" feeling. Maybe changed the title a little to remove the "request" and replaced it with "discussion".

 

Semantics...

 

Thank you Motorcycle Mama for dilligently moving threads that could be placed elsewhere. You definately keep on top of things.

[+Allanon]

Pardon me for being blunt, but this is a stupid and frivolous thread. A new "jumbo" size won't be approved any more than a "nano" size will.

 

Agrees with this being a BellDingered thread...

[GOF and Bacall]

Moving to the Geocaching.com website forum as that is the correct place for feature requests.

 

Geocaching.com Web site

Discuss new features (or feature requests), bugs, etc. specific to the Geocaching.com site.

 

Oh, I should have worded it different to keep it in the forum for which it was intended.

 

I should have worded it to reflect more of a "should we have" instead of a "I would like to have" feeling. Maybe changed the title a little to remove the "request" and replaced it with "discussion".

 

Semantics...

 

Thank you Motorcycle Mama for dilligently moving threads that could be placed elsewhere. You definately keep on top of things.

 

Antagonizing mods. This is no way for an "Über Genius" to act.

[+flask]

 

Antagonizing mods. This is no way for an "Über Genius" to act.

 

you can't believe everything you read. "über genius" doesn't really get grammar or spelling either. almost, but not quite.

[GOF and Bacall]

 

Antagonizing mods. This is no way for an "Über Genius" to act.

 

you can't believe everything you read. "über genius" doesn't really get grammar or spelling either. almost, but not quite.

 

I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

[+bittsen]

 

Antagonizing mods. This is no way for an "Über Genius" to act.

 

you can't believe everything you read. "über genius" doesn't really get grammar or spelling either. almost, but not quite.

 

I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

 

Not that everyone can stay on topic or anything but, can you please try? (it's easy to ignore a thread if you really work at it)

 

The personal comments aren't really condusive to a discussion.

[GOF and Bacall]

To be honest I hadn't thought you were serious so I didn't treat it as so.

[+Matt_B_Good]

I think you idea is very bad. Here is why. The present mindset of what is considered a Mirco, small, regular and large would remain for some time so it would just confuse people. I think a better idea would be to put small up and down arrows shown above and below the size indicator telling us if it is a smaller size micro, larger size small ect. Up meaning larger size and down meaning smaller size. I find plenty that are kind of in the middle of small and regular or micro and small. The arrows would be optional. No arrows would remain an option. Owners could then retain the system as it is not if they choose to do so.

[+WRASTRO]

 

Antagonizing mods. This is no way for an "Über Genius" to act.

 

you can't believe everything you read. "über genius" doesn't really get grammar or spelling either. almost, but not quite.

 

I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

 

Not that everyone can stay on topic or anything but, can you please try? (it's easy to ignore a thread if you really work at it)

 

The personal comments aren't really condusive to a discussion.

You always make me laugh. I see no reason to make any changes to the existing cache size designations.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Moving to the Geocaching.com website forum as that is the correct place for feature requests.

 

Geocaching.com Web site

Discuss new features (or feature requests), bugs, etc. specific to the Geocaching.com site.

 

Oh, I should have worded it different to keep it in the forum for which it was intended.

 

I should have worded it to reflect more of a "should we have" instead of a "I would like to have" feeling. Maybe changed the title a little to remove the "request" and replaced it with "discussion".

 

Semantics...

 

Thank you Motorcycle Mama for dilligently moving threads that could be placed elsewhere. You definately keep on top of things.

 

Antagonizing mods. This is no way for an "Über Genius" to act.

Thankfully, Mods are issued Kevlar when we are abducted hired endentured enlisted umm ... when we start.

[+niraD]

Oh, I should have worded it different to keep it in the forum for which it was intended.

 

I should have worded it to reflect more of a "should we have" instead of a "I would like to have" feeling. Maybe changed the title a little to remove the "request" and replaced it with "discussion".

I don't get it. How is a discussion of "should we have" any less of a discussion of "new features (or feature requests), bugs, etc." than a discussion of "I would like to have"?

 

Anyway, back to the original topic... I don't think the suggestion makes any sense. It would require changing the sizes of all the caches except the nano-caches that are currently listed as micro-caches. If TPTB don't want to add a new size for nano-caches, then they certainly won't want to add a new size for nano-caches and change the names of all the existing cache sizes in the process.

[+ArcherDragoon]

OK, so we all would love to see a nano container size but their seems to be little site support for such a container size. So, here's an alternative.

 

I just don't follow...if we all would love to see a nano container size...um...how is there little site support...

 

 

But...for the record...I don't want to see a nano container size...just so you know that it isn't everyone...

 

As for Jumbo...I think large covers that...to me...Jumbo just means it should come with fries...

[+paleolith]

Here's some ideas.

 

But personally I favor removing the formal cache sizes entirely. I want people to read the description. I want CONTROL.

Edited October 29, 2009 by paleolith

[CoyoteRed]

OK, so we all would love to see a nano container size...

No, not "we all" at all.

 

In fact, it's my person belief that any size that doesn't not support trade items goes against the spirit of geocaching. There's no need in attempting to move the hobby even further from the original intent. One would have thought that a basic concept would have been refined and not broadened as it has been.

Edited October 29, 2009 by CoyoteRed

[+Team Cotati]

OK, so we all would love to see a nano container size but their seems to be little site support for such a container size.

 

Uh, no we wouldn't.

 

Since the majority of container sosizes seem to be micros and there seems to be so many nanos among the mocro category, why not start calling "nanos" "micros".

 

First, I am not convinced that the majority of containers are micros. Second, all nanos are in the micro category by definition. And, I already call nanos "micros" since that is what they are.

 

We could call the micros that aren't nanos "small" and then the "small" containers will become "regular" sized. Of course, now it seems that when you come across an ammo can it seems like a large container compared to the rest but there are still some really large containers we could call "JUMBO" containers.

 

All in all, I think the range of container sizes would support this, even if the powers that be don't.

 

What do you all think?

 

I think I need to check my calendar and see if today is April 1 because none of this makes the slightest bit of sense to me. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

 

Just a way to separate "nano" sized micros from larger sized micros.

There is a HUGE difference when searching if you are looking for a film canister or a small bison tube (or smaller) yet they live in the same category.

You go into the woods, knowing it's a micro but when you get there, you don't know if you are looking for a 2oz container or a 1/8oz size container.

 

Based on the range of sizes being used for caches, I believe the micro size is all too inclusive. My thoughts is to open up the range to more correctly represent the range of caches being used. Change the curve, so to speak.

 

Yes, it's a slow day

 

You are of course totally correct.

 

Totally.

 

I mean micros are bad enough but those nanos are a scourge upon all mankind. And as such they deserve to be exposed for what they really are. Totally exposed.

 

Thank you.

[+okie-wan]

Jumbo? Last Saturday I was having such a bad day I couldn't find a Nimitz Class carrier sittin' under a mailbox!

[GOF and Bacall]

How does this request differ from all those looking for a nano size to be added? I mean other than the fact it would be more complicated to implement.

[knowschad]

Let's see:

 

Of my 4K+ finds:

 

33.9% are smalls

27.9% are micros

27.9% are regulars

7.35 are not chosen

2.2% are other (whatever that means)

.57% are large

 

My stats, of course, don't let me see how many of those micros are "nanos", but I'm guessing maybe 10% at the extreme, and probably more like 3%. Do we really have a problem to solve here?

Edited October 30, 2009 by knowschad

[+Team Cotati]

Let's see:

 

 

Of my 4K+ finds:

 

 

33.9% are smalls

 

27.9% are micros

 

27.9% are regulars

 

7.35 are not chosen

 

2.2% are other (whatever that means)

 

0.57% are large

 

 

My stats, of course, don't let me see how many of those micros are "nanos", but I'm guessing maybe 10% at the extreme, and probably more like 3%. Do we really have a problem to solve here?

 

Small135933.9 %Micro111627.9 %Regular109427.3 %Not chosen2947.35 %Other882.2 %Virtual260.65 %Large230.57 %

 

Small135933.9 %Micro111627.9 %Regular109427.3 %Not chosen2947.35 %Other882.2 %Virtual260.65 %Large230.57 %

 

You don't.

 

We do.

 

A subtle yet very important distinction.

[knowschad]

Let's see:

Of my 4K+ finds:

 

33.9% are smalls

27.9% are micros

27.9% are regulars

7.35 are not chosen

2.2% are other (whatever that means)

0.57% are large

 

My stats, of course, don't let me see how many of those micros are "nanos", but I'm guessing maybe 10% at the extreme, and probably more like 3%. Do we really have a problem to solve here?

 

You don't.

We do.

A subtle yet very important distinction.

 

First of all, please excuse that terrible formatting of mine. I have since fixed it.

 

Well, not really that important, but if you insist...what do your size stats look like? And what percentage of your micros do you think were really "nanos"? (you can include "picos" in the "nanos" group if you like)

[+Team Cotati]

Let's see:

Of my 4K+ finds:

 

33.9% are smalls

27.9% are micros

27.9% are regulars

7.35 are not chosen

2.2% are other (whatever that means)

0.57% are large

 

My stats, of course, don't let me see how many of those micros are "nanos", but I'm guessing maybe 10% at the extreme, and probably more like 3%. Do we really have a problem to solve here?

 

You don't.

We do.

A subtle yet very important distinction.

 

First of all, please excuse that terrible formatting of mine. I have since fixed it.

 

Well, not really that important, but if you insist...what do your size stats look like? And what percentage of your micros do you think were really "nanos"? (you can include "picos" in the "nanos" group if you like)

 

Well let's put it this way. They look big, really really big.

 

And thank you very much for granting me permission to include "picos" in the "nanos" group. I was kinda escared to do that up until then.

 

Thank you so much.

[knowschad]

Let's see:

Of my 4K+ finds:

 

33.9% are smalls

27.9% are micros

27.9% are regulars

7.35 are not chosen

2.2% are other (whatever that means)

0.57% are large

 

My stats, of course, don't let me see how many of those micros are "nanos", but I'm guessing maybe 10% at the extreme, and probably more like 3%. Do we really have a problem to solve here?

 

You don't.

We do.

A subtle yet very important distinction.

 

First of all, please excuse that terrible formatting of mine. I have since fixed it.

 

Well, not really that important, but if you insist...what do your size stats look like? And what percentage of your micros do you think were really "nanos"? (you can include "picos" in the "nanos" group if you like)

 

Well let's put it this way. They look big, really really big.

 

And thank you very much for granting me permission to include "picos" in the "nanos" group. I was kinda escared to do that up until then.

 

Thank you so much.

 

I can see your nipples from here. I would assume they are about the size of nanos. I can spot nanos from here, so I have no problem with nanos.

[+bittsen]

I would really love to see the stats for the entire database of geocaching.com and container sizes. Mind you, I'm really just talking about traditional caches.

 

I would be willing to bet that the numbers support my theory that the whole "size" rating system should be updated.

Yes, it would be utter chaos for a while but eventually it would settle down.

 

And, adding Jumbo would reflect the unusual "larger than normal" cache size of over 5 gallon sized.

Adding Jumbo would open the "large" spot for ammo cans and such and leave regular open to incorporate the "average size" (meaning if you took all the cubic inches of all caches and averaged it out, then you would have an average size) then smalls would be film cannisters and the like, and micro would finally signify something smaller than "normal".

 

It's all logical, though possibly a pain to implement.

[+Chrysalides]

I would be willing to bet that the numbers support my theory that the whole "size" rating system should be updated.

I'm curious about the numbers too, but not for the same reason. Was there ever any intention that cache sizes fit a curve? For each cache size, there is a stated volume and some examples. I think that is sufficient and no need to complicate matters by redefining what "micro", "regular" etc. mean. That which we call a rose and all that.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I would really love to see the stats for the entire database of geocaching.com and container sizes. Mind you, I'm really just talking about traditional caches.

 

I would be willing to bet that the numbers support my theory that the whole "size" rating system should be updated.

Yes, it would be utter chaos for a while but eventually it would settle down.

 

And, adding Jumbo would reflect the unusual "larger than normal" cache size of over 5 gallon sized.

Adding Jumbo would open the "large" spot for ammo cans and such and leave regular open to incorporate the "average size" (meaning if you took all the cubic inches of all caches and averaged it out, then you would have an average size) then smalls would be film cannisters and the like, and micro would finally signify something smaller than "normal".

 

It's all logical, though possibly a pain to implement.

Yeah...becuase that would fix all the worlds problems...

 

Now: Micros (Film Can and smaller...ie..."Nano"), Small, Regular, Large and Unknown...

 

After the "Suggested Change": Nano->Micro, Film Can->Small, Current Small->Regular, Current Regular->Large, Current Large->Jumbo...

 

Still didn't solve the "issue" of anything larger than Jumbo...and why do we need to change the system...how about trying to actually encourage folks to hide bigger containers locally...lead by example and hide bigger containers...heck, place them in locations you think you can't put them...challenge yourself to be creative...much easier than trying to change a system...that, in my opinion, seems to be working well...

Edited October 30, 2009 by ArcherDragoon

[+Harry Dolphin]

I want a new container description! It's not large, and it's not small. Sort of medium. It's got a sort of yellow/ocher color. We definitely need a new cache description for 'medi-ocher'!

[knowschad]

I want a new container description! It's not large, and it's not small. Sort of medium. It's got a sort of yellow/ocher color. We definitely need a new cache description for 'medi-ocher'!

[CoyoteRed]

So, considering that 95%* of all finds are traditionals, I think we should adjust the category type of better represent the diversities of type. We should move longer hikes to multis because we have to make a lot more turns on the trail than if it were a park-n-grab. We should move traditionals where it's hard to find a parking space to puzzles to reflect the difficulty in figuring out where to park. Stuff like that.

 

*Yes, I pulled that number out of my behind. Yes, the post was with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Not jumbo, bigger, wuuumbo!

[GOF and Bacall]

A one, A two, A tree, Everybody move your feet to that WUUUMBO beat!