Why do reviewers allow COs to list a nano as ?(other) size?

[Clan Riffster]

If the goal is truly to make certain that everyone understands that particular micro is in fact a nano type micro, why not just be up front and open and honest about it in the first place.

Has Groundspeak been dishonest? It seems they stated what they consider a micro to be, I.e; 35mm film can or smaller. Unless you've seen a supply of nanos that are larger than film cans, it would be difficult to convince me that Groundspeak is practicing any prevarication.

[Clan Riffster]

a nano is a micro.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly. A nano is a micro. A decon kit is a small. A 30 calibre ammo can is a regular. A 5 gallon bucket is a large.

However, going strictly by Groundspeaks definition, a nano, decon kit, ammo can and bucket can also be an "Other".

In the definition of "Other", there are no volumes or dimensions specified. As such, they all fit. Even nanos.

[+The Jester]

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller (includes nano size) – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L

To date, I haven't met anyone who believes that a nano equals or exceeds 3 ounces in volume. In fact, everybody I've discussed this with already recognizes the fact that nanos are smaller than film cans, and as such, already meet the current definition. Further clarification would seem to be redundant. Adding superfluous text to the guidelines won't address your concerns regarding the use of the "other" size choice.

 

Small is defined as less than 1 quart. Nobody would ever argue that a nano is less than 1 quart so it is a "small" container.

 

Regular is defined as less than 5 gallons, and nobody would argue that a nano is less than 5 gallons, so it is a "regular" container.

 

Your logic that another container size is not needed, to represent a nano, is fundamentally flawed.

Talk about flawed logic. By that "logic" every cache should be listed as a Large.

[+bittsen]

Small is defined as less than 1 quart. Nobody would ever argue that a nano is less than 1 quart so it is a "small" container.

 

Regular is defined as less than 5 gallons, and nobody would argue that a nano is less than 5 gallons, so it is a "regular" container.

 

Your logic that another container size is not needed, to represent a nano, is fundamentally flawed.

Talk about flawed logic. By that "logic" every cache should be listed as a Large.

 

Read the whole post and you will see that I was applying that LACK of logic to make a point. I said that that type of logic was fundamentally flawed.

 

~just shaking my head~

Edited November 2, 2009 by bittsen

[+L0ne.R]

a nano is a micro.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly. A nano is a micro. A decon kit is a small. A 30 calibre ammo can is a regular. A 5 gallon bucket is a large.

However, going strictly by Groundspeaks definition, a nano, decon kit, ammo can and bucket can also be an "Other".

In the definition of "Other", there are no volumes or dimensions specified. As such, they all fit. Even nanos.

 

I have yet to see a definition of "other" in the GC guidelines. Would you be so kind to post a link here.

[+palmetto]

[+L0ne.R]

 

Saw that on the online form, but didn't know where to go to see the description -- anyone know?

[+Team Cotati]

If the goal is truly to make certain that everyone understands that particular micro is in fact a nano type micro, why not just be up front and open and honest about it in the first place.

Has Groundspeak been dishonest? It seems they stated what they consider a micro to be, I.e; 35mm film can or smaller. Unless you've seen a supply of nanos that are larger than film cans, it would be difficult to convince me that Groundspeak is practicing any prevarication.

 

I'll take that as a NO. And that is exactly what I thought that your smokescreen was trying to cover.

[+palmetto]

Saw that on the online form, but didn't know where to go to see the description -- anyone know?

 

The reference is to the cache page description; ie, the short description or the long description of the cache.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing the size default be Large, rather then Not Listed. A good many caches go out "Not Listed" just because the cache owner didn't chose anything; just an error in managing the form. There would be serious feedback on caches going out as Large that weren't! and most cache owners would respond.

[+Lil Devil]

 

Saw that on the online form, but didn't know where to go to see the description -- anyone know?

The cache description. Geez, do I have to spell everything out for you?

[+L0ne.R]

 

Saw that on the online form, but didn't know where to go to see the description -- anyone know?

The cache description. Geez, do I have to spell everything out for you?

 

Is that a put down? Why can't we have a discussion without resorting to belittling people?

 

The other cache sizes are described in brackets, 'other' is not described/identified. It might be more clear if it instructed the CO to -- "(describe your cache size in the long description box)". So what I'm hearing right now is

• I'm a dimwit for not interpreting the "Other" language in the online form the way others have interpreted it
  
• Other is not defined on the gc site, it's a catch-all that means whatever a CO wants it to mean
  
• Most people filter out "other" because it essentially means "nano" and they don't want "nanos" to be "micros" because then they couldn't filter out the nanos(others) from the micros.
  

Edited November 2, 2009 by Lone R

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Saw that on the online form, but didn't know where to go to see the description -- anyone know?

The cache description. Geez, do I have to spell everything out for you?

 

For me you did, I didn't get what description they were referring to.. I still don't get it, really. That's the cache submission form. So the cache owner is supposed to see their own cache description for an explanation of what "other" means?

[+tozainamboku]

I understood "see description" to mean that when Other is select the cache owner would provide more information in the cache description about the size of the cache. I am almost certain that there used to be something on the site that explained this use of Other. However I can't find it now. Perhaps is was on another site like Markwell's or Geocaching-U.

 

One thing that this does point out is that an explanation/instructions for filling in the form when submitting a new cache needs to be written and made available. It also the guidelines for placing a cache may not be the appropriate place to explain cache sizes. It results in some people believing that sizes other than micro, small, regular, or large are in violation of the guidelines (and should be archived) and the caches with volumes very different from the ones listed here and categorized are also in violation of guidelines. There are other sections of the site (e.g. Grounspeak Knowledgebase) that have slightly different dimensions given for the sizes. So even Grounspeak doesn't seem sure of what they dimensions should be for each size.

[+Renegade Knight]

This is not something that reviewers check for (at least I don't).

 

A "?" can be used any time when the owner wants to keep the cache size a mystery. There's no guideline saying otherwise.

 

Many cache descriptions give no clue about the type of container involved. If I had to stop and quiz each hider until the proper size was selected, there'd be an even longer delay in publishing caches....

 

While I have no use for the ? container type unless it's an actual ? (which most aren't) I agree with the review process. There is no reason to make a volunteers job harder than it is.

[Skippermark]

The reference is to the cache page description; ie, the short description or the long description of the cache.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing the size default be Large, rather then Not Listed. A good many caches go out "Not Listed" just because the cache owner didn't chose anything; just an error in managing the form. There would be serious feedback on caches going out as Large that weren't! and most cache owners would respond.

Yup, I've done that a couple times by accident. Got everything all written up, proofread it a couple times, description is good, pictures show correctly, coords are correct, parking coords are correct. Looks good. Let's submit it. Then, when it comes out, whoops...no size is listed.

 

To the OP, if a cache is listed as Other, I figure it will be a micro. Most of the time it is and often, those micros are nanos.

[Clan Riffster]

[*]Other is not defined on the gc site, 1 ) it's a catch-all that means whatever a CO wants it to mean

and/or

2 ) Most people filter out "other" because it essentially means "nano"

From a local viewpoint, this looks like a great example of the difference between intended purpose, and end user application.

Anyone even giving a cursory glance at the guidelines knows that a nano fits into the existing Micro size category, due to it being smaller than a 35mm film can. Yet, very often, the most prominent nano hiders seem to feel some sort of obligation to select Other when picking a size designation for their caches. Strange... Within the guidelines, sure. But still, I find it odd.

 

An explanation/instructions for filling in the form when submitting a new cache needs to be written and made available.

Please tell me this was posted tongue in cheek.

I would think that anyone lacking sufficient grey matter to figure out the cache submission form would be stymied by the process of turning on a GPSr and a computer, and would therefor become a null issue. I know that I'm dumber than a bag of hammers, and I figured it out the very first time.

 

And that is exactly what I thought that your smokescreen was trying to cover.

Sorry. I don't follow your reasoning. You hint that, with the current system, Groundspeak is somehow being less than up front and honest. I believe your exact words were: "why not just be up front and open and honest about it in the first place." Can you point out any occasion where Groundspeak has not been up front and honest? In the portion of the guidelines being discussed, Groundspeak dictates that anything equal in volume or smaller than a 35mm film can would be considered a micro. Every nano I've ever seen was significantly smaller than a 35mm film can. Heck, I didn't even need to resort to calibrated measuring devices. Just hold one up next to the other. No rocket science required. If you need further proof, open up a film can and plop a nano inside. You'll see it has room to bounce around, which is a pretty strong indication that a nano is smaller than a film can.

 

Will you further accuse Groundspeak of being dishonest because they don't specify a 40' shipping container is a "Large", even though most folks would be able to comprehend that a shipping container is equal to or larger in volume than a 5 gallon bucket?

 

I'm thinking the only one laying out a field of verbal obfuscation, (AKA: smokescreen), is you...

[+Team Cotati]

[*]Other is not defined on the gc site, 1 ) it's a catch-all that means whatever a CO wants it to mean

and/or

2 ) Most people filter out "other" because it essentially means "nano"

From a local viewpoint, this looks like a great example of the difference between intended purpose, and end user application.

Anyone even giving a cursory glance at the guidelines knows that a nano fits into the existing Micro size category, due to it being smaller than a 35mm film can. Yet, very often, the most prominent nano hiders seem to feel some sort of obligation to select Other when picking a size designation for their caches. Strange... Within the guidelines, sure. But still, I find it odd.

 

An explanation/instructions for filling in the form when submitting a new cache needs to be written and made available.

Please tell me this was posted tongue in cheek.

I would think that anyone lacking sufficient grey matter to figure out the cache submission form would be stymied by the process of turning on a GPSr and a computer, and would therefor become a null issue. I know that I'm dumber than a bag of hammers, and I figured it out the very first time.

 

And that is exactly what I thought that your smokescreen was trying to cover.

Sorry. I don't follow your reasoning. You hint that, with the current system, Groundspeak is somehow being less than up front and honest. I believe your exact words were: "why not just be up front and open and honest about it in the first place." Can you point out any occasion where Groundspeak has not been up front and honest? In the portion of the guidelines being discussed, Groundspeak dictates that anything equal in volume or smaller than a 35mm film can would be considered a micro. Every nano I've ever seen was significantly smaller than a 35mm film can. Heck, I didn't even need to resort to calibrated measuring devices. Just hold one up next to the other. No rocket science required. If you need further proof, open up a film can and plop a nano inside. You'll see it has room to bounce around, which is a pretty strong indication that a nano is smaller than a film can.

 

Will you further accuse Groundspeak of being dishonest because they don't specify a 40' shipping container is a "Large", even though most folks would be able to comprehend that a shipping container is equal to or larger in volume than a 5 gallon bucket?

 

I'm thinking the only one laying out a field of verbal obfuscation, (AKA: smokescreen), is you...

 

Uh, get a grip there pardner before you pop a vein or sumpin.

 

"Perhaps because, while it's true that a nano is a "Micro", fitting within that size category, it is also an "Unknown", and a "Not Chosen". All three categories properly represent a nano. I think the reviewers have enough to do already without forcing them to state the obvious."

 

Having a separate type upon which users could filter does not require the reviewer to do a thing. To the contrary, it would assist users in being able, for those so inclined, to continue to download micros while eliminating those hated nanos.

 

You can refer to the methods that either intentionally or inadvertantly disguise nanos as micros using any silly language that you choose. That is quite irrelevant. I'm quite certain that you can conjure an endless stream of spew to excuse the reasons for not implementing a category definition that would be of help to the geocaching community at large.

 

It really doesn't matter, people can quite easily see thru the smoke. You have an opinion, so do many others.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Team Cotati

[Clan Riffster]

You can refer to the methods that either intentionally or inadvertantly disguise nanos as micros using any silly language that you choose.

Uh... Thanx! (I think) I appreciate your granting of permission. I feel much better now.

 

Not sure where you came up with the notion that Groundspeak has disguised nanos as micros though.

 

Their language, (which I didn't find silly, but your humor level may be different than mine), seemed rather clear.

 

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

 

Nanos are smaller than film cans.

 

If that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp, then further attempts to explain it would be pointless for both of us.

 

TTFN!

[+bittsen]

You can refer to the methods that either intentionally or inadvertantly disguise nanos as micros using any silly language that you choose.

Uh... Thanx! (I think) I appreciate your granting of permission. I feel much better now.

 

Not sure where you came up with the notion that Groundspeak has disguised nanos as micros though.

 

Their language, (which I didn't find silly, but your humor level may be different than mine), seemed rather clear.

 

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

 

Nanos are smaller than film cans.

 

If that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp, then further attempts to explain it would be pointless for both of us.

 

TTFN!

 

Nanos are smaller than a 5 gallon bucket too so they are a regular sized cache by your logic.

[+AbMagFab]

Is this really such a big deal?

 

Part of the fun, for me at least, is finding the cache. I rarely look at the size unless I'm stumped when I get to GZ.

 

I also kind of like it when people use a ? for the cache size, as it adds another dimension to the find. And sometimes it's an intentionaly part of their hide (a nano in a large camo, e.g.).

 

Anyway, I'm not sure this really warrants so much discussion. Just ignore the ? if you care, or don't.

 

I would hate to see the GC reviewers forcing an element of this hobby/sport that isn't needed.

[+wimseyguy]

The biggest problems with nanos is that you cannot fit religious or sweet potato tracts into them. Unless you spend the money to get the ones that are laser etched onto a grain of rice.

[Clan Riffster]

Nanos are smaller than a 5 gallon bucket too so they are a regular sized cache by your logic.

There it is again! Whoo Hoo!! Thanx for the amusing, (though hideously inaccurate), anecdote! You brighten my day.

(Now to clean all the unsweet tea out of my keyboard...)

[+tozainamboku]

An explanation/instructions for filling in the form when submitting a new cache needs to be written and made available.

Please tell me this was posted tongue in cheek.

I would think that anyone lacking sufficient grey matter to figure out the cache submission form would be stymied by the process of turning on a GPSr and a computer, and would therefor become a null issue. I know that I'm dumber than a bag of hammers, and I figured it out the very first time.

I'm glad you figured it out. I too had no trouble the first time I submitted a cache. But the number of times someone asks what to enter for the terrain or difficulty or whether their cache is a multi or an unknown or what HTML they can put in the description indicates that some people need further guidance. I believe size is one of those areas. There several places on the website or in the Groundspeak Knowledgebase that describe the sizes. The online form itself has a short description for micro, small, regular, and large. It doesn't indicate why you might want to choose not listed or Other and the comment "See description" after Other is ambiguous as seen from the comments in this thread. People are tend to have questions about filling in the form when they are filling in the form. It makes sense to have links from the form to explain what goes in each field.

 

When I pay bills online at my bank there is a place to click by each field for help filling it in. I don't use it but it's there for those that need it. I recently got very frustrated on one website. It kept rejecting my phone number because it wanted it to be punctuated in a very specific way. I tried every way I could think of and it kept saying it wasn't a phone number. I was pretty angry because a simple example on the page would have let me know what they were looking for. Eventually I logged off, went away for a while (to go caching) and while I was gone thought of another format I could try. When I got home I tried it and it took it. If I wanted to solve puzzles by trial and error I would have done a puzzle cache and not signed up on that website. Just simple courtesy to provide help to people who need it.

[+The VanDucks]

Have to admit I skimmed down the list of posts so I may have missed something above, but my reason as a cache owner for not listing the size of the container on some of our hides is that I want the container to be a surprise to the finder. I enjoy using unusual containers, and I do say on the cache description page to bring a pen if my container is too small to hold one - that should be enough of a clue that it's going to be something smallish!

 

On some of our other caches I state the size as small, or I specify it's a nano on the description page, but on the other caches, I have a valid reason for not disclosing the size. Now, granted, I live in a congested suburban area, where there are a lot of micros just because geocachers here in northern Virginia are running out of real estate to place more new caches! Most of the time, there just isn't an empty spot to place a big container or an ammo can!

 

If a geocacher decides to filter out micros, that's his or her business, but I bet they will miss a lot of good caches by doing so!

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I do my Pocket Queries by size. This allows me to choose which size containers I want to search for at any particular time.

 

I will skip any cache for which a size is not chosen. The cache owner(s) have made their choice(s) and so have I.

[+Lil Devil]

Saw that on the online form, but didn't know where to go to see the description -- anyone know?

The cache description. Geez, do I have to spell everything out for you?

Is that a put down? Why can't we have a discussion without resorting to belittling people?

Half the posts before mine seemed to be spelling things out, so I was just having fun with my post. I apologize for not using a winky

[+Lil Devil]

I understood "see description" to mean that when Other is select the cache owner would provide more information in the cache description about the size of the cache.

Thank you for saying this better than I was apparently able to

[+briansnat]

You can refer to the methods that either intentionally or inadvertantly disguise nanos as micros using any silly language that you choose.

Uh... Thanx! (I think) I appreciate your granting of permission. I feel much better now.

 

Not sure where you came up with the notion that Groundspeak has disguised nanos as micros though.

 

Their language, (which I didn't find silly, but your humor level may be different than mine), seemed rather clear.

 

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

 

Nanos are smaller than film cans.

 

If that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp, then further attempts to explain it would be pointless for both of us.

 

TTFN!

 

Nanos are smaller than a 5 gallon bucket too so they are a regular sized cache by your logic.

 

An absurd comparison. Using the same logic you can list anything larger than a film canister as a large.

[AZcachemeister]

caches that hold trade items, and caches that don't.

 

 

But, I actually have trade items that will fit in those NANO containers!

[GOF and Bacall]

You can refer to the methods that either intentionally or inadvertantly disguise nanos as micros using any silly language that you choose.

Uh... Thanx! (I think) I appreciate your granting of permission. I feel much better now.

 

Not sure where you came up with the notion that Groundspeak has disguised nanos as micros though.

 

Their language, (which I didn't find silly, but your humor level may be different than mine), seemed rather clear.

 

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

 

Nanos are smaller than film cans.

 

If that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp, then further attempts to explain it would be pointless for both of us.

 

TTFN!

 

Nanos are smaller than a 5 gallon bucket too so they are a regular sized cache by your logic.

 

An absurd comparison. Using the same logic you can list anything larger than a film canister as a large.

 

That's Jumbo.

[+bittsen]

<snip>Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

 

Nanos are smaller than film cans.

 

If that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp, then further attempts to explain it would be pointless for both of us.

 

TTFN!

 

Nanos are smaller than a 5 gallon bucket too so they are a regular sized cache by your logic.

 

An absurd comparison. Using the same logic you can list anything larger than a film canister as a large.

Yes, exactly. By Clan Riffsters logic, all caches that are not micros are large.

[+KBI]

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller)

 

Nanos are smaller than film cans.

 

If that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp, then further attempts to explain it would be pointless for both of us.

Nanos are smaller than a 5 gallon bucket too so they are a regular sized cache by your logic.

How do you figure that?

[+bittsen]

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller)

 

Nanos are smaller than film cans.

 

If that's too difficult a concept for you to grasp, then further attempts to explain it would be pointless for both of us.

Nanos are smaller than a 5 gallon bucket too so they are a regular sized cache by your logic.

How do you figure that?

 

Because they are SMALLER than a 5 gallon bucket.

[+KBI]

How do you fit a five-gallon bucket into "35 mm film canister or smaller" ?

[+bittsen]

How do you fit a five-gallon bucket into "35 mm film canister or smaller" ?

 

A REGULAR is smaller than a 5 gallon bucket. Are you saying that a nano is NOT smaller than a 5 gallon bucket?

 

There is nothing in the guidelines, that I saw, that says that anything "larger" than (insert size here) is X category. So, though a nano fits into the category of "micro" because it is less than 3 oz, it could be classified as a "regular" as well since it is, indeed, smaller than 5 gallons.

 

Based on Clan Riffster logic.

[+TrailGators]

Officially the description says "35 mm film canister or smaller," which means anything from a film can down to a single subatomic particle counts as a micro, but to use this definition requires that one first read the definition. Otherwise it's easy to be ignorant of those critical words "or smaller," and to presume that there is a floor in there somewhere when it comes to what size one may consider to be a micro.

 

Of course some hiders may intentionally, possibly even maliciously, avoid the micro designation in order to prevent their cache from being electronically ignored by those who would filter them out. Such a thing makes zero sense to me (Why would you trick someone into finding your micro if you know it will irritate them?) but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In my estimation, however, the vast majority of these misdesignations result from honest ignorance or misjudgment, not mischief.

I agree. If someone posts the wrong size then I'll post the right size in my log the same way I post better coordinates when those get goofed up. I do it to try make it more fun for the next guy...

[+KBI]

How do you fit a five-gallon bucket into "35 mm film canister or smaller" ?

A REGULAR is smaller than a 5 gallon bucket.

No one is saying it isn’t.

 

Are you saying that a nano is NOT smaller than a 5 gallon bucket?

No, and neither is anyone else.

 

There is nothing in the guidelines, that I saw, that says that anything "larger" than (insert size here) is X category. So, though a nano fits into the category of "micro" because it is less than 3 oz, it could be classified as a "regular" as well since it is, indeed, smaller than 5 gallons.

 

Based on Clan Riffster logic.

It is not Clan Riffster’s logic.

 

It is the list of definitions as published by Groundspeak. Clan Riffster is simply quoting, and correctly interpreting, the relevant portion of those definitions:

• Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)
  
• Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L – holds trade items as well as a logbook)
  
• Regular (plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox)
  
• Large (5 gallon/20 L bucket or larger)
  

Please note the words "or smaller" in the first definition, and "or larger" in the last one.

 

If a container is approximately the size of a quart container, it is a Small.

If it is approximately the size of a shoebox, it is a Regular.

If it roughly compares to a five-gallon bucket or larger, it is a Large.

And lastly, if it is approximately the size of a film can or smaller, it is a micro.

 

Now ... please tell me how you would categorize the following containers according to those definitions:

 

1. Five gallon bucket

 

2. nano

[+bittsen]

How do you fit a five-gallon bucket into "35 mm film canister or smaller" ?

A REGULAR is smaller than a 5 gallon bucket.

No one is saying it isn’t.

 

Are you saying that a nano is NOT smaller than a 5 gallon bucket?

No, and neither is anyone else.

 

There is nothing in the guidelines, that I saw, that says that anything "larger" than (insert size here) is X category. So, though a nano fits into the category of "micro" because it is less than 3 oz, it could be classified as a "regular" as well since it is, indeed, smaller than 5 gallons.

 

Based on Clan Riffster logic.

It is not Clan Riffster’s logic.

 

It is the list of definitions as published by Groundspeak. Clan Riffster is simply quoting, and correctly interpreting, the relevant portion of those definitions:

• Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)
  
• Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L – holds trade items as well as a logbook)
  
• Regular (plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox)
  
• Large (5 gallon/20 L bucket or larger)
  

Please note the words "or smaller" in the first definition, and "or larger" in the last one.

 

If a container is approximately the size of a quart container, it is a Small.

If it is approximately the size of a shoebox, it is a Regular.

If it roughly compares to a five-gallon bucket or larger, it is a Large.

And lastly, if it is approximately the size of a film can or smaller, it is a micro.

 

Now ... please tell me how you would categorize the following containers according to those definitions:

 

1. Five gallon bucket

 

2. nano

 

A five gallon bucket would be a Jumbo and a nano would be a.... well......nano.

 

They could both be listed as "Other" (see description).

 

My entire argument was based on Clan Riffsters post, about 20 or so back. You have taken it to a whole new level. I find that entertaining.

[Mushtang]

Give me one example of a geocache that qualifies as a cache meeting the size of a nanometer.

 

Give me one example of a cache that qualifies as a cache meeting the size of a nanolightyear.

 

A nanolightyear is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a light year. A light year is about 5,878,499,000,000 miles long. A billion is a thousand times bigger than a million, as a number you write it out as 1,000,000,000. That is a big number and when you divide a light year into one billion pieces, it's about 3/4 the diameter of the Earth.

 

So who said a nano cache has anything at all to do with a nanometer OR a nanolightyear OR any unit of length? Every time this subject comes up you post that a nanometer is too small, and I don't understand why.

[+KBI]

A five gallon bucket would be a Jumbo and a nano would be a.... well......nano.

I’m thinking that any teacher, professor, or game show host would give you, at the very most, zero percent credit for that answer.

 

Neither "jumbo" nor "nano" were among your available choices. Please read the definitions again.

 

My entire argument was based on Clan Riffsters post, about 20 or so back. You have taken it to a whole new level. I find that entertaining.

Your entire argument was that "Nanos are smaller than a 5 gallon bucket too so they are a regular sized cache by [Clan Riffster’s] logic." (See post #69.)

 

I saw no such faulty logic in Clan Riffster’s post. All he did was quote the official definition.

 

I invited you to show me the faulty logic that would lead one to the conclusion that a nano should be considered as a Regular size, as you claim. You haven’t shown me the faulty logic. You have chosen to obfuscate instead.

[+TrailGators]

So who said a nano cache has anything at all to do with a nanometer OR a nanolightyear OR any unit of length?

I always thought the name came from Mork and Mindy: "Nanoo Nanoo!"

[+bittsen]

 

I’m thinking that any teacher, professor, or game show host would give you, at the very most, zero percent credit for that answer.

 

Neither "jumbo" nor "nano" were among your available choices. Please read the definitions again.

 

 

Pardon me for not staying within your box. I didn't see that there weren't multiple possible answers.

[+KBI]

There weren't. There were four choices. The question was spelled out clearly. I quoted the guidelines directly.

 

And ... you're just going to completely ignore the second part of my post, the part about your challenge of Clan Riffster's logic?

 

I asked a simple question. You made a bizarre-sounding claim, and I merely asked you to help me understand your claim. You obviously have no interest in answering my question, however, so I am left to assume that you are either unwilling to defend your claim, or that you are unable to do so.

 

If you change your mind, I will see you response when I check back in in a couple days.

 

Good night.

[+The Jester]

 

Nanos are smaller than a 5 gallon bucket too so they are a regular sized cache by your my logic.

There, fixed it for you.

 

You are pulling the "smaller than a 5 gallon bucket" out of your own mind. It doesn't exist anywhere else. As KBI pointed out, the only reference to "smaller than <anything>" is the guidline defining a micro (i.e.. Film can or smaller).

[+bittsen]

There weren't. There were four choices. The question was spelled out clearly. I quoted the guidelines directly.

 

And ... you're just going to completely ignore the second part of my post, the part about your challenge of Clan Riffster's logic?

 

I asked a simple question. You made a bizarre-sounding claim, and I merely asked you to help me understand your claim. You obviously have no interest in answering my question, however, so I am left to assume that you are either unwilling to defend your claim, or that you are unable to do so.

 

If you change your mind, I will see you response when I check back in in a couple days.

 

Good night.

 

Again, I was unaware that forum etiquette dictated mandatory conformity within other posters requests (insert demands) for reponses which fit within a given, yet uspecified paradigm.

 

I shall attempt to better conform to the unstated restrictions in the future.

[Clan Riffster]

I will skip any cache for which a size is not chosen.

If my math is right, I run 23 pocket querries every week. 22 are mine, one is my wife's.

Her's is the only PQ that includes "Other" and "Not Listed".

The end result is, unless she is caching with me, those pesky lil' buggers don't even exist.

[+L0ne.R]

Saw that on the online form, but didn't know where to go to see the description -- anyone know?

The cache description. Geez, do I have to spell everything out for you?

Is that a put down? Why can't we have a discussion without resorting to belittling people?

Half the posts before mine seemed to be spelling things out, so I was just having fun with my post. I apologize for not using a winky

Thank you.

[+Castle Mischief]

From a local viewpoint, this looks like a great example of the difference between intended purpose, and end user application.

 

I agree with this, but I'm still fuzzy on what that original intended purpose was. I've heard it described as a container that is so wacky and kooky that its square peg-ness can't fit in the round holes of the other size descriptions. But I've yet to find a cache that I couldn't categorize by size using the descriptions provided by Groundspeak.

 

I've yet to find the elusive 6th dimensional cache that I can't look at play the "bigger than a breadbox" game.

 

Can somebody point me to a cache that is a good example of the original intended purpose of "other"?

[+Team Cotati]

If a cacher wanted to select and only hunt for micro size caches and at the same time wanted to ensure that they were not going to inadvertently discover that they were also searching for nano type micro caches, how could they best accomplish that?

Edited November 3, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+TrailGators]

If a cacher wanted to select and only hunt for micro size caches and at the same time wanted to ensure that they were not going to inadvertently discover that they were also searching for nano type micro caches, how could they best accomplish that?

Do a PQ for only regulars and larges. All sizes other than those can contain micros. Edited November 3, 2009 by TrailGators