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

[+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?

Do a PQ for only regulars and larges. All sizes other than those can contain micros.

 

You might possibly have misread my question.

[+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.

 

You might possibly have misread my question.

There is no way to filter out nanos without filtering out micros too because they are micros.

[Mushtang]

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.

You might possibly have misread my question.

You can't filter out things that are in the same category.

 

For instance, there's no way to filter out ammo cans from the big Lock-n-Locks. They're both regular size caches.

[+wimseyguy]

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!"

 

It seems a few other cachers thought the same thing.

[+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?

Do a PQ for only regulars and larges. All sizes other than those can contain micros.

 

You might possibly have misread my question.

There is no way to filter out nanos without filtering out micros too because they are micros.

 

I had always thought that that was the case. Thanks for the confirmation.

[+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!"

 

It seems a few other cachers thought the same thing.

[Clan Riffster]

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?

I've heard there's a macro for GSAK that filters based on text in the cache page.

That would help you exclude all the ones that use the term "Nano" in the cache page.

I think that's the closest you could get.

[+The Jester]

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"?

I've found a cache that was the size of an ammo can, but only had the room of film can. It was a large rock drilled out to have a film can glued in. So what size is it?

[Mushtang]

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"?

I've found a cache that was the size of an ammo can, but only had the room of film can. It was a large rock drilled out to have a film can glued in. So what size is it?

Sounds like a micro to me.

[Clan Riffster]

Sounds like a micro to me.

My vote would also be micro. My interpretation of what Jester described would have the rock considered as just camo, while the cache itself was the film can glued to it. A friend of mine described a most challenging cache, which was a blinkie, painted to match, and hidden, on an Army tank. From what he described, there was no angle where you could see the blinkie. Rather, you had to check out the whole tank by feel, till you located it. It was labeled as a "Micro".

Edited November 4, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+The Jester]

Sounds like a micro to me.

My vote would also be micro. My interpretation of what Jester described would have the rock considered as just camo, while the cache itself was the film can glued to it. A friend of mine described a most challenging cache, which was a blinkie, painted to match, and hidden, on an Army tank. From what he described, there was no angle where you could see the blinkie. Rather, you had to check out the whole tank by feel, till you located it. It was labeled as a "Micro".

While I agree it's a micro, there is the crowd that says different sizes are searched for differently. So if you are looking for regular size camo hiding a micro container, wouldn't you search differently than if you were looking for micro?

 

Edit to add a thought: I was using this as an example of "Other" where the description would/could make it clearer what you were looking for.

Edited November 4, 2009 by The Jester

[+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?

I've heard there's a macro for GSAK that filters based on text in the cache page.

That would help you exclude all the ones that use the term "Nano" in the cache page.

I think that's the closest you could get.

 

I hadn't heard that. Thanks.

 

I'll check over there and get back to you. You know, just so there is no confusion on that point.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+TrailGators]

Sounds like a micro to me.

My vote would also be micro. My interpretation of what Jester described would have the rock considered as just camo, while the cache itself was the film can glued to it. A friend of mine described a most challenging cache, which was a blinkie, painted to match, and hidden, on an Army tank. From what he described, there was no angle where you could see the blinkie. Rather, you had to check out the whole tank by feel, till you located it. It was labeled as a "Micro".

While I agree it's a micro, there is the crowd that says different sizes are searched for differently. So if you are looking for regular size camo hiding a micro container, wouldn't you search differently than if you were looking for micro?

 

Edit to add a thought: I was using this as an example of "Other" where the description would/could make it clearer what you were looking for.

I would call that a micro based on how much room their isn't to hide swag. However, that is a good example of how "other" size category was probably intended to be used.

[+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"?

I've found a cache that was the size of an ammo can, but only had the room of film can. It was a large rock drilled out to have a film can glued in. So what size is it?

 

That's a micro. A container is measured by volume capacity, not mass.

 

Edited before somebody pulls the "solid objects have volume card".

Edited November 4, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+gotta run]

This thread surprised me because in this region "other" = nano in most cases. In fact, on one of the (few) nanos we planted, I recall getting logs early on complaining about the fact that it WAS listed as a micro. So at least in these backwaters, micro=filmstrip/matchstick size.

[Clan Riffster]

So if you are looking for regular size camo hiding a micro container, wouldn't you search differently than if you were looking for micro?

I don't think so. I'm trying to envision two hunts for the same cache, after being given slightly different data. If the owner listed it as a Micro, and GZ took me to a rock, I would be checking out that rock pretty thoroughly, looking, touching & tugging till I eliminated every possibility. I think I would follow the same search format if I went there in search of an Other. If the CO called it a Regular, because of the size of the rock, that would probably change my hunt method. The same would be true for the aforementioned tank blinkie. If the CO called it a Large, I would start by checking only those places a Large would fit. If that failed, (and I assume it would), I might check a few more spots, before calling it a day.

[+Team Cotati]

This thread surprised me because in this region "other" = nano in most cases. In fact, on one of the (few) nanos we planted, I recall getting logs early on complaining about the fact that it WAS listed as a micro. So at least in these backwaters, micro=filmstrip/matchstick size.

 

Yeah, that use to be the norm here as well, as a matter of fact during our travels we found that that rationality was prevalent most every where. For reasons unknown to this geocacher, something went whacko about 3-4 years ago.

 

Film cans and similar.

 

Too bad really.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Team Cotati

[Mr.Yuck]

This thread surprised me because in this region "other" = nano in most cases. In fact, on one of the (few) nanos we planted, I recall getting logs early on complaining about the fact that it WAS listed as a micro. So at least in these backwaters, micro=filmstrip/matchstick size.

 

Well, those people are welcome to be wrong. People used to like to place Travel Bug prisons with a "take one, leave one rule". Doen't mean they weren't wrong about the whole thing.

[CoyoteRed]

Got tired of reading the thread, but wanted to say something. I filter out everything that is not a small, regular or large beyond a certain distance from home. Mainly because of the topic of the thread.

 

I think the folks who should be upset are the folks who pretty much have to use the size category of unknown or other because of the uniqueness of their container. Their caches get filtered because of improper use of the size category. No different than the folks who hide good micros should be upset at the folks who hide so many crappy micros and causes folks to filter all micros.

 

Filtering on these broad quantifiable metrics is really the only sensible way to filter as nothing else is provided to us. I'm finding filtering on median log word count, days between finds, and lonely caches yields much better results than mere chance, but getting the information is agonizing.

 

Yes, I blame most of this on Groundspeak. I think folks have nailed the reasoning so many blinkies are listed as "other" right on the head. Either to avoid being filtered or confusion. Groundspeak could fix both. There's really no ambiguity on the definition of "micro" or what size category a blinkie fits. When it's listed in the description there's no mystery on the size. If it's known that a blinkie is a micro, if it's mentioned in the description what size it is, and if one is trying to avoid being filtered, then there's no reason to not suggest that a blinkie being listed as a micro. There's suggestions for changing a type category when it might work better in a different type, why not the size?

[+Team Cotati]

"Groundspeak could fix both."

 

Interesting, very interesting.

[+L0ne.R]

This thread surprised me because in this region "other" = nano in most cases. In fact, on one of the (few) nanos we planted, I recall getting logs early on complaining about the fact that it WAS listed as a micro. So at least in these backwaters, micro=filmstrip/matchstick size.

 

Well, those people are welcome to be wrong. People used to like to place Travel Bug prisons with a "take one, leave one rule". Doen't mean they weren't wrong about the whole thing.

 

And this is where I think reviewers can help educate and correct things. They can help clear up the confusion and get everyone on the same track. I still don't really get why most people that responded want to continue the status quo i.e. micro=film canister, other=nano (or anything you want it to mean).

[+L0ne.R]

Got tired of reading the thread, but wanted to say something. I filter out everything that is not a small, regular or large beyond a certain distance from home. Mainly because of the topic of the thread.

 

I think the folks who should be upset are the folks who pretty much have to use the size category of unknown or other because of the uniqueness of their container. Their caches get filtered because of improper use of the size category. No different than the folks who hide good micros should be upset at the folks who hide so many crappy micros and causes folks to filter all micros.

 

Filtering on these broad quantifiable metrics is really the only sensible way to filter as nothing else is provided to us. I'm finding filtering on median log word count, days between finds, and lonely caches yields much better results than mere chance, but getting the information is agonizing.

 

Yes, I blame most of this on Groundspeak. I think folks have nailed the reasoning so many blinkies are listed as "other" right on the head. Either to avoid being filtered or confusion. Groundspeak could fix both. There's really no ambiguity on the definition of "micro" or what size category a blinkie fits. When it's listed in the description there's no mystery on the size. If it's known that a blinkie is a micro, if it's mentioned in the description what size it is, and if one is trying to avoid being filtered, then there's no reason to not suggest that a blinkie being listed as a micro. There's suggestions for changing a type category when it might work better in a different type, why not the size?

 

Thank you. Well said.

[+hat_man]

Isn't it amazing that something that started out as a neat and new and FUN concept (Thank you Dave Ulmer) could turn into this kind of bickering and argumentative and UN-FUN thread. If you like hunting small (not the cache listing definition just the physical one) sized hides then great. Don't filter them out and have FUN. If you don't like those types of hides, great, then filter them out and have FUN. If you like the challenge then hunt them all. But remember to have FUN. Come on folks, 3 pages of ranting about something so trivial? Now that's UN-FUN. Is that why we all got into this? To have UN-FUN? If the fun-o-meter is that low then maybe it's time to re-evaluate why you do this. Step back, take a deep breath and have FUN!

 

Not everyone is going to "play" the same as you, or me for that matter, but I think we can all agree this was (and still is for some) supposed to be FUN. Just the humble opinion of another cacher.

[Mr.Yuck]

Isn't it amazing that something that started out as a neat and new and FUN concept (Thank you Dave Ulmer) could turn into this kind of bickering and argumentative and UN-FUN thread. If you like hunting small (not the cache listing definition just the physical one) sized hides then great. Don't filter them out and have FUN. If you don't like those types of hides, great, then filter them out and have FUN. If you like the challenge then hunt them all. But remember to have FUN. Come on folks, 3 pages of ranting about something so trivial? Now that's UN-FUN. Is that why we all got into this? To have UN-FUN? If the fun-o-meter is that low then maybe it's time to re-evaluate why you do this. Step back, take a deep breath and have FUN!

 

Not everyone is going to "play" the same as you, or me for that matter, but I think we can all agree this was (and still is for some) supposed to be FUN. Just the humble opinion of another cacher.

 

So then why did Dave Ulmer wig out and vandalize all his cache pages on this website and become estranged from this website within a year of inventing the game?

 

Sorry, but the "filter all micros" angle is overly simplistic, and really shows you totally disregard the arguments many make in these threads, and just assume they're all micro haters. Not me, I just ran cache stats last week. I have 24% micro finds. I look at them on a one-by-one basis. True, I disregard probably 75% of them.

 

Nano's are micros. Most people who place nano's list them on this website as unknown size, not micro. I don't see why this isn't a valid discussion topic.

[+Team Cotati]

Isn't it amazing that something that started out as a neat and new and FUN concept (Thank you Dave Ulmer) could turn into this kind of bickering and argumentative and UN-FUN thread. If you like hunting small (not the cache listing definition just the physical one) sized hides then great. Don't filter them out and have FUN. If you don't like those types of hides, great, then filter them out and have FUN. If you like the challenge then hunt them all. But remember to have FUN. Come on folks, 3 pages of ranting about something so trivial? Now that's UN-FUN. Is that why we all got into this? To have UN-FUN? If the fun-o-meter is that low then maybe it's time to re-evaluate why you do this. Step back, take a deep breath and have FUN!

 

Not everyone is going to "play" the same as you, or me for that matter, but I think we can all agree this was (and still is for some) supposed to be FUN. Just the humble opinion of another cacher.

 

So then why did Dave Ulmer wig out and vandalize all his cache pages on this website and become estranged from this website within a year of inventing the game?

 

Sorry, but the "filter all micros" angle is overly simplistic, and really shows you totally disregard the arguments many make in these threads, and just assume they're all micro haters. Not me, I just ran cache stats last week. I have 24% micro finds. I look at them on a one-by-one basis. True, I disregard probably 75% of them.

 

Nano's are micros. Most people who place nano's list them on this website as unknown size, not micro. I don't see why this isn't a valid discussion topic.

 

Where did you learn this statistic? "Most people who place nano's list them on this website as unknown size"

[+L0ne.R]

Isn't it amazing that something that started out as a neat and new and FUN concept (Thank you Dave Ulmer) could turn into this kind of bickering and argumentative and UN-FUN thread. If you like hunting small (not the cache listing definition just the physical one) sized hides then great. Don't filter them out and have FUN. If you don't like those types of hides, great, then filter them out and have FUN. If you like the challenge then hunt them all. But remember to have FUN. Come on folks, 3 pages of ranting about something so trivial? Now that's UN-FUN. Is that why we all got into this? To have UN-FUN? If the fun-o-meter is that low then maybe it's time to re-evaluate why you do this. Step back, take a deep breath and have FUN!

 

Not everyone is going to "play" the same as you, or me for that matter, but I think we can all agree this was (and still is for some) supposed to be FUN. Just the humble opinion of another cacher.

 

So then why did Dave Ulmer wig out and vandalize all his cache pages on this website and become estranged from this website within a year of inventing the game?

 

Sorry, but the "filter all micros" angle is overly simplistic, and really shows you totally disregard the arguments many make in these threads, and just assume they're all micro haters. Not me, I just ran cache stats last week. I have 24% micro finds. I look at them on a one-by-one basis. True, I disregard probably 75% of them.

 

Nano's are micros. Most people who place nano's list them on this website as unknown size, not micro. I don't see why this isn't a valid discussion topic.

 

Where did you learn this statistic? "Most people who place nano's list them on this website as unknown size"

I think the point TWU was making was that most don't list their nanos as micros (therein lies some more confusion between other and unknown -- but I'm guessing TWU meant 'other')

[CoyoteRed]

"Groundspeak could fix both."

 

Interesting, very interesting.

 

I've mentioned the education angle and here's a possible site fix:

 

Yes, folks will complain this would mean there's no separate nano category, but this wouldn't change anything that we have now. Well, except maybe folks would be less likely to be confused as to which size category to place their blinkies.

[+Castle Mischief]

Isn't it amazing that something that started out as a neat and new and FUN concept (Thank you Dave Ulmer) could turn into this kind of bickering and argumentative and UN-FUN thread. If you like hunting small (not the cache listing definition just the physical one) sized hides then great. Don't filter them out and have FUN. If you don't like those types of hides, great, then filter them out and have FUN. If you like the challenge then hunt them all. But remember to have FUN. Come on folks, 3 pages of ranting about something so trivial? Now that's UN-FUN. Is that why we all got into this? To have UN-FUN? If the fun-o-meter is that low then maybe it's time to re-evaluate why you do this. Step back, take a deep breath and have FUN!

 

Not everyone is going to "play" the same as you, or me for that matter, but I think we can all agree this was (and still is for some) supposed to be FUN. Just the humble opinion of another cacher.

 

Don't think that because I'm discussing one of the often debated issues that I'm not having FUN in the woods looking for caches.

 

You're missing the entire point and possibly not even reading the comment in this thread. Nanos that are listed as anything other than "micro" throw a monkey wrench into the filtering.

 

If I filter out just the micro size caches then I'm left with all the nanos that are listed as "other" and "not listed".

 

If I filter out all the "other" then I eliminate all the Virtuals, Events and Earthcaches that are (incorrectly) listed as "other" as well as some other caches that the CO has decided are outside the box and should be "other".

 

If I filter out "not listed" then again, I eliminate all the Virtuals, Events, and Earthcaches that are (incorrectly) listed as such.

 

Listing a nano as "other" breaks the tools. It's that simple.

 

I'm hesitant to suggest that the Reviewers should address this size issue. I know that they are sometimes able to and I appreciate it when they do.

[CoyoteRed]

On the issue of additional workload for the reviewers: hopefully, they'd only have to take the extra time once per placer. Also, when the majority of caches are properly sized, then the "list by example" folks will see that blinkies are micros and list them as micros and not other.

[+Team Cotati]

Isn't it amazing that something that started out as a neat and new and FUN concept (Thank you Dave Ulmer) could turn into this kind of bickering and argumentative and UN-FUN thread. If you like hunting small (not the cache listing definition just the physical one) sized hides then great. Don't filter them out and have FUN. If you don't like those types of hides, great, then filter them out and have FUN. If you like the challenge then hunt them all. But remember to have FUN. Come on folks, 3 pages of ranting about something so trivial? Now that's UN-FUN. Is that why we all got into this? To have UN-FUN? If the fun-o-meter is that low then maybe it's time to re-evaluate why you do this. Step back, take a deep breath and have FUN!

 

Not everyone is going to "play" the same as you, or me for that matter, but I think we can all agree this was (and still is for some) supposed to be FUN. Just the humble opinion of another cacher.

 

So then why did Dave Ulmer wig out and vandalize all his cache pages on this website and become estranged from this website within a year of inventing the game?

 

Sorry, but the "filter all micros" angle is overly simplistic, and really shows you totally disregard the arguments many make in these threads, and just assume they're all micro haters. Not me, I just ran cache stats last week. I have 24% micro finds. I look at them on a one-by-one basis. True, I disregard probably 75% of them.

 

Nano's are micros. Most people who place nano's list them on this website as unknown size, not micro. I don't see why this isn't a valid discussion topic.

 

Where did you learn this statistic? "Most people who place nano's list them on this website as unknown size"

I think the point TWU was making was that most don't list their nanos as micros (therein lies some more confusion between other and unknown -- but I'm guessing TWU meant 'other')

 

Where did you learn that statistic?

[+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?

I've heard there's a macro for GSAK that filters based on text in the cache page.

That would help you exclude all the ones that use the term "Nano" in the cache page.

I think that's the closest you could get.

 

So CR, as it turns out, there is no need for a macro in this instance. The standard GSAK filter settings can do this.

 

On their Set Filter, General tab there is a Full Text search field.

 

You put the word 'nano' in that field and then under Where to Search, you select Selected Items Only and check mark 'Description' and let 'er rip.

 

Bada bing!! Good ole GSAK..............sweetness defined.

 

Nice to know, eh? That's one thing that I've noticed over the years with GSAK, the thing has just so many options and capabilities that you can't hardly find them. Having access to someone who has seen a feature is always a big help and of course in cases such as this, the folk over at the GSAK forums are very helpful and knowledgable. For example, this one came from The Man himself, Clyde English.

 

A bit better than "GSAK can do that", eh? Beautiful.

[+hat_man]

I don't know how to pull out selected lines from other posts to respond to them but I will try and reply.

 

As for Dave Ulmer I can't say why he left. Maybe he didn't like where he saw this hobby going, maybe he didn't like all the bickering, maybe his fun-o-meter bottomed out. Who knows. Maybe someone who is still in contact with him should ask him. You know, the "straight from the horses mouth" concept.

 

I don't disregard the arguments made here about this topic. And as for micro-haters I don't think I said anyone was. Even though I know that they are out there. I was trying to say that I find it sad that people could devote 3 pages (soon to be more I'm sure) arguing such a trivial subject. 3 pages on placing knives or "adult material" of drugs into caches I could see. Cachers vandalizing others caches or destroying GZ or getting cachers banned from areas, yeah 3 pages or more. But not listing a nano as a micro? It sounds like everyone wants to be able filter out nanos (that are listed as unknown) but keep micros (that may or may not be nanos). So people will hunt a micro but not a nano or an unknown? They pulled up the cache, hunted it, found it, and are upset that it wasn't listed right? Did they claim a "find" on the cache. If they are so upset then maybe they should give their smileys back for all the nano finds they have that were listed as unknown/other. See how far that flies.

 

As far as percentage of nano finds, without looking mine are probably around 20%-25% too. But with 60% (just a guess if I do the math it should be higher) micro (usually nano) hides in my area it isn't surprising. I do look at them on a one-by-one basis, but I still hunt them. And I don't think this is an invalid discussion topic. I just think it should have been put to bed by now. We have heard the nano vs. micro vs. unknown topic before. Just beating a dead horse in my humble opinion.

 

I'm not really trying to imply that anyone here isn't having fun. I was just trying to get people to quit focussing on the "specifics" and step back and look at the "bigger picture". A shift of perspective can be good at times.

 

"If I filter out all the 'other' then I eliminate all the Virtuals, Events, and Earthcaches that are (incorrectly) listed as "other'..." Wouldn't these types have to be listed as "other"? If I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say there I apologize.

 

"...as well as some other caches that the CO has decided are outside the box and should be other." I think this is where some of the angst lies. People have their own idea of what size caches fits into their own box and what doesn't. I haven't looked at a "hide a cache" page lately but I think next to micro it says "e.g. 35mm film canister" If that isn't right I stand corrected. I think it means that the cache is to be roughly the same size as a film can. A nano doesn't fit that. So where do you put it? The only catagory it falls into would be "other" just by not falling into the rest of the choices. And what do you do with a cache that is larger than a lock-n-lock but smaller than a 5 gallon bucket? Is it a regular or a large? Do we really need a box for every imaginable size cache?

 

"Listing a nano as "other" breaks the tools..." (I say this with my tounge firmly planted in my cheek. If you all don't see the humor then, oh well) I thought we were the "tools". Geocaching- the sport where you are the search engine.

[+Team Cotati]

I don't know how to pull out selected lines from other posts to respond to them but I will try and reply.

 

As for Dave Ulmer I can't say why he left. Maybe he didn't like where he saw this hobby going, maybe he didn't like all the bickering, maybe his fun-o-meter bottomed out. Who knows. Maybe someone who is still in contact with him should ask him. You know, the "straight from the horses mouth" concept.

 

I don't disregard the arguments made here about this topic. And as for micro-haters I don't think I said anyone was. Even though I know that they are out there. I was trying to say that I find it sad that people could devote 3 pages (soon to be more I'm sure) arguing such a trivial subject. 3 pages on placing knives or "adult material" of drugs into caches I could see. Cachers vandalizing others caches or destroying GZ or getting cachers banned from areas, yeah 3 pages or more. But not listing a nano as a micro? It sounds like everyone wants to be able filter out nanos (that are listed as unknown) but keep micros (that may or may not be nanos). So people will hunt a micro but not a nano or an unknown? They pulled up the cache, hunted it, found it, and are upset that it wasn't listed right? Did they claim a "find" on the cache. If they are so upset then maybe they should give their smileys back for all the nano finds they have that were listed as unknown/other. See how far that flies.

 

As far as percentage of nano finds, without looking mine are probably around 20%-25% too. But with 60% (just a guess if I do the math it should be higher) micro (usually nano) hides in my area it isn't surprising. I do look at them on a one-by-one basis, but I still hunt them. And I don't think this is an invalid discussion topic. I just think it should have been put to bed by now. We have heard the nano vs. micro vs. unknown topic before. Just beating a dead horse in my humble opinion.

 

I'm not really trying to imply that anyone here isn't having fun. I was just trying to get people to quit focussing on the "specifics" and step back and look at the "bigger picture". A shift of perspective can be good at times.

 

"If I filter out all the 'other' then I eliminate all the Virtuals, Events, and Earthcaches that are (incorrectly) listed as "other'..." Wouldn't these types have to be listed as "other"? If I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say there I apologize.

 

"...as well as some other caches that the CO has decided are outside the box and should be other." I think this is where some of the angst lies. People have their own idea of what size caches fits into their own box and what doesn't. I haven't looked at a "hide a cache" page lately but I think next to micro it says "e.g. 35mm film canister" If that isn't right I stand corrected. I think it means that the cache is to be roughly the same size as a film can. A nano doesn't fit that. So where do you put it? The only catagory it falls into would be "other" just by not falling into the rest of the choices. And what do you do with a cache that is larger than a lock-n-lock but smaller than a 5 gallon bucket? Is it a regular or a large? Do we really need a box for every imaginable size cache?

 

"Listing a nano as "other" breaks the tools..." (I say this with my tounge firmly planted in my cheek. If you all don't see the humor then, oh well) I thought we were the "tools". Geocaching- the sport where you are the search engine.

 

"I thought we were the "tools""

 

In more ways than one.

[Clan Riffster]

Nano's are micros. Most people who place nano's list them on this website as unknown size, not micro. I don't see why this isn't a valid discussion topic.

Because that's inaccurate. In the history of Geocaching .com, no member has listed a Micro as an Unknown size. That choice has never been available. The alternate choices are Other and Not Listed. While that might seem like splitting hairs, it's really not. Based upon the definitions, (or lack thereof), provided by Groundspeak, a nano could accurately be described as an Other, and a Not Listed. Those two terms are flexible enough to fit darn near anything.

 

To clarify: A nano is a Micro. A nano can also be an Other. A nano can also be a Not Listed.

All three conform to the current guidelines.

[+Team Cotati]

Nano's are micros. Most people who place nano's list them on this website as unknown size, not micro. I don't see why this isn't a valid discussion topic.

Because that's inaccurate. In the history of Geocaching .com, no member has listed a Micro as an Unknown size. That choice has never been available. The alternate choices are Other and Not Listed. While that might seem like splitting hairs, it's really not. Based upon the definitions, (or lack thereof), provided by Groundspeak, a nano could accurately be described as an Other, and a Not Listed. Those two terms are flexible enough to fit darn near anything.

 

To clarify: A nano is a Micro. A nano can also be an Other. A nano can also be a Not Listed.

All three conform to the current guidelines.

 

Nanos ought to have their own category upon which they can be filtered for download or not.

 

Nano type geocaches, and you know who you are, that are not so described on the cache page ought to be archived.

 

Once Groundspeak creates a separate category for nanos and cache hiders still persist in identifying them as micros...and you just know that they will, then these geocaches also ought to be archived.

[Mushtang]

Nanos ought to have their own category upon which they can be filtered for download or not.

 

Nano type geocaches, and you know who you are, that are not so described on the cache page ought to be archived.

 

Once Groundspeak creates a separate category for nanos and cache hiders still persist in identifying them as micros...and you just know that they will, then these geocaches also ought to be archived.

If anyone else had posted this I would have replied with comments about your archiving solutions.

 

But since you're a well established troll in these forums, I can see this post as an attempt to get folks upset.

 

Nice try.

[+wimseyguy]

He probably thinks that caches with coords that are more than 15-20' should also be archived.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

"If I filter out all the 'other' then I eliminate all the Virtuals, Events, and Earthcaches that are (incorrectly) listed as "other'..." Wouldn't these types have to be listed as "other"? If I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say there I apologize.

 

In an attempt to find examples, I did several PQs looking for Virtuals and Earthcaches listed by size. What I found, based on 500 caches in a 500 mile radius, kind of puts a kink in my point. It seems that I may have inadvertently used a straw man. But here are the results anyway:

 

Virtuals:

Other: 4 (GCB9BA, GCFA54, GCBB6B, GC161A)

Unknown: 65

Virtual: 500

Micro/Small/Regular/Large: 0

 

Earthcaches:

Other: 33

Unknown: 500

Virtual: 0 (Pretty sure this is due to the size being retired along with virts.)

Micro: 1 (GC16PT0)

Regular: 1 (GC14YYT)

Large: 4 (GCZCG4, GC15VHM, GC1E2X3, GC18Z9Q)

Small: 0

 

So this kind of invalidates my concern for filtering out Virts and Earthcaches as they appear to be fairly rare under the "other" size.

[+bittsen]

Nanos ought to have their own category upon which they can be filtered for download or not.

 

Nano type geocaches, and you know who you are, that are not so described on the cache page ought to be archived.

 

Once Groundspeak creates a separate category for nanos and cache hiders still persist in identifying them as micros...and you just know that they will, then these geocaches also ought to be archived.

If anyone else had posted this I would have replied with comments about your archiving solutions.

 

But since you're a well established troll in these forums, I can see this post as an attempt to get folks upset.

 

Nice try.

 

Calling someone a troll is not allowed under furum guidelines. Just to remind you.

[Mushtang]

Nanos ought to have their own category upon which they can be filtered for download or not.

 

Nano type geocaches, and you know who you are, that are not so described on the cache page ought to be archived.

 

Once Groundspeak creates a separate category for nanos and cache hiders still persist in identifying them as micros...and you just know that they will, then these geocaches also ought to be archived.

If anyone else had posted this I would have replied with comments about your archiving solutions.

 

But since you're a well established troll in these forums, I can see this post as an attempt to get folks upset.

 

Nice try.

Calling someone a troll is not allowed under furum guidelines. Just to remind you.

It's not? I know that BEING a troll isn't allowed. Identifying a troll as a troll is allowed.

[4wheelin_fool]

Nanos ought to have their own category upon which they can be filtered for download or not.

 

Nano type geocaches, and you know who you are, that are not so described on the cache page ought to be archived.

 

Once Groundspeak creates a separate category for nanos and cache hiders still persist in identifying them as micros...and you just know that they will, then these geocaches also ought to be archived.

If anyone else had posted this I would have replied with comments about your archiving solutions.

 

But since you're a well established troll in these forums, I can see this post as an attempt to get folks upset.

 

Nice try.

Calling someone a troll is not allowed under furum guidelines. Just to remind you.

It's not? I know that BEING a troll isn't allowed. Identifying a troll as a troll is allowed.

Calling, or identifying someone as a troll, is in itself trollish behaviour. Since I just implied that Mushtang was a troll, that labels me as a troll also...

 

Just breathe easy and don't post anything nasty and everything will be ok..

Edited November 6, 2009 by 4wheelin_fool

[4wheelin_fool]

I am seeing this a lot - the cache size is listed as "? Other" yet the description clearly states that the cache is a nano.

 

The size according to the guidelines falls under micro:

 

Cache Sizes

 

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.

 

* 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)

 

Are Reviewers not allowed to require that a CO follow the guidelines when it comes to cache size?

 

If a CO posted a traditional cache but the description clearly states a 3-stage multi, the Reviewer would insist that the CO have to follow the guidelines and post it as a multi, not a traditional, right? So, then why the leniency when it comes to size?

 

Any cache, despite it's size can be listed as "unknown", and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

However, if the description on the page says "nano", and it is listed as unknown, then someone is trying a workaround of some sort to fool people somehow which really should be stopped before it become some nerdy rebellion protest about cache size categories..

 

Any cache which doesn't have trade items is tecnically not a true cache anyway and should have a different icon. Just my opinion..

[+KBI]

Calling someone a troll is not allowed under furum guidelines. Just to remind you.

It's allowed when it's true.

[+KBI]

I've found a cache that was the size of an ammo can, but only had the room of film can. It was a large rock drilled out to have a film can glued in. So what size is it?

Sounds like a micro to me.

My vote would also be micro....

While I agree it's a micro, there is the crowd that says different sizes are searched for differently. So if you are looking for regular size camo hiding a micro container, wouldn't you search differently than if you were looking for micro?

 

Edit to add a thought: I was using this as an example of "Other" where the description would/could make it clearer what you were looking for.

In my opinion, "Other" would be perfectly accurate in that case, and so would "Micro."

 

I also think that that is a brilliantly clever form of concealment: A Micro cache camouflaged as a Regular cache! People looking for little stuff tend to ignore the big stuff. When seeking well-concealed caches, pre-conceived assumptions are not your friend. (Trust me, I know.)

 

Listing that hide as a "Micro" would therefore probably make it more challenging for seekers than listing it as an "Other."

 

And ... correctly listing it as a "Micro" would provide the added benefit of having fewer of the complainer-type micro-haters visiting the cache. They’d filter it out with the rest of the micros, and would never know it was there.

 

I like it. I just might have to steal that idea.