Not Chosen means Micro

[+Walts Hunting]

There was a recent discussion about the titled issue and I have also heard people say they do it so people don't filter out their micros (an intentional act of deception). Fortunately it doesn't occur where I live and I haven't run into it during my extensive travels until recently.

 

I was at flaming gorge and took a bike ride down the Red Canyon road. There were four caches around a lake all listed as Not Chosen. I should have known better but went anyhow. After discovering the first was a micro I dropped that trail (micros in the forest are not worth looking for) and marked them ignore in case I return. Down we go to Vernal. I head out on a bicycle trip and run into the same thing. I did a little checking and 35% of the caches within a 5 mile radius are Not Chosen. That seems clear to me that it is a community wide thing here.

 

I wasn't surprised they were micros since it is an urban area that is to be expected but to have a large part of the local community so deceptive was disappointing.

[knowschad]

If you ask me, that's about as vernal as it gets!!

 

PS: This might become a Gorgeous Flaming thread!!

Edited September 29, 2010 by knowschad

[GOF and Bacall]

I know what you're saying. People don't believe me when I say it. I have never seen it to that extent though.

[Clan Riffster]

I know what you're saying. People don't believe me when I say it.

I believe you. In these parts, "Other" or "Size not chosen" translates almost 100% of the time to "Micro".

[ao318]

I have only listed it with the "not chosen" size on a puzzle cache to keep up the deception of the cache but I would never list a traditional cache that way.

 

I have also noticed that if a cache is listed that way it generally is a micro, but if it were a puzzle cache listing I wouldn't be that upset in finding a micro.

[GOF and Bacall]

I always figure the other/not chosen option was for puzzles and containers that didn't fit the other descriptions or gor something off the wall. Like one of those micro sized ammo cans or a fake rock that was 2 cu.ft. on the outside but can only hold the same volume as a film can.

[+WRASTRO]

I always figure the other/not chosen option was for puzzles and containers that didn't fit the other descriptions or gor something off the wall. Like one of those micro sized ammo cans or a fake rock that was 2 cu.ft. on the outside but can only hold the same volume as a film can.

Agree. When I see other or not chosen I pay even more attention to the cache description (even though I read every one before searching). Of course most in my area these days are very small micros rather than cleverly disguised containers. I am fine with very small micros but I prefer they be listed as micros and described in the cache listing as very small micros.

[GOF and Bacall]

I always figure the other/not chosen option was for puzzles and containers that didn't fit the other descriptions or gor something off the wall. Like one of those micro sized ammo cans or a fake rock that was 2 cu.ft. on the outside but can only hold the same volume as a film can.

Agree. When I see other or not chosen I pay even more attention to the cache description (even though I read every one before searching). Of course most in my area these days are very small micros rather than cleverly disguised containers. I am fine with very small micros but I prefer they be listed as micros and described in the cache listing as very small micros.

Don't like the word nano, do you?

[+WRASTRO]

I always figure the other/not chosen option was for puzzles and containers that didn't fit the other descriptions or gor something off the wall. Like one of those micro sized ammo cans or a fake rock that was 2 cu.ft. on the outside but can only hold the same volume as a film can.

Agree. When I see other or not chosen I pay even more attention to the cache description (even though I read every one before searching). Of course most in my area these days are very small micros rather than cleverly disguised containers. I am fine with very small micros but I prefer they be listed as micros and described in the cache listing as very small micros.

Don't like the word nano, do you?

I am fine with the word nano. I was simply trying to avoid that particular aspect of the discussion.

[+Niemela]

I always figure the other/not chosen option was for puzzles and containers that didn't fit the other descriptions or gor something off the wall. Like one of those micro sized ammo cans or a fake rock that was 2 cu.ft. on the outside but can only hold the same volume as a film can.

Agree. When I see other or not chosen I pay even more attention to the cache description (even though I read every one before searching). Of course most in my area these days are very small micros rather than cleverly disguised containers. I am fine with very small micros but I prefer they be listed as micros and described in the cache listing as very small micros.

Don't like the word nano, do you?

I am fine with the word nano. I was simply trying to avoid that particular aspect of the discussion.

 

I think that is actually the reason they are listed as "other" or "not chosen" since GS did not make a category called "nano" allowing COers to be more accurate.

[GOF and Bacall]

I always figure the other/not chosen option was for puzzles and containers that didn't fit the other descriptions or gor something off the wall. Like one of those micro sized ammo cans or a fake rock that was 2 cu.ft. on the outside but can only hold the same volume as a film can.

Agree. When I see other or not chosen I pay even more attention to the cache description (even though I read every one before searching). Of course most in my area these days are very small micros rather than cleverly disguised containers. I am fine with very small micros but I prefer they be listed as micros and described in the cache listing as very small micros.

Don't like the word nano, do you?

I am fine with the word nano. I was simply trying to avoid that particular aspect of the discussion.

 

I think that is actually the reason they are listed as "other" or "not chosen" since GS did not make a category called "nano" allowing COers to be more accurate.

 

What part of 35mm film can OR smaller is it that people don't understand?

[+Niemela]

I don´t think it it that anyone doesn´t UNDERSTAND, but rather that they (like me) think there is a pretty big difference between a 35mm film canister and a 5mm x 10mm nano... both in hiding them and the way to search.

I see it as a service from the CO informing me that it might be (most likely is) a nano; you pps see it as annoying and like some "conspiracy" to make you go hunt something you don´t want too.

[+hydnsek]

I don´t think it it that anyone doesn´t UNDERSTAND, but rather that they (like me) think there is a pretty big difference between a 35mm film canister and a 5mm x 10mm nano... both in hiding them and the way to search.

I see it as a service from the CO informing me that it might be (most likely is) a nano; you pps see it as annoying and like some "conspiracy" to make you go hunt something you don´t want too.

Each existing size category encompasses a range of sizes. This isn't unique to micros, and I continue to find it odd that a small micro (a nano) should need its own category. People don't seem to think a medium lock&lock needs a separate category from a 50 cal ammo can; they are both Regulars. A bison tube and a film canister happily coexist as micros.

 

Fortunately, in my area "size not chosen" more often means an unusual container that the owner wants to be a surprise (like a rubber chicken or a birdhouse) rather than a mislabeled nano.

 

While I think nanos are micros, I won't lose any sleep if a new category is created for them. They'll be easier to ignore then.

[+briansnat]

I don´t think it it that anyone doesn´t UNDERSTAND, but rather that they (like me) think there is a pretty big difference between a 35mm film canister and a 5mm x 10mm nano... both in hiding them and the way to search.

I see it as a service from the CO informing me that it might be (most likely is) a nano; you pps see it as annoying and like some "conspiracy" to make you go hunt something you don´t want too.

 

Frankly, I don't see deliberately misrepresenting cache size and creating confusion in the community as a "service".

Edited September 29, 2010 by briansnat

[+Niemela]

Frankly, I don't see deliberately misrepresenting cache size and creating confusion in the community as a "service".

 

Since they have not listed the size I don´t see how you can consider it "misrepresenting cache size". If the "not chosen" is not to be used, it should be removed.

[Skippermark]

Groundspeak said the size is coming. It'll just take some time. In the meantime, micro can be used to cover everything 35mm or smaller. Yes, there's a size difference between a nano and a 35mm, but as mentioned earlier there's a difference between a 50 cal ammo can and a 2 quart lock and lock, both of which are considered regulars.

[+sbell111]

I don´t think it it that anyone doesn´t UNDERSTAND, but rather that they (like me) think there is a pretty big difference between a 35mm film canister and a 5mm x 10mm nano... both in hiding them and the way to search.

I see it as a service from the CO informing me that it might be (most likely is) a nano; you pps see it as annoying and like some "conspiracy" to make you go hunt something you don´t want too.

Frankly, I don't see deliberately misrepresenting cache size and creating confusion in the community as a "service".

That's because you are trying to be a victim, in my opinion.

 

The other day, someone posted that all of the caches on some desert power trail were given the scuba attribute. The local cachers pretty much all understand that it was done to ID the powertrail, not to force people to wear flippers in the desert.

 

Similarly, many people list their nanos as 'other' or 'not chosen' as a way to let the community know that it isn't of conventional size. That way, those that hunt for it will keep an open mind, rather than limiting their searches to film can-sized items.

 

Many people in this thread have come to the conclusion that 'other'- or 'not chosen'-sized caches are likely nanos but might be something else and are happily caching with this knowledge.

 

Finally, to your demand that people misrepresenting their caches by listing them as 'other' or 'not chosen' when they are actually nanos (or some other micro), I would like to know why you believe this is true. After all, if you believe that this is true, you must believe that ANY cache that is listed as 'other' or 'not chosen' is a 'deliberate misrepresention of cache size to create confusion in the community', since every cache listed today should fit neatly into the other size options. We shouldn't even need 'other' or 'not chosen', right?

Edited September 29, 2010 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Frankly, I don't see deliberately misrepresenting cache size and creating confusion in the community as a "service".

 

Since they have not listed the size I don´t see how you can consider it "misrepresenting cache size". If the "not chosen" is not to be used, it should be removed.

Agreed. Similarly, since Micro, Small, Regular, and Large (plus the long awaited 'Nano') cover all possible sizes of caches froma single atom to a planetary body, 'Other' should also be removed.

 

(The guidelines actually hint that physical caches should not be sized 'not chosen' or 'other', but that's another thread. Also, the cache form suggests that there should be clarification in the cache description if 'other' is chosen, but that is not apparently required.)

[+briansnat]

Frankly, I don't see deliberately misrepresenting cache size and creating confusion in the community as a "service".

 

Since they have not listed the size I don´t see how you can consider it "misrepresenting cache size". If the "not chosen" is not to be used, it should be removed.

 

Let's call it misclassification then. If its micro it should be be listed as a micro. A nano is a micro per the current guidelines. What is so hard about that? Many people use cache size to choose which caches they are going to hunt and by deliberately misclassifying size it messes with other geocachers.

 

The "not listed" and "other" categories have traditionally been for situations when the container doesn't neatly fit into one of the other categories, or when there is some sort of unique feature (perhaps unusual camouflage) about the cache where listing the size would give away something about the hide that the owner doesn't want to.

Edited September 29, 2010 by briansnat

[+t4e]

Frankly, I don't see deliberately misrepresenting cache size and creating confusion in the community as a "service".

 

Since they have not listed the size I don´t see how you can consider it "misrepresenting cache size". If the "not chosen" is not to be used, it should be removed.

 

"not chosen" has its purpose for unusual containers

if few people decide to misused doesn't mean it should be removed

i have seen plenty listed with the wrong size, should all references to size be removed?

[+sbell111]

Frankly, I don't see deliberately misrepresenting cache size and creating confusion in the community as a "service".

 

Since they have not listed the size I don´t see how you can consider it "misrepresenting cache size". If the "not chosen" is not to be used, it should be removed.

 

"not chosen" has its purpose for unusual containers

if few people decide to misused doesn't mean it should be removed

i have seen plenty listed with the wrong size, should all references to size be removed?

I suppose that that would solve BS's quandry.

[+Niemela]

...Also, the cache form suggests that there should be clarification in the cache description if 'other' is chosen, but that is not apparently required.)

Thats what I mean. It makes you read the listing more carefully. Many cachers just upload caches based on some filter where they might filter out the "not chosen" as potential nanos (since GS doesn´t implement the size).

I haven´t experienced the intentional misclassification described by OP. The cases I have seen (Copenhagen, Denmark) are special caches as you all describe, where CO draws attention to the cache description; a service to me.

[+sbell111]

...Also, the cache form suggests that there should be clarification in the cache description if 'other' is chosen, but that is not apparently required.)

Thats what I mean. It makes you read the listing more carefully. Many cachers just upload caches based on some filter where they might filter out the "not chosen" as potential nanos (since GS doesn´t implement the size).

I haven´t experienced the intentional misclassification described by OP. The cases I have seen (Copenhagen, Denmark) are special caches as you all describe, where CO draws attention to the cache description; a service to me.

Those seem like a perfectly appropriate use of 'other'.

[Skippermark]

Agreed. Similarly, since Micro, Small, Regular, and Large (plus the long awaited 'Nano') cover all possible sizes of caches froma single atom to a planetary body, 'Other' should also be removed.

I think Other for events is okay. It could also be used for "odd" things where the "outer container" could be a large, but the log itself is inside of a micro.

[+sbell111]

Agreed. Similarly, since Micro, Small, Regular, and Large (plus the long awaited 'Nano') cover all possible sizes of caches froma single atom to a planetary body, 'Other' should also be removed.

I think Other for events is okay. It could also be used for "odd" things where the "outer container" could be a large, but the log itself is inside of a micro.

I once recommended that they lock out the use of 'other' for traditional caches and only allow it for virts and events. I'd leave 'not chosen' for the oddball containers.

[Skippermark]

Agreed. Similarly, since Micro, Small, Regular, and Large (plus the long awaited 'Nano') cover all possible sizes of caches froma single atom to a planetary body, 'Other' should also be removed.

I think Other for events is okay. It could also be used for "odd" things where the "outer container" could be a large, but the log itself is inside of a micro.

I once recommended that they lock out the use of 'other' for traditional caches and only allow it for virts and events. I'd leave 'not chosen' for the oddball containers.

Events probably shouldn't even have a size. Not chosen works for those odd caches too.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

Vernal, Utah sounds like an STD.

[+MorrisonHiker]

Probably the most fun that I've had geocaching was a night cache that I did earlier this month just south of Flaming Gorge. If you are in the area at night, check out Johns' Wild Animal Forest Cache. It is a large sized cache...but be sure to bring your headlamp or a good flashlight along. We found several other great caches in the Flaming Gorge/Vernal area...so don't give up just yet!

[Clan Riffster]

I think Other for events is okay. It could also be used for "odd" things where the "outer container" could be a large, but the log itself is inside of a micro.

My personal bias bristles a little when I hear folks use this reason. To me, a film can glued into a log, (or a rock, or a freight train), is still a film can. I see the film can, (or bison tube, or blinkey, or match container), as the cache and anything adhered to the cache is camouflage. I won't change the size of a cache based on the camouflage that's hiding it.

[Skippermark]

I think Other for events is okay. It could also be used for "odd" things where the "outer container" could be a large, but the log itself is inside of a micro.

My personal bias bristles a little when I hear folks use this reason. To me, a film can glued into a log, (or a rock, or a freight train), is still a film can. I see the film can, (or bison tube, or blinkey, or match container), as the cache and anything adhered to the cache is camouflage. I won't change the size of a cache based on the camouflage that's hiding it.

Good point about the sizes, CR.

 

Your post made me think of a "regular" cache that we found awhile back, which was clearly not a regular. Everyone found the 50 cal ammo can quickly, but that wasn't the cache. Hidden amongst the full container of swag was the actual cache container, a rusty nut/bolt that was hollowed out with a tiny log inside.

 

We knew something was up because the description kept emphasizing that to get credit you needed to sign the log, but it confused a lot of people. Quite a few logged finds saying they replaced the log book since it was missing. I watched the cache for awhile, and I know it caused some contention because finders thought they were doing the right thing by helping out and got mad when their log got deleted, and the owner kept having to hike out and remove the new log books.

 

I eventually stopped watching it, so I'm not sure if it's even active anymore, but "micro" could have been used here, since it definitely wasn't a "regular".

Edited September 30, 2010 by Skippermark

[+L0ne.R]

I think Other for events is okay. It could also be used for "odd" things where the "outer container" could be a large, but the log itself is inside of a micro.

My personal bias bristles a little when I hear folks use this reason. To me, a film can glued into a log, (or a rock, or a freight train), is still a film can. I see the film can, (or bison tube, or blinkey, or match container), as the cache and anything adhered to the cache is camouflage. I won't change the size of a cache based on the camouflage that's hiding it.

Definitely. It's about the volume of the container i.e. how much swag can it hold. If it's a blinkey inside a 4 foot log that has a hole drilled into it to fit the blinkey, you can't drop off a TB, there's no room. It's a micro not a "large" or "other" but I suppose "not chosen" is the catch-all for COs that don't want to give away that it's a blinkey/nano/micro or are simply confused about what to pick. Which brings us back to what the OP said "Not chosen means micro". Are there any examples where "not chosen" turned out to be a small or larger container?

[Skippermark]

Are there any examples where "not chosen" turned out to be a small or larger container?

Yes. I've found some. One that really stumped me was a "shotgun shell." The description kept saying we were looking for a shotgun shell, so I was looking for a matchstick holder sized container. I really had a "Doh!" moment when I found the "shotgun shell." It was a foot long, 4 inches across and was a plastic bank. Boy did I feel silly.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Skippermark

[+God of Caching]

I only mark "not chosen" for nano's or anything larger than the specified ratings.

[BlueRajah]

Many of the cachers will not head out to Vernal for the reasons mentioned. Many of the cachers never select a size. It is insignificant to them. It is not because they are hiding something smaller. I would guess that less than 30% of the cachers add attributes here. Because there are none, no one filters by them, making them insignificant.

 

I agree it is hard and becomes a pain. I like to know I am looking for a medium or large. Should I be looking at the base of a tree, or in the branches. It is not just all not chosen are micro.. its that they never choose. Perhaps they enjoy it more that way as a caching community. I don't know. It has been going on for years that way.

[+briansnat]

I think Other for events is okay. It could also be used for "odd" things where the "outer container" could be a large, but the log itself is inside of a micro.

My personal bias bristles a little when I hear folks use this reason. To me, a film can glued into a log, (or a rock, or a freight train), is still a film can. I see the film can, (or bison tube, or blinkey, or match container), as the cache and anything adhered to the cache is camouflage. I won't change the size of a cache based on the camouflage that's hiding it.

Definitely. It's about the volume of the container i.e. how much swag can it hold. If it's a blinkey inside a 4 foot log that has a hole drilled into it to fit the blinkey, you can't drop off a TB, there's no room. It's a micro not a "large" or "other" but I suppose "not chosen" is the catch-all for COs that don't want to give away that it's a blinkey/nano/micro or are simply confused about what to pick. Which brings us back to what the OP said "Not chosen means micro". Are there any examples where "not chosen" turned out to be a small or larger container?

 

I think the primary reason for having sizes is so that you have an idea what you are looking for. How much swag it can hold is a secondary reason.

 

Anyway, looking through my profile I notice I have 74 finds that are either 'not chosen' or 'unknown'. I didn't look at all of them, but going through the first 20 or so pages it seems that most of them were events. Of the rest most were regular sized caches and a few were some sort of unusual container. One was a fake pineapple (hanging from a tree in Vermont, go figure), another was a fake fern with a small container at the base.

 

In most cases it is my guess is that 'not chosen' was inadvertently selected as the containers were largely ammo boxes or regular sized Tupperware and there was no discernible reason for not showing the size. Other was selected for the odd containers, including the two mentioned above and one in a fake bolt.

 

I could only find 1 instance of a cache that was a run of the mill micro that was listed as 'not chosen' and that may well have been inadvertent. Thankfully, at least in the areas where I geocache, people tend to use the sizes as intended.

[+briansnat]

I only mark "not chosen" for nano's or anything larger than the specified ratings.

 

There is nothing larger than the specified ratings. Large is 5 gallon bucket or larger

Micro is 35 mm film canister and smaller (note: this includes nanos)

[+Harry Dolphin]

Generally, I find the mistake of listing a nano as 'other' being made by newbies. They have not read enough to realize that 'nano' is covered by 'micro'. (I have no idea why anyone would not realize this! It is clear in the guidelines.)

[+briansnat]

Generally, I find the mistake of listing a nano as 'other' being made by newbies. They have not read enough to realize that 'nano' is covered by 'micro'. (I have no idea why anyone would not realize this! It is clear in the guidelines.)

 

I wish the size selection drop down said micro/nano. I think that would eliminate most of those that are misclassified out of ignorance, which I bet is about 80 percent of the misclassified micros.

[+Sol seaker]

I always figure the other/not chosen option was for puzzles and containers that didn't fit the other descriptions or gor something off the wall. Like one of those micro sized ammo cans or a fake rock that was 2 cu.ft. on the outside but can only hold the same volume as a film can.

 

That's generally what it's used for around these parts.

 

It's good to have an idea that you are not looking for a standard container, and that's what it means here.

 

You could find a magnet with the log glued on the back,

You could find a fake plant

You could even find a fake decapitated head (although I haven't gone after that one yet because of the waist deep swamp water you have to pass though)

 

Here it means something that doesn't fall under the category of a standard container.

[GOF and Bacall]

Generally, I find the mistake of listing a nano as 'other' being made by newbies. They have not read enough to realize that 'nano' is covered by 'micro'. (I have no idea why anyone would not realize this! It is clear in the guidelines.)

 

I wish the size selection drop down said micro/nano. I think that would eliminate most of those that are misclassified out of ignorance, which I bet is about 80 percent of the misclassified micros.

 

I would not be surprised if it was considerably more than 80%. But I am certain that it isn't 100%. I have had folks admit to listing things wrong just so they don't get filtered out of PQs.

[GOF and Bacall]

I always figure the other/not chosen option was for puzzles and containers that didn't fit the other descriptions or gor something off the wall. Like one of those micro sized ammo cans or a fake rock that was 2 cu.ft. on the outside but can only hold the same volume as a film can.

 

That's generally what it's used for around these parts.

 

It's good to have an idea that you are not looking for a standard container, and that's what it means here.

 

You could find a magnet with the log glued on the back,

You could find a fake plant

You could even find a fake decapitated head (although I haven't gone after that one yet because of the waist deep swamp water you have to pass though)

 

Here it means something that doesn't fall under the category of a standard container.

 

That is what I think it should be used for. Not standard containers that fit in other size categories. A "blinkie" is a micro.

[+Klatch]

Here's a 40 cache series. Each is labeled as a small, each is indicated as a magnetic key holder in the description. Would you consider this deception? By deception I mean a deliberate attempt to avoid being filtered out of pocket queries as micros. Edited October 2, 2010 by Klatch

[mddbkzr]

Luckily most of the local caches have a proper size on them... the only time I can think of "not chosen" being a proper "size" mention is if it is a multi-cache with multiple sizes involved, or if it is a non-standard item... Like some of the items found in this thread where it may be a tube in a pinecone or a tube inside a public telephone box, it all varies.

 

I tend to look at the area and the size... a nano or micro in the middle of woods may deserve a search, but I never spend more than 10-15 minutes looking for it before moving on. I tend to limit my search time to max half an hour anyways regardless of size, unless it is important for something like a tough puzzle, multi, etc...

[+AlohaBra and MaksMom]

I always figure the other/not chosen option was for puzzles and containers that didn't fit the other descriptions or gor something off the wall. Like one of those micro sized ammo cans or a fake rock that was 2 cu.ft. on the outside but can only hold the same volume as a film can.

 

That's generally what it's used for around these parts.

 

It's good to have an idea that you are not looking for a standard container, and that's what it means here.

 

You could find a magnet with the log glued on the back,

You could find a fake plant

You could even find a fake decapitated head (although I haven't gone after that one yet because of the waist deep swamp water you have to pass though)

 

Here it means something that doesn't fall under the category of a standard container.

 

I agree and approve of this reply.

[+AlohaBra and MaksMom]

Luckily most of the local caches have a proper size on them... the only time I can think of "not chosen" being a proper "size" mention is if it is a multi-cache with multiple sizes involved, or if it is a non-standard item... Like some of the items found in this thread where it may be a tube in a pinecone or a tube inside a public telephone box, it all varies.

 

I tend to look at the area and the size... a nano or micro in the middle of woods may deserve a search, but I never spend more than 10-15 minutes looking for it before moving on. I tend to limit my search time to max half an hour anyways regardless of size, unless it is important for something like a tough puzzle, multi, etc...

 

I agree and approve of this reply.

[Mr.Yuck]

Here's a 40 cache series. Each is labeled as a small, each is indicated as a magnetic key holder in the description. Would you consider this deception? By deception I mean a deliberate attempt to avoid being filtered out of pocket queries as micros.

 

My two biggest pet peeves!! Incorrect size, and worthless hints (I can tell "abar" is "none" without even decrypting). I think I'll ignore them because of this, even though they're 300 miles from my home coordinates! Gosh, deliberate attempt? I don't know, always hard to say.

 

Generally, I find the mistake of listing a nano as 'other' being made by newbies. They have not read enough to realize that 'nano' is covered by 'micro'. (I have no idea why anyone would not realize this! It is clear in the guidelines.)

 

Nope, not in my experience. Almost everyone I've seen who hides a nano lists it as "other". I could but I won't, give you an example of someone who joined in 2002, has 4,000 finds and 100 hides, who dropped an "other" on a nano a few months ago.

[+power69]

If you ask me, that's about as vernal as it gets!!

 

PS: This might become a Gorgeous Flaming thread!!

flaming on a micro thread?????? nah. that never happens

[+niraD]

Here's a 40 cache series. Each is labeled as a small, each is indicated as a magnetic key holder in the description. Would you consider this deception? By deception I mean a deliberate attempt to avoid being filtered out of pocket queries as micros.

Without knowing the owner, I can't say whether it's an example of deception. It could be an honest mistake.

 

I found a 35mm film canister listed as a small once. When I pointed out the size guidelines, the owner edited the cache listing immediately. He honestly didn't realize that a 35mm film canister was a definitive example of a micro. He thought that it must be a small, since it's bigger than the Bison tubes and blinkers that he'd seen, which were all micros.

 

I've also seen a number of beach safes listed as small caches. They're about twice the size of a 35mm film can, so people assume they aren't micros since they aren't "35 mm film canister or smaller". However, now that I've measured one, I realize that it is still "less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L" so technically it should be a micro.

 

Never attribute to deception that which can be adequately explained by ignorance.

[Clan Riffster]

Never attribute to deception that which can be adequately explained by ignorance.

Can I borrow that for my next T-shirt? I'll give it back... I promise!