Jump to content

Nano's need for an icon ?


lock1uk
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I think that you are going to find that a nano size isn't going to help much.

 

IMHO many hiders think they are clever hiding a nano on a location with millions of nooks and crannies to hide something. Since they think that this is a skillful hide they aren't going to be eager to tell you it is a nano because then the hide isn't as difficult.

Link to comment

I think that you are going to find that a nano size isn't going to help much.

 

IMHO many hiders think they are clever hiding a nano on a location with millions of nooks and crannies to hide something. Since they think that this is a skillful hide they aren't going to be eager to tell you it is a nano because then the hide isn't as difficult.

[/quot

 

you may be rite, but when you take the kids along to find the cache and all you get is a nano, the kids dont like it because there is no box to find and swap things. that what the kids like about geo. there are slowly going off geocaching because of the nano,s

Link to comment

what is every one views on Nano's do you think we should have an Icon for them and do you think there are good for geocaching????

 

Perhaps you will like this video, then. :laughing:

 

 

They've been threatening to give them their own size for quite some time. At first they resisted, saying that they are micros, and should be listed as such. Personally, noticed from my periodic surfing of the new cache listings in New York, Ontario, and Pennsylvania for the last couple of years, I believe at least 75% of them are published with the size being "not listed" or "other"

 

EDIT: I'm apparently too dumb to imbed the video, but the link works.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

what is every one views on Nano's do you think we should have an Icon for them and do you think there are good for geocaching????

 

Perhaps you will like this video, then. :laughing:

 

 

They've been threatening to give them their own size for quite some time. At first they resisted, saying that they are micros, and should be listed as such. Personally, noticed from my periodic surfing of the new cache listings in New York, Ontario, and Pennsylvania for the last couple of years, I believe at least 75% of them are published with the size being "not listed" or "other"

 

EDIT: I'm apparently too dumb to imbed the video, but the link works.

 

i like the video very good

Link to comment

Nanos are micros. No need for an extra size.

This concept has resulted in the downsizing of all larger cache sizes, unfortunately.

 

Quite a few "smalls" today are pill bottles that can't even hold a geocoin because the opening is too small. But the cache owners won't call them micros, because to them, the nano has become the standard size for a "micro" specification. And because tiny pill bottles have become the new "small", sandwich-size containers are now called "regular".

 

Love nanos or hate them; it doesn't matter -- having them be their own size might put the other sizes back to where they are supposed to be.

Link to comment

Nanos are micros. No need for an extra size.

This concept has resulted in the downsizing of all larger cache sizes, unfortunately.

 

Quite a few "smalls" today are pill bottles that can't even hold a geocoin because the opening is too small. But the cache owners won't call them micros, because to them, the nano has become the standard size for a "micro" specification. And because tiny pill bottles have become the new "small", sandwich-size containers are now called "regular".

 

Love nanos or hate them; it doesn't matter -- having them be their own size might put the other sizes back to where they are supposed to be.

 

i think it does when you have got kids with you and after a long walk and all there find is a Nano,

Link to comment

Nanos are micros. No need for an extra size.

This concept has resulted in the downsizing of all larger cache sizes, unfortunately.

 

Quite a few "smalls" today are pill bottles that can't even hold a geocoin because the opening is too small. But the cache owners won't call them micros, because to them, the nano has become the standard size for a "micro" specification. And because tiny pill bottles have become the new "small", sandwich-size containers are now called "regular".

 

Love nanos or hate them; it doesn't matter -- having them be their own size might put the other sizes back to where they are supposed to be.

 

I would agree with this. I don't quite understand how it happened either. The guidelines give some good examples of how to estimate the size of your container. But that's the real problem. Many who hide caches NEVER take the time to read, much less comprehend the guidelines. They are written at a grade school reading level so I must assume people just don't care to read them vs not understanding them. I would still be in favor of a simple test that users must pass before hiding caches. Ah, but I digress....

 

Nanos, eh? I have seen some great hides using them and some not so great. Really no different than any other size in that respect. The trick in hiding any size cache is taking the time to think it through and be clever about it. Using a new size designation for nanos would be a good thing simply because the IS a big difference between an actual micro and an actual nano. Helps when hunting just like any other sizes. The real trick is getting everyone to size their caches correctly rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

Nanos are micros. No need for an extra size.

This concept has resulted in the downsizing of all larger cache sizes, unfortunately.

 

Quite a few "smalls" today are pill bottles that can't even hold a geocoin because the opening is too small. But the cache owners won't call them micros, because to them, the nano has become the standard size for a "micro" specification. And because tiny pill bottles have become the new "small", sandwich-size containers are now called "regular".

 

Love nanos or hate them; it doesn't matter -- having them be their own size might put the other sizes back to where they are supposed to be.

 

I would agree with this. I don't quite understand how it happened either. The guidelines give some good examples of how to estimate the size of your container. But that's the real problem. Many who hide caches NEVER take the time to read, much less comprehend the guidelines. They are written at a grade school reading level so I must assume people just don't care to read them vs not understanding them. I would still be in favor of a simple test that users must pass before hiding caches. Ah, but I digress....

 

Nanos, eh? I have seen some great hides using them and some not so great. Really no different than any other size in that respect. The trick in hiding any size cache is taking the time to think it through and be clever about it. Using a new size designation for nanos would be a good thing simply because the IS a big difference between an actual micro and an actual nano. Helps when hunting just like any other sizes. The real trick is getting everyone to size their caches correctly rolleyes.gif

 

that is true, i have come across some that are just a waste of time, i stopped caching for a bit due to the fact that every time i went to cache site's it would turn out to be a nano. so how do we go about getting geo to put an icon on so if you a putting a new cache out and it is a nano you have a icon for it so we can just see from the page what it is ???

Link to comment

what is every one views on Nano's do you think we should have an Icon for them and do you think there are good for geocaching????

 

Perhaps you will like this video, then. :laughing:

 

 

They've been threatening to give them their own size for quite some time. At first they resisted, saying that they are micros, and should be listed as such. Personally, noticed from my periodic surfing of the new cache listings in New York, Ontario, and Pennsylvania for the last couple of years, I believe at least 75% of them are published with the size being "not listed" or "other"

 

EDIT: I'm apparently too dumb to imbed the video, but the link works.

 

i like the video very good

 

And I just noticed your from Scotland. Nice little UK content for you there with the Dalek, eh? :lol:

Link to comment

what is every one views on Nano's do you think we should have an Icon for them and do you think there are good for geocaching????

 

Perhaps you will like this video, then. :laughing:

 

 

They've been threatening to give them their own size for quite some time. At first they resisted, saying that they are micros, and should be listed as such. Personally, noticed from my periodic surfing of the new cache listings in New York, Ontario, and Pennsylvania for the last couple of years, I believe at least 75% of them are published with the size being "not listed" or "other"

 

EDIT: I'm apparently too dumb to imbed the video, but the link works.

 

i like the video very good

 

And I just noticed your from Scotland. Nice little UK content for you there with the Dalek, eh? :lol:

yes i live 15 miles out side Glasgow, yip i do like Dr who and it good to see it has made a come back on TV. lol

Link to comment
when you take the kids along to find the cache and all you get is a nano, the kids dont like it because there is no box to find and swap things. that what the kids like about geo. there are slowly going off geocaching because of the nano

 

That's a problem with almost any micro, not even nanos.

 

If you care about swag or trackables or the cache having any contents besides a logsheet then you want to skip (or filter out of your PQs any cache not listed as Small, Regular, or Large.

Link to comment

I would definitely like to see a separate size for nano's, or at least a slight edit to what counts as micro and small...

 

Based on the rules, sizes should be listed as:

micro: e.g. 35mm film canister or smaller

small: Holds only a small logbook and small items.

regular: e.g. ammo box

large: e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

other: See the cache description.

 

The problem is that nano's are regularly listed under either micro or other, so you can never be completely sure whether a micro will be a logbook-only style nano, or something slightly larger with the possibility of small trades.

 

I would probably look to reorganising the labels slightly to make it a little clearer along the lines of:

micro: a logbook only cache of small size - magnetic nano's, pill bottles and similar with no space for swag.

small: a small container, eg 35mm film canister or small sized plastic containers suitable for small trades only.

regular: eg, ammo box or lunchbox sized container.

large: e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

other: See the cache description.

 

That would make it slightly clearer and more foolproof, giving a clearer idea of whether to expect trades and make sure you know what you are looking for.

For those who want to make it a mystery on purpose, a suitable difficulty rating and the 'other' option is still available.

Link to comment

If/when the Nano size IS implemented, how quick will those that have them set as "not listed" or "other" be at correcting the size to "Nano"? :unsure:

0.000000000000000000000000014%

 

:laughing: However, if Groundspeak auto reassigned all listings in the world with the "other" size to the new nano size, they'd probably have a 99% success rate. :blink:

Link to comment

I would like to see a nano size added to make filtering caches easier and more precise.

and you think hiders are going to make it easy for you to filter their nano? DREAM ON!

 

I do. I don't have a statistical sample to make a case, but I've asked lots of people why they chose not listed or other for their nano size - and the answer almost always is because there is not a nano size listed. (I know, as defined today a nano is a micro, but people just don't see it that way).

 

I believe if there is a nano size to choose from, most hiders will chose it when hiding a nano. I might be a dreamer, but I that is what I believe.

 

If/when the Nano size IS implemented, how quick will those that have them set as "not listed" or "other" be at correcting the size to "Nano"? :unsure:

0.000000000000000000000000014%

 

I agree that a small percentage will change the size on an existing cache. This is based on my general experience, I've found lots of caches where the size of the container was changed since the original hide (cache was muggled and replaced with a different size container). Almost always the size in the listing is not updated.

 

But - over time, if you believe my first point, more and more nanos will be listed with the nano size.

Link to comment

Nanos are micros. No need for an extra size.

This concept has resulted in the downsizing of all larger cache sizes, unfortunately.

 

Quite a few "smalls" today are pill bottles that can't even hold a geocoin because the opening is too small. But the cache owners won't call them micros, because to them, the nano has become the standard size for a "micro" specification. And because tiny pill bottles have become the new "small", sandwich-size containers are now called "regular".

 

Love nanos or hate them; it doesn't matter -- having them be their own size might put the other sizes back to where they are supposed to be.

 

i think it does when you have got kids with you and after a long walk and all there find is a Nano,

 

i don't see what your point is, you're a PM, exclude micros from your pocket queries

 

 

If/when the Nano size IS implemented, how quick will those that have them set as "not listed" or "other" be at correcting the size to "Nano"? :unsure:

0.000000000000000000000000014%

 

:laughing: However, if Groundspeak auto reassigned all listings in the world with the "other" size to the new nano size, they'd probably have a 99% success rate. :blink:

 

and it would be terribly inaccurate since not all "other" are nanos :anibad:

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

i am in the camp that nano's are not micros. They do need their own category. Personally, I liking searching for all sizes of caches. Nanos require a little different thought process. However, when it becomes searching for "a needle in a haystack", it becomes less enjoyable, especially if you don't know if you are looking for a needle.

Link to comment

Fully agree that nano should be added as a cache size. The great thing about nanos is that they can be placed on areas that other caches cannot. I like having caches that can be placed in the woods, but also ones that can be hidden in a city right near areas that should be visited. I used to hate caches that did not have tradables in them, but now I use geocaching as a way to find sites when I am visiting another area.

Link to comment

you may be rite, but when you take the kids along to find the cache and all you get is a nano, the kids dont like it because there is no box to find and swap things. that what the kids like about geo. there are slowly going off geocaching because of the nano,s

My kids aren't yet old enough to care about this game, but I'm thinking that when that day comes, I will simply prechoose caches that they will enjoy. If they are into swag, it means that I will primarily go after 'regular' and 'large' caches. I won't totally do away with other caches as keeping these in moderation will serve to broaden their horizons beyond just their preferences.
Link to comment

I like micros though. I don't like nanos. I gave them an honest try. I hated every single one! So I would filter nanos, and not micros.

 

If you.can't see that there's a difference between a pill bottle and your pinkey fingernail in size, you need glasses. Lol. There's a difference.

 

I think the original intent was to distinguish between swag-size containers and logsheet-only containers. Anything the size of a micro couldn't hold swag. Film canisters, if forced, can hold a dime and maybe a few beads but really it was never intended to be a vessel for anything more then a logsheet. Most often there's no room for a pencil (even a cut down pencil).

 

I like that the distinction is about swag and would like the definitions changed to emphasize it. Can the container hold one geocoin and one travelbug tag? If it can't, then it is a micro.

 

There is definitely a difference between micro sizes but they all share one essentially quality, they are intended to hold only a logsheet, not swag.

 

Having said that though, I'm in favour of a nano size if it would get COs to list the size as nano but as others have said COs might be reluctant to make the game easier by admitting that the cache size is tiny. Should be interesting to see if it makes a difference.

Link to comment

Fully agree that nano should be added as a cache size. The great thing about nanos is that they can be placed on areas that other caches cannot. I like having caches that can be placed in the woods, but also ones that can be hidden in a city right near areas that should be visited. I used to hate caches that did not have tradables in them, but now I use geocaching as a way to find sites when I am visiting another area.

In times gone by the points of interest which were unsuitable for a container would be used at waypoints for a multi/puzzle cache. Now they all have a magnet the size of a small tablet instead. Nanos are lazy caches, and are creating areas of saturation, fine if you like numbers, poor if you like quality.

 

One cache I went to was a high street with no features of interest and a nano stuck underneath a fence rail. Pointless!

Edited by Jester1970
Link to comment

well if we keep on at geo we well get our way

 

I've only been here one year, and in that time I have been amazed at how utterly deaf Groundspeak is to their users.

 

You've been at this for six times longer, and yet you have faith they will actually listen. I hope you are right. I will be shocked if they implement a nano cache size before this time next year.

Link to comment

well if we keep on at geo we well get our way

 

I've only been here one year, and in that time I have been amazed at how utterly deaf Groundspeak is to their users.

 

You've been at this for six times longer, and yet you have faith they will actually listen. I hope you are right. I will be shocked if they implement a nano cache size before this time next year.

This is kind of a funny topic to be dragging the 'Groundspeak doesn't listen' argument out in. Especially given the fact that the history of this issue has been given in this very thread. TPTB moved from a position of 'nanos are micros. They won't get their own icon' to one of 'nanos will get their own icon, but it will take some doing'. That's a very significant change that was a direct result of listening to their customers.

 

I'm sure that they accept your apology.

Link to comment

TPTB moved from a position of 'nanos are micros. They won't get their own icon' to one of 'nanos will get their own icon, but it will take some doing'. That's a very significant change that was a direct result of listening to their customers.

 

I'm sure that they accept your apology.

 

Words, no action. Groundspeak's response just comes across as placating.

Link to comment

what is every one views on Nano's do you think we should have an Icon for them and do you think there are good for geocaching????

 

I think everything is fine the way it is, there are to many rules already.

 

we should be able to see what type of cache it is. that why we are asking for an icon for a nano.

Link to comment

This is kind of a funny topic to be dragging the 'Groundspeak doesn't listen' argument out in. Especially given the fact that the history of this issue has been given in this very thread. TPTB moved from a position of 'nanos are micros. They won't get their own icon' to one of 'nanos will get their own icon, but it will take some doing'. That's a very significant change that was a direct result of listening to their customers.

 

I'm sure that they accept your apology.

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1051741-make-a-nano-cache-size-option

 

Jeremy's reply (10 months ago) says it's a straightforward thing to add, but they don't want to break third-party applications. They've released how many updates since January, that have had a bigger effect on third party applications than adding a nano size?

 

It reads more like, "here, I'll say we plan to do this so that you users will shut up about it and we can continue to focus on the stuff we think is cool."

 

Apology accepted. :rolleyes:

Edited by JJnTJ
Link to comment
Based on the rules, sizes should be listed as:

micro: e.g. 35mm film canister or smaller

small: Holds only a small logbook and small items.

regular: e.g. ammo box

large: e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

other: See the cache description.

 

The problem is that nano's are regularly listed under either micro or other, so you can never be completely sure whether a micro will be a logbook-only style nano, or something slightly larger with the possibility of small trades.

 

I would probably look to reorganising the labels slightly to make it a little clearer along the lines of:

micro: a logbook only cache of small size - magnetic nano's, pill bottles and similar with no space for swag.

small: a small container, eg 35mm film canister or small sized plastic containers suitable for small trades only.

regular: eg, ammo box or lunchbox sized container.

large: e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

other: See the cache description

 

While you could possibly fit very small items into a magkey or film can in addition to the log, there are very few. If you are concerned about trades or trackables you should avoid micros.

 

There's a big difference between what fits in a film can vs a decon vs an ammo can.

Link to comment

Nanos are micros. No need for an extra size.

This concept has resulted in the downsizing of all larger cache sizes, unfortunately.

 

Quite a few "smalls" today are pill bottles that can't even hold a geocoin because the opening is too small. But the cache owners won't call them micros, because to them, the nano has become the standard size for a "micro" specification. And because tiny pill bottles have become the new "small", sandwich-size containers are now called "regular".

 

Love nanos or hate them; it doesn't matter -- having them be their own size might put the other sizes back to where they are supposed to be.

I agree, when you are looking for a place to move a fairly large TB and think you are going to a regular size cache and it turns out to be a sandwich size container it's a waste of time.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...