+lock1uk Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 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???? Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Creating a separate size for nano-caches has already been planned: http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1051741-make-a-nano-cache-size-option Opinions about them are mixed. Some of my Favorites have been nano-caches. Others hate nano-caches. Quote Link to comment
+webscouter. Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+lock1uk Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment
+SeekerOfTheWay Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I would like to see a nano size added to make filtering caches easier and more precise. Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) 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. 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 October 10, 2011 by Mr.Yuck Quote Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Nanos are micros. No need for an extra size. Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 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"? Quote Link to comment
+lock1uk Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 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. 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 Quote Link to comment
+the hermit crabs Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+lock1uk Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 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, Quote Link to comment
+SeekerOfTheWay Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 A micro isn't the same size as a.nano. just like a regular isn't the same as a small. I like micros. I don't like nanos at all. I'd like to filter them out. Quote Link to comment
+lock1uk Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 i would love to do the same, well hope geo will sort the site out so we can. Quote Link to comment
+geocat_ Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 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 Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 It is refreshing to see a brand-new topic being discussed here. Quote Link to comment
+SeekerOfTheWay Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) HAHA! Are there ever any new topics? Edited October 10, 2011 by SeekerOfTheWay Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 HAHA! Are there ever any new topics? That is an excellent question. You should start a thread about that. Quote Link to comment
+lock1uk Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 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 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 ??? Quote Link to comment
+GrievousAngel Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Nanos are micros. No need for an extra size. +1 Quote Link to comment
+GrievousAngel Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) oops Edited October 10, 2011 by GrievousAngel Quote Link to comment
+lock1uk Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 no there are not, Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 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. 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? Quote Link to comment
+lock1uk Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 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. 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? 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 Quote Link to comment
+JL_HSTRE Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 The nano is the new micro, therefore all previously designated sizes have slipped down a notch. If and when TPTB decide to listen to their constituents and create an official nano size, perhaps the trend might be reversed. Around here, 'Not Chosen' or 'Other' is also code for 'nano' Quote Link to comment
Narcosynthesis Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+power69 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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! Quote Link to comment
+power69 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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"? 0.000000000000000000000000014% Quote Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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"? 0.000000000000000000000000014% 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. Quote Link to comment
+redsox_mark Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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"? 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. Quote Link to comment
+t4e Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) 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"? 0.000000000000000000000000014% 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. and it would be terribly inaccurate since not all "other" are nanos Edited October 11, 2011 by t4e Quote Link to comment
+BMndFul Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+SeekerOfTheWay Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+lock1uk Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share Posted October 11, 2011 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! well if we keep on at geo we well get our way Quote Link to comment
+DanandMervi Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+BAMBOOZLE Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I think a " nano " cache size should be added....there is more difference between a nano and large micro than there is between an ammo can ( regular) and 5 gal bucket ( large ). They can be fun to find but I've never heard ANYONE say they enjoyed removing,signing,and replacing the logs Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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,sMy 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. Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+kpanko Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I'm in favour of a nano size if it would get COs to list the size as nano Some will, some won't. We'll never know how many until after there is a nano size. Quote Link to comment
+lock1uk Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share Posted October 11, 2011 I'm in favour of a nano size if it would get COs to list the size as nano Some will, some won't. We'll never know how many until after there is a nano size. that is true but hope there put an icon in place soon Quote Link to comment
+Markwell Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 no there are not, Quote Link to comment
Jester1970 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) 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 October 12, 2011 by Jester1970 Quote Link to comment
+JJnTJ Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+Scubasonic Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+lock1uk Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+JJnTJ Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited October 12, 2011 by JJnTJ Quote Link to comment
+JL_HSTRE Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
+DonB Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.