Changing a cache size

[+Walkworthy & Wife]

I recently looked for a micro hidden in a ravine in a wooded area that also has a natural stone wall. Talk about signal bounce. Never found the cache, but it got me to thinking about the four micros I have hidden in wooded areas. Is it alright to up the size of a cache on an existing cache?

[+Brooklyn51]

I don't see any problem with it. It may change a few stats numbers for those who found it before but going bigger seems like a good thing to me. Just edit your listing.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Sure, you can change out containers. I wouldn't worry about altering the stats of previous finders, it's more important to maintain the cache as best you can.

 

The listing will let you edit the size, move the coords somewhat, and edit the text and hint as well.

 

Here's a link to the Knowledge Books article on Managing Your Cache Listing,

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=234

[+briansnat]

It's fine but if you are changing the essential nature of the hunt it might be a better idea to archive the old and submit a new one. Upping the size may or may not do that.

[Mr.Yuck]

It's fine but if you are changing the essential nature of the hunt it might be a better idea to archive the old and submit a new one. Upping the size may or may not do that.

 

Pretty rare, but the system lets you do it. Someone upgraded a micro to a small in my area about a month ago. Good thing to, it was a "my first hide" film canister in the woods. I myself upgraded a multi-micro in a small park to a Decon container (micro to small) 4 or 5 years ago.

 

Here's another little known, or little thought of one; you can change the name of your cache too.

[+DanOCan]

I'd say go for it. Some of my caches were originally Small and got "downgraded" to Micro and others went the other way. No one has complained yet.

[+WarNinjas]

I have done it and never even thought it would be a problem.

-WarNinjas

[+BlueDeuce]

It's fine but if you are changing the essential nature of the hunt it might be a better idea to archive the old and submit a new one. Upping the size may or may not do that.

 

I don't understand, changing it for the person who has never found the cache before or is this an online stat issue?

[+niraD]

It's fine but if you are changing the essential nature of the hunt it might be a better idea to archive the old and submit a new one. Upping the size may or may not do that.

I don't understand, changing it for the person who has never found the cache before or is this an online stat issue?

It's an online history/statistics issue. If I go back to the listings for the caches I've found in the past, it would be nice if the page still reflected the cache I found. If the point of the cache is the location, then replacing an ammo box with a Bison tube (or vice versa) doesn't have a significant effect on the history. Changing the cache listing is just normal maintenance, just like replacing the container is normal maintenance.

 

But I've also found caches where the cache/camouflage was the point. For those caches, I'd be more inclined to archive the original listing and submit a new one if the nature of the container changed somehow.

[+Walkworthy & Wife]

Thanks to all for the input. Two of the caches I have in mind for changing are puzzle caches and being micros I think has kept some from even trying to look for them. So, I thought if I made the cache containers a larger class maybe more would give it a try. One of the two is in an area where you get a lot of signal bounce and makes it more difficult to find. When I was planning the cache I went out three different times to take readings then averaged them out. I am planning on placing the new caches in the same spot so that is the only thing that will change. The coords will remain the same and the puzzle for finding the cache won't change. My concern was the stat issue being that those who have found them found micros which will change to a small or regular. I didn't want to open a can of worms and was looking for the best way to approach it.

[+NanCycle]

I recently looked for a micro hidden in a ravine in a wooded area that also has a natural stone wall. Talk about signal bounce. Never found the cache, but it got me to thinking about the four micros I have hidden in wooded areas. Is it alright to up the size of a cache on an existing cache?

 

Only if it is your own cache. Never, ever, change the size of someone else's cache!!

 

(I know you are talking about caches you have hidden, but I just wanted to make sure that point is not missed. So this is not directed at the OP, but to some future reader who might get the impression that it's okay to go around changing caches at will.)

 

I don't think that the reason you don't have more finds on your puzzle caches is that they are micros, but that they are puzzles. Many cachers just don't do puzzles, but I think that those who do like puzzles don't really care that much about what type of cache they'll find at the end. Of course, there are exceptions, the ones who want a "reward" other than just the "Found it" for solving the puzzle.

Edited November 17, 2011 by DoubleBent

[+L0ne.R]

I don't think that the reason you don't have more finds on your puzzle caches is that they are micros, but that they are puzzles. Many cachers just don't do puzzles, but I think that those who do like puzzles don't really care that much about what type of cache they'll find at the end. Of course, there are exceptions, the ones who want a "reward" other than just the "Found it" for solving the puzzle.

 

Many finders of puzzle caches like a nice reward for the extra effort of solving a puzzle. See this forum topic: Film canister at the end of a puzzle.

[+BlueDeuce]

It's fine but if you are changing the essential nature of the hunt it might be a better idea to archive the old and submit a new one. Upping the size may or may not do that.

I don't understand, changing it for the person who has never found the cache before or is this an online stat issue?

It's an online history/statistics issue. If I go back to the listings for the caches I've found in the past, it would be nice if the page still reflected the cache I found. If the point of the cache is the location, then replacing an ammo box with a Bison tube (or vice versa) doesn't have a significant effect on the history. Changing the cache listing is just normal maintenance, just like replacing the container is normal maintenance.

 

But I've also found caches where the cache/camouflage was the point. For those caches, I'd be more inclined to archive the original listing and submit a new one if the nature of the container changed somehow.

 

Yeah. I think if I can't manage the changing condition of my cache without "affecting" someones stats do I really give a carp? I'm not going to re-list a cache just because I need to change the container.

 

I tell you what, you get rid of the level D5 lamppost caches and I'll pretend people are more concerned about caching than stats.

Edited November 18, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+jackrock]

I've seen it done. Personally, I would archive the cache and then publish a new cache for the new sized container because it would change the nature of the cache significantly, change the experience finding it, and change the stats of the people that have already logged it online.

[+BlueDeuce]

I've seen it done. Personally, I would archive the cache and then publish a new cache for the new sized container because it would change the nature of the cache significantly, change the experience finding it, and change the stats of the people that have already logged it online.

 

It doesn't change the experience of the people who have found it before or the people who found it later. It just changes the stats.

Edited November 18, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+BlueDeuce]

Another I tell you what, before we go down the stat path I plan on leading you, submit a request to gc.com that keeps your stat once you log it. Problem solved.

Edited November 18, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+niraD]

It's an online history/statistics issue. If I go back to the listings for the caches I've found in the past, it would be nice if the page still reflected the cache I found. If the point of the cache is the location, then replacing an ammo box with a Bison tube (or vice versa) doesn't have a significant effect on the history. Changing the cache listing is just normal maintenance, just like replacing the container is normal maintenance.

 

But I've also found caches where the cache/camouflage was the point. For those caches, I'd be more inclined to archive the original listing and submit a new one if the nature of the container changed somehow.

Yeah. I think if I can't manage the changing condition of my cache without "affecting" someones stats do I really give a carp? I'm not going to re-list a cache just because I need to change the container.

It sounds like your caches fall into the first category I described: the location is the point of the cache. For a cache like that, I wouldn't archive and re-list it either, just because I replaced the container. I don't worry about others' stats, and the essential part of the history is unchanged even if the size of the container changes.

 

But there are caches where the container is the point. If a cache with custom 4-star camouflage goes missing, and the CO replaces it with a generic container hidden in a generic way, then I think it's appropriate to archive and re-list the cache. Or if someone gets tired of keeping a storage shed cache in their front yard, and decides to replace it with an FPC micro, then I think it's appropriate to archive and re-list the cache. It has nothing to do with preserving anyone's stats. It's about preserving the history of those who found the original cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

But there are caches where the container is the point. If a cache with custom 4-star camouflage goes missing, and the CO replaces it with a generic container hidden in a generic way, then I think it's appropriate to archive and re-list the cache. Or if someone gets tired of keeping a storage shed cache in their front yard, and decides to replace it with an FPC micro, then I think it's appropriate to archive and re-list the cache. It has nothing to do with preserving anyone's stats. It's about preserving the history of those who found the original cache.

 

Agreed, but when did this become such a problem for people? Explain to me that it isn't about stats.

[+niraD]

But there are caches where the container is the point. If a cache with custom 4-star camouflage goes missing, and the CO replaces it with a generic container hidden in a generic way, then I think it's appropriate to archive and re-list the cache. Or if someone gets tired of keeping a storage shed cache in their front yard, and decides to replace it with an FPC micro, then I think it's appropriate to archive and re-list the cache. It has nothing to do with preserving anyone's stats. It's about preserving the history of those who found the original cache.

Agreed, but when did this become such a problem for people? Explain to me that it isn't about stats.

"You'll love this cache. The camouflage is amazing. I found it on my third visit, but I know I had my hand on it on both my first two visits."

"Oh, it's archived..."

 

"You'll love this cache. The camouflage is amazing. I found it on my third visit, but I know I had my hand on it on both my first two visits."

"I found the cache immediately. What camouflage?"

 

"You'll love this cache. It is huge! This guy put a storage shed in his front yard, and it's full of big trade items, ginormous travel bugs, and stuff like that."

"Oh, it's archived..."

 

"You'll love this cache. It is huge! This guy put a storage shed in his front yard, and it's full of big trade items, ginormous travel bugs, and stuff like that."

"I'm confused. It was just an FPC micro."

 

I know which scenarios I'd prefer. And it has nothing to do with the stats.

[+BlueDeuce]

But there are caches where the container is the point. If a cache with custom 4-star camouflage goes missing, and the CO replaces it with a generic container hidden in a generic way, then I think it's appropriate to archive and re-list the cache. Or if someone gets tired of keeping a storage shed cache in their front yard, and decides to replace it with an FPC micro, then I think it's appropriate to archive and re-list the cache. It has nothing to do with preserving anyone's stats. It's about preserving the history of those who found the original cache.

Agreed, but when did this become such a problem for people? Explain to me that it isn't about stats.

"You'll love this cache. The camouflage is amazing. I found it on my third visit, but I know I had my hand on it on both my first two visits."

"Oh, it's archived..."

 

"You'll love this cache. The camouflage is amazing. I found it on my third visit, but I know I had my hand on it on both my first two visits."

"I found the cache immediately. What camouflage?"

 

"You'll love this cache. It is huge! This guy put a storage shed in his front yard, and it's full of big trade items, ginormous travel bugs, and stuff like that."

"Oh, it's archived..."

 

"You'll love this cache. It is huge! This guy put a storage shed in his front yard, and it's full of big trade items, ginormous travel bugs, and stuff like that."

"I'm confused. It was just an FPC micro."

 

I know which scenarios I'd prefer. And it has nothing to do with the stats.

 

Replaced the cache with a filmcan. Keeping the same stats.

[+NanCycle]

I don't think that the reason you don't have more finds on your puzzle caches is that they are micros, but that they are puzzles. Many cachers just don't do puzzles, but I think that those who do like puzzles don't really care that much about what type of cache they'll find at the end. Of course, there are exceptions, the ones who want a "reward" other than just the "Found it" for solving the puzzle.

 

Many finders of puzzle caches like a nice reward for the extra effort of solving a puzzle. See this forum topic: Film canister at the end of a puzzle.

 

OK, I read through the thread that you linked, and I guess we'll just have to disagree on the issue of whether the puzzle solvers who really want a "nice reward" in the form of a swag-filled regular-size cache are "many" or "some" or "exceptions." When I solve a puzzle and find the cache, I'm happy if it is in a nice location (doesn't have to be spectacular) and has a dry log book/sheet. (Film canisters rarely have dry logs, but my match holders are doing well.)

[+Walkworthy & Wife]

I don't think that the reason you don't have more finds on your puzzle caches is that they are micros, but that they are puzzles. Many cachers just don't do puzzles, but I think that those who do like puzzles don't really care that much about what type of cache they'll find at the end. Of course, there are exceptions, the ones who want a "reward" other than just the "Found it" for solving the puzzle.

The finds number wasn't a consideration. It was strictly one based on the difficulty of finding micros in wooded areas. I understand your comment about some people not liking puzzle caches. I was searching an area online this week to find a place I could go caching where there were a fair number of caches in close proximity to one another. One of the caches was a puzzle cache. I read the description of the puzzle and I have no idea what the CO wanted you to do to solve the puzzle. If I decide to go there you can bet that cache will be the last one I look for. I believe a lot of cachers will read posted logs of caches before they even decide whether to go look for it or not and if they see a lot of DNF's or cachers making two or three posts saying they still can't find the cache that too will dissuade people from even considering driving to look for a particular cache. I believe another possible aspect of low find numbers is that too often cachers are going out on numbers runs and don't want to be slowed down trying to solve puzzles.

[+L0ne.R]

I don't think that the reason you don't have more finds on your puzzle caches is that they are micros, but that they are puzzles. Many cachers just don't do puzzles, but I think that those who do like puzzles don't really care that much about what type of cache they'll find at the end. Of course, there are exceptions, the ones who want a "reward" other than just the "Found it" for solving the puzzle.

The finds number wasn't a consideration. It was strictly one based on the difficulty of finding micros in wooded areas. I understand your comment about some people not liking puzzle caches. I was searching an area online this week to find a place I could go caching where there were a fair number of caches in close proximity to one another. One of the caches was a puzzle cache. I read the description of the puzzle and I have no idea what the CO wanted you to do to solve the puzzle. If I decide to go there you can bet that cache will be the last one I look for. I believe a lot of cachers will read posted logs of caches before they even decide whether to go look for it or not and if they see a lot of DNF's or cachers making two or three posts saying they still can't find the cache that too will dissuade people from even considering driving to look for a particular cache. I believe another possible aspect of low find numbers is that too often cachers are going out on numbers runs and don't want to be slowed down trying to solve puzzles.

 

Puzzle caches without geocheckers are problems for me. I don't want to waste time and gas money to find out that I don't have the correct coords. Then again, maybe I do have the correct coords but the cache is a tricky hide or maybe it's missing, but I don't know if I've gone to the right area.

 

But getting back to the cache size part of the discussion....changing the size from micro to small or larger will bring back those who filter out micros, no matter what the cache type is.