our opinions

[+sasqwatches]

A couple of ideas

1. make a nano its own cache size

2. add an extra large size to the cache sizes basically anything bigger than XX

3. remove unknown as a cache size

4. make puzzle caches its own cache type we are not fans of puzzles and would like to be able to filter them out

 

basically these 4 suggestions compliment each other IMHO

[+niraD]

1. make a nano its own cache size

This has been suggested before:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=285144

 

2. add an extra large size to the cache sizes basically anything bigger than XX

As it is, large caches are less than 1% of the caches I've found.

 

Given that large caches start at 20L (about 5 gallons), that would make "extra large" caches start at 200L (about 50 gallons). I've never found a cache that big.

 

Why create a new cache size for something so rare? Who is going to filter "extra large" caches any differently from merely "large" caches?

 

3. remove unknown as a cache size

There would still be an "other" size for odd hard-to-classify caches. People currently using "unknown" would just use "other" instead. What would be gained?

 

4. make puzzle caches its own cache type we are not fans of puzzles and would like to be able to filter them out

Are there that many non-puzzle caches listed as mystery/puzzle caches?

 

The idea of moving challenge caches to their own type has been suggested before. Other than challenge caches, almost all the mystery/puzzle caches I've seen have been puzzle caches.

 

Is there a reason to move puzzles out of the mystery/puzzle type, rather than moving challenge caches to their own type? Personally, I think mystery/puzzle works just fine as the "catch-all" of cache types.

[+The_Incredibles_]

A couple of ideas

1. make a nano its own cache size

2. add an extra large size to the cache sizes basically anything bigger than XX

3. remove unknown as a cache size

4. make puzzle caches its own cache type we are not fans of puzzles and would like to be able to filter them out

 

basically these 4 suggestions compliment each other IMHO

 

1. We have so few nanos in my area I don't see the need for the separate size.

2. Not enough large caches to justify a new size.

3. While I agree some people abuse it, I think it still serves a purpose. I have 1 cache where the surprise would be totally ruined if I listed the actual size.

4. I agree puzzle caches should have their own type. I like puzzles, but don't want to see them lumped in with challenge caches (which I would like to filter out) and night caches.

[+Don_J]

A couple of ideas

1. make a nano its own cache size

2. add an extra large size to the cache sizes basically anything bigger than XX

3. remove unknown as a cache size

4. make puzzle caches its own cache type we are not fans of puzzles and would like to be able to filter them out

 

basically these 4 suggestions compliment each other IMHO

 

1. We have so few nanos in my area I don't see the need for the separate size.

2. Not enough large caches to justify a new size.

3. While I agree some people abuse it, I think it still serves a purpose. I have 1 cache where the surprise would be totally ruined if I listed the actual size.

4. I agree puzzle caches should have their own type. I like puzzles, but don't want to see them lumped in with challenge caches (which I would like to filter out) and night caches.

 

Well, we have so few regulars in our area that they should just remove that size as well.

[+tozainamboku]

A couple of ideas

1. make a nano its own cache size

2. add an extra large size to the cache sizes basically anything bigger than XX

3. remove unknown as a cache size

4. make puzzle caches its own cache type we are not fans of puzzles and would like to be able to filter them out

 

basically these 4 suggestions compliment each other IMHO

 

1. We have so few nanos in my area I don't see the need for the separate size.

2. Not enough large caches to justify a new size.

3. While I agree some people abuse it, I think it still serves a purpose. I have 1 cache where the surprise would be totally ruined if I listed the actual size.

4. I agree puzzle caches should have their own type. I like puzzles, but don't want to see them lumped in with challenge caches (which I would like to filter out) and night caches.

 

Well, we have so few regulars in our area that they should just remove that size as well.

That's not true. While regulars are a smaller percentage overall, there are still plenty that are hidden. And I think before you complain about size, you should look at what you hide yourself.

 

In reply to the OP. Thanks for your opinions. You will find that some have different opinions. You will also find that Groundspeak seldom responds to opinions given here. Some of what you have suggested have been suggested before; we were told that the 'nano' size would be added but that hasn't happened.

 

Groundspeak will make changes, but only when they decide that this is "good for geocaching" (or more cynically, that this is "good for Groundspeak's bottom line"). Some of your ideas may eventually rise to this criterium [singular, so fizzymagic won't correct me ] and get implemented. Just don't hold your breath.

[+Don_J]

A couple of ideas

1. make a nano its own cache size

2. add an extra large size to the cache sizes basically anything bigger than XX

3. remove unknown as a cache size

4. make puzzle caches its own cache type we are not fans of puzzles and would like to be able to filter them out

 

basically these 4 suggestions compliment each other IMHO

 

1. We have so few nanos in my area I don't see the need for the separate size.

2. Not enough large caches to justify a new size.

3. While I agree some people abuse it, I think it still serves a purpose. I have 1 cache where the surprise would be totally ruined if I listed the actual size.

4. I agree puzzle caches should have their own type. I like puzzles, but don't want to see them lumped in with challenge caches (which I would like to filter out) and night caches.

 

Well, we have so few regulars in our area that they should just remove that size as well.

That's not true. While regulars are a smaller percentage overall, there are still plenty that are hidden. And I think before you complain about size, you should look at what you hide yourself.

 

In reply to the OP. Thanks for your opinions. You will find that some have different opinions. You will also find that Groundspeak seldom responds to opinions given here. Some of what you have suggested have been suggested before; we were told that the 'nano' size would be added but that hasn't happened.

 

Groundspeak will make changes, but only when they decide that this is "good for geocaching" (or more cynically, that this is "good for Groundspeak's bottom line"). Some of your ideas may eventually rise to this criterium [singular, so fizzymagic won't correct me ] and get implemented. Just don't hold your breath.

 

Toz...

 

You know me better than that. I was pointing out how silly the statement was that I was replying to. Just because an issue doesn't exist in a particular region doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist at all. Groundspeak should have created the Nano size years ago when they said that they would. The phenomenon of size creep is undeniable.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I was pointing out how silly the statement was that I was replying to. Just because an issue doesn't exist in a particular region doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist at all.

 

Cranky much? Obviously I am aware that there are different situations in different areas. I'm just telling you my personal experience in my area.

[+Don_J]

I was pointing out how silly the statement was that I was replying to. Just because an issue doesn't exist in a particular region doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist at all.

 

Cranky much? Obviously I am aware that there are different situations in different areas. I'm just telling you my personal experience in my area.

 

Perhaps I read more into your statement than was intended?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I was pointing out how silly the statement was that I was replying to. Just because an issue doesn't exist in a particular region doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist at all.

 

Cranky much? Obviously I am aware that there are different situations in different areas. I'm just telling you my personal experience in my area.

 

Wow! That's insulting. Calm down.