Edit page...micro size description could be clearer

[+L0ne.R]

I noticed something I think is unclear on the cache Edit page. The drop menu for Cache Size says the following for micro....."Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)" it would be more sharply defined if it said "Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister or smaller)".

[+T.D.M.22]

I noticed something I think is unclear on the cache Edit page. The drop menu for Cache Size says the following for micro....."Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)" it would be more sharply defined if it said "Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister or smaller)".

 

eg. Means example. The are not going to list every possibility. Anyway, by process of elimination, it has to be "...or ." Because if it was bigger, then it would be a small.

 

Do many people have problems thinking if it's smaller than a film can, then it should be a large?

[+niraD]

As I suggested last year, I'd rather see the cache sizes described consistently everywhere, preferably the way they're described in Geocaching 101:

 

Micro - Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or a tiny storage box typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet. A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet.

Small - 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar.

Regular - 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

Large - 20L or larger. Example: A large bucket.

[+L0ne.R]

As I suggested last year, I'd rather see the cache sizes described consistently everywhere, preferably the way they're described in Geocaching 101:

 

Micro - Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or a tiny storage box typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet. A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet.

Small - 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar.

Regular - 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

Large - 20L or larger. Example: A large bucket.

 

This ^^^^

[Jayme H]

Hey gang-

 

Good news! This has now been updated in the Help Center article: 3.2 Container Explained, under the Hiding a Geocache section. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

 

We non-techie underlings have access to make changes in the Help Center without taking away the developers from other important work. The Cache Submission form needs developer resources to make the change and it is due to be re-worked anyway, so that one will have to wait for a little longer before changes are made. Hope this helps in the meantime.

[+Don_J]

As I suggested last year, I'd rather see the cache sizes described consistently everywhere, preferably the way they're described in Geocaching 101:

 

Micro - Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or a tiny storage box typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet. A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet.

Small - 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar.

Regular - 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

Large - 20L or larger. Example: A large bucket.

 

Kind of hard to put two long sentences into a drop down control.

[+Don_J]

I noticed something I think is unclear on the cache Edit page. The drop menu for Cache Size says the following for micro....."Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)" it would be more sharply defined if it said "Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister or smaller)".

 

eg. Means example. The are not going to list every possibility. Anyway, by process of elimination, it has to be "...or ." Because if it was bigger, then it would be a small.

 

Do many people have problems thinking if it's smaller than a film can, then it should be a large?

 

No, they have problems thinking that it's a nano, but "Nano" is not in the list so they select "Other", or "Not Chosen".

 

This is a great request.

[Jayme H]

I have added the 'or smaller' bit to the Knowledge Books. Sorry I didn't get it in there the 1st time around.

[+L0ne.R]

I have added the 'or smaller' bit to the Knowledge Books. Sorry I didn't get it in there the 1st time around.

 

Thanks Jayme H. And there's this list on the Edit page's drop menu...here's a screenshot:

 

[Jayme H]

I have added the 'or smaller' bit to the Knowledge Books. Sorry I didn't get it in there the 1st time around.

 

Thanks Jayme H. And there's this list on the Edit page's drop menu...here's a screenshot:

 

 

You are welcome! It was easy for me to reach into the KBs and make that adjustment.

 

Thanks for the screenshot. Unfortunately, we would need the Devs to make this change on the cache edit page. This page will be retiring soon, in favor of something that is a little more integrated and clear, so hopefully that will take care of the bigger 'size clarification' issue, as well.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Groundspeak is not noted for consistency. Make a change here, but not there.

One example: If I go to log a cache from Play; Seek a Cache; by GC code. I have to type in everything including GC. If I have logged a cache and go to: Log another cache, the GC is fixed. I have to type in whatever comes after GC. Either works. But they should be the same.

[+Don_J]

I have added the 'or smaller' bit to the Knowledge Books. Sorry I didn't get it in there the 1st time around.

 

Thanks Jayme H. And there's this list on the Edit page's drop menu...here's a screenshot:

 

 

You are welcome! It was easy for me to reach into the KBs and make that adjustment.

 

Thanks for the screenshot. Unfortunately, we would need the Devs to make this change on the cache edit page. This page will be retiring soon, in favor of something that is a little more integrated and clear, so hopefully that will take care of the bigger 'size clarification' issue, as well.

 

Hi Jayme. There has been tremendous support on the this forum for that particular cache creation/edit page to never be retired. Many of us, myself included would be lost without it. Having a single page flat form that we can proofread from top to bottom before submitting is much preferred over having to page back and forth through several sub forms. Many have said that they would simply stop hiding caches if they were forced to use the new method.

 

The users here had proposed a system much like the "Wizards" that many software programs use. When you first use a feature that is new to you, you get a "Wizard" that guides you through a many page process, also providing help along the way. This shows the user what the settings are for and what they do. After someone uses the wizard a few time and then understands the process, they usually turn off the wizard and then quickly go through the process on their own. After hiding 197 caches, I really don't need the system stopping on every step and saying, Okay, "now we do this..."

 

The Wizard, or "advanced form" is a great educational feature for new cachers, however it would quickly become burdensome for those of us that fully understand the process. Our hope is that the old single page form, or some semblance would remain so that the advanced users could quickly create or edit a cache.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Don_J

[Jayme H]

Thanks for the explanation, Don. I appreciate hearing your perspective. Although we don't have nearly as many hides as you, I can totally appreciate an advanced CO wanting an easy way to make adjustments to their caches.

 

Soooooo...with that in mind. Here's what I just heard about this whole "retirement" thing. The current page lives in a system that is in need up updating to a more reliable system so we can accommodate increased traffic to the site, community requested improvements, etc. From what I am told any new cache edit page will be even easier for any level of CO to make any/all changes to your caches without being forced to use a Wizard. I have also been told that the current page wouldn't be switched out until the replacement easy page is ready to go (and by that I mean tested, tested, and tested again). We hate it when things don't work, as much as the rest of the community.

 

We recognize that anything that gets created needs to accommodate both the new and more experienced members of our community - there are very different needs between those two groups. With the great input that we have been receiving from you guys, you can bet that your voices will be heard at planning meetings, etc. We want to be a part of a happy community and that includes making sure we are working on things that the community would like to see.

 

Does this sound like an okay possibility?

[+ADKer]

Thanks for the explanation, Don. I appreciate hearing your perspective. Although we don't have nearly as many hides as you, I can totally appreciate an advanced CO wanting an easy way to make adjustments to their caches.

 

Soooooo...with that in mind. Here's what I just heard about this whole "retirement" thing. The current page lives in a system that is in need up updating to a more reliable system so we can accommodate increased traffic to the site, community requested improvements, etc. From what I am told any new cache edit page will be even easier for any level of CO to make any/all changes to your caches without being forced to use a Wizard. I have also been told that the current page wouldn't be switched out until the replacement easy page is ready to go (and by that I mean tested, tested, and tested again). We hate it when things don't work, as much as the rest of the community.

 

We recognize that anything that gets created needs to accommodate both the new and more experienced members of our community - there are very different needs between those two groups. With the great input that we have been receiving from you guys, you can bet that your voices will be heard at planning meetings, etc. We want to be a part of a happy community and that includes making sure we are working on things that the community would like to see.

 

Does this sound like an okay possibility?

 

You know, I just have to say kudos for being so responsive and quick with the geocaching community! Thanks Jayme H for being such a great lackey!

[+L0ne.R]

 

You know, I just have to say kudos for being so responsive and quick with the geocaching community! Thanks Jayme H for being such a great lackey!

 

Yes, I agree. Thank you Jayme H.

[Jayme H]

Awww...thanks guys. The community is absolutely one of my FAVORITE parts of the game - I enjoy connecting with everybody, both here and on the trails.

 

Thanks for being an important part of the communication process in the forums, both with requests for HQ and with all the newbies that have questions about the game - your contributions are so valuable!