Do Nanos Need a Size

[+The A-Team]

I think that simply moving the "Other" option to the right hand side, beside "Large", would have a significant impact on the misuse of the "Other" option

That's a very good idea.

 

If they could also somehow include the text descriptions to make it more clear what each size entails, we'd be golden. I envision either a popup when you hover over each, or a text area that appears below the choices when you click on them, with my preference being for the hover-popup.

 

BTW, whatever happened to "Not Chosen"? It isn't offered as an option on the new CSP or even the old edit form. This is a glaring omission. I've seen quite a few caches where the size really should have been "Not Chosen" (ie. the owner wants the size of the container to be a secret), but the size had been set to "Other" (ie. the container is supposed to be described in the description). I now see why this is happening. Why did this get taken away? There was a good reason for this "size", and none of the remaining ones work for the same purpose. Are COs no longer allowed to keep the container size secret?

[+funkymunkyzone]

I think that simply moving the "Other" option to the right hand side, beside "Large", would have a significant impact on the misuse of the "Other" option

 

^^This^^

 

I had exactly the same thought when I saw that image.

 

Except that the misuse of Other for nano caches long predates the new cache submission process from which that screen shot was taken.

[+funkymunkyzone]

Nanos already have a size. It's 'micro'.

 

+1

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think that the result will be that most will end up listing micros as small, and eventually ammo cans will be large, and from what I've seen this already appears to be the trend. . . .

 

I am seeing this a lot too. It seems that small is the new regular. At least the larger end of the small range as it gets closer to 1.0 liter than 100 ml. I am getting ready to place some caches that hold just over 100 ml and am deciding whether to call them small or micro; I expect I will get complaints either way.

 

The 3" round Lock & Lock (100ml) would be a small. Help Centre says a micro is less than 100 ml. Small is 100ml or larger, but less than 1L.

 

 

I'm happy with Groundspeak's size definitions, as outlined by the Help Center.

 

 

The visual images in the submission form looks good to me too, but it's not working. Maybe folks are thinking anything bigger than a bison tube and smaller than a palm-size Lock & Lock is a small. Anything bigger than a palm size Lock&Lock is a regular.

 

 

Would be nice if the sizes were hoverable, with an info blurb that pops up explaining the size as described in the Help Center.

 

It might help to show more than one common container for each size category. Show a nano, a film can, and a bison tube for micro.

 

Good idea. Plus they wouldn't have to pay a hand model.

 

I always though of a film can as a micro, but that photo of the bison which is quite a bit smaller than a film can might suggest that a film can is a small. I think it's been changed but the wikipedia page on geocaching used to show a film can as an example of a micro. The actual cache that it showed was the one at the Colosseum in Rome.

[+Team Microdot]

I prefer mid-sized nanos.

 

Too big and they lack flavour - often the fact they are straight rather than curved is a good sign they'll be bland.

 

Too small however and you really need to consume them in pairs (as opposed to pears) if you don't want to be left unsated.

 

I find they are at their most delicious as the skins just start to turn brown

[+Kacher82]

I prefer mid-sized nanos.

 

Too big and they lack flavour - often the fact they are straight rather than curved is a good sign they'll be bland.

 

Too small however and you really need to consume them in pairs (as opposed to pears) if you don't want to be left unsated.

 

I find they are at their most delicious as the skins just start to turn brown

Took me a bit to get what you were talking about. I believe the discussion here has to do with cache sizes, not fruit.

[+tozainamboku]

I prefer mid-sized nanos.

 

Too big and they lack flavour - often the fact they are straight rather than curved is a good sign they'll be bland.

 

Too small however and you really need to consume them in pairs (as opposed to pears) if you don't want to be left unsated.

 

I find they are at their most delicious as the skins just start to turn brown

I like nano-chip ice cream

[+Team Microdot]

I prefer mid-sized nanos.

 

Too big and they lack flavour - often the fact they are straight rather than curved is a good sign they'll be bland.

 

Too small however and you really need to consume them in pairs (as opposed to pears) if you don't want to be left unsated.

 

I find they are at their most delicious as the skins just start to turn brown

Took me a bit to get what you were talking about. I believe the discussion here has to do with cache sizes, not fruit.

 

What about the odd nut?

[+michellepluseight]

Am I right to think a soda tube preform should be a micro? I just found several in a series of these that were marked as "small," but they're only big enough to hold the log and nothing else, and the ones I saw on Amazon were listed as being 50ml.

[+L0ne.R]

Am I right to think a soda tube preform should be a micro? I just found several in a series of these that were marked as "small," but they're only big enough to hold the log and nothing else, and the ones I saw on Amazon were listed as being 50ml.

 

Yes micro. And yes most of them get listed as small.

[+niraD]

None of the nano-caches that I've found have been impossible.

Of course not. Think about it.

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make. I guess I didn't make it very effectively.

[4wheelin_fool]

I prefer mid-sized nanos.

 

Too big and they lack flavour - often the fact they are straight rather than curved is a good sign they'll be bland.

 

Too small however and you really need to consume them in pairs (as opposed to pears) if you don't want to be left unsated.

 

I find they are at their most delicious as the skins just start to turn brown

Took me a bit to get what you were talking about. I believe the discussion here has to do with cache sizes, not fruit.

 

What about the odd nut?

 

The related thread is here.

 

Although I must warn about eating more than one nano at a time, as they can find themselves in different parts of the intestine and be magnetically attracted to each other, causing them to get stuck, which can be fatal.

 

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20041026/swallowed-magnets-are-dangerous

[+PlantAKiss]

I think "micro" is fine for a size designation. It's like splitting hairs or atoms...tiny is tiny. So what if it's tiniER. Either way it's likely you're are looking for micro placed just for a hide and not for any reason for placement.

[Mr.Yuck]

I think "micro" is fine for a size designation. It's like splitting hairs or atoms...tiny is tiny. So what if it's tiniER. Either way it's likely you're are looking for micro placed just for a hide and not for any reason for placement.

 

I agree, but we need like a massive education campaign. I don't expect people to read every single post (or click 3 different links in one), but on page one I posted an example of a nano owner who originally listed it as a micro, and was browbeat into changing it to "other", after 5 or 6 "this isn't a micro, it's a nano" logs (I only linked to 3 of them though).

[+tozainamboku]

Either way it's likely you're are looking for micro placed just for a hide and not for any reason for placement.

All right, so you don't like micros. Perhaps your experience has been that micros tend to be in places where you fail to see any reason for a cache beside just finding the cache itself, or more realistically you've found that caches placed for what you perceive as no other reasons than for the hide are likely to be micros.

 

I happen to own several micros and am offended when someone says that all micros are use for are caches placed with no reason except to have another cache. Often the interesting location I want to bring people to can't support a larger cache. In other cases the choice of the container is part of the theme or allows for a more challenging hide. Still others have no particularly good reason to hide a bigger cache. I've gotten tired of getting emails or notes posted on my caches from travel bug owners pleading for someone to rescue their travel bug that's been stuck in the cache for six months. Many of my caches are found only about once every six months, so I've decided to hide micros so people don't leave travel bugs in them.

[+Misha]

I for one would like nanos to have a size rather than other.

[Mr.Yuck]

I for one would like nanos to have a size rather than other.

 

Please tell me this doesn't mean you think that currently their size is supposed to be "other". Sure would reinforce the points I've made earlier in the thread if you do.

[+Team Microdot]

I for one would like nanos to have a size rather than other.

 

Please tell me this doesn't mean you think that currently their size is supposed to be "other". Sure would reinforce the points I've made earlier in the thread if you do.

 

If I hid a nano cache I would publish it as size Other.

 

It's what's expected - around here at least.

 

Nano caches published as size micro tend to draw complaints from seekers.

[+redsox_mark]

There is a nice clear definition in the Knowledge base

link

 

It says

 

micro: Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or smaller, 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.

 

But this is not part of the guidelines document, and is not explicit in the submission form either.

 

So I'm not surprised many cache owners select "other" for nanos.

 

Interestingly we already have a definition of a nano (less than 10ml).

 

If the pictures on the submission form showed both a "blinkie" nano and a 35 mm pot as examples of "micro", I think more nanos would be listed as micros. But you have to overcome years of (many) people thinking of nanos as "other".

 

Or you can create a nano size.

[Mr.Yuck]

I for one would like nanos to have a size rather than other.

 

Please tell me this doesn't mean you think that currently their size is supposed to be "other". Sure would reinforce the points I've made earlier in the thread if you do.

 

If I hid a nano cache I would publish it as size Other.

 

It's what's expected - around here at least.

 

Nano caches published as size micro tend to draw complaints from seekers.

 

Correct. And I've given an example in this thread. And later, made another post reminding people of my example. I suppose we could consider this post a 2nd reminder of my example.

[+J Grouchy]

I blame Apple for the trend of overusing the "nano-" prefix. A decade or so ago, nobody ever would have complained about a cache that tiny being called a "micro". After all, "micro" is small! "Micro" is in "microscope" and "microscopic". Microbiology is the study of single-celled and very very tiny organisms!

 

I don't think I ever see nanos listed as "other". There is no field of study called othertechnology. Some day in the future, we won't we concerned with otherbots swarming through our bloodstream. "Other" is for a container you can't classify under a particular size...maybe a magnet with a label on the back for a log or other such caches.

 

"Micro" works just fine for a nano cache.

Edited December 2, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+GeoLog81]

 

I think that simply moving the "Other" option to the right hand side, beside "Large", would have a significant impact on the misuse of the "Other" option

 

If the people are misusing size attribute, the reviewers should intervene. If the reviewers don't care (which unfortunatelly, is usually the case) it's the problem with the reviewers and not the user interface.

 

Unfortunatelly it's the same problem with terrain rating. Even T2 doesn't guarantee you don't need a climbing device.

[+dprovan]

Nano caches published as size micro tend to draw complaints from seekers.

Correct. And I've given an example in this thread. And later, made another post reminding people of my example. I suppose we could consider this post a 2nd reminder of my example.

Just to be clear: this is a regional thing. In my area, using "other" as a stand-in for "nano" is uncommon, and normally even when it's used, it's for good reason, like the container is a nano, but it's hidden with camo that's small or regular. It's almost as common to use "other" to hide the fact that the container's not a micro, and that will come as a surprise given the location.

[+baloo&bd]

I for one would like nanos to have a size rather than other.

 

Please tell me this doesn't mean you think that currently their size is supposed to be "other". Sure would reinforce the points I've made earlier in the thread if you do.

 

If I hid a nano cache I would publish it as size Other.

 

It's what's expected - around here at least.

 

Nano caches published as size micro tend to draw complaints from seekers.

 

I just don't get the logic that says that since a percentage, relatively small, can not be bothered to follow the prescribed guidelines for Terrain (T1.5, 2.0 in some areas require significant climbing) or size (The smallest size a cache can be is micro), or anything else for that matter, why the game should reward this misuse/lack of knowledge by creating yet another size unnecessarily. Other is generally for something like a magnet that has a log flat on the back of it or the like, something that does not fit any of the descriptions.

 

Next it will be large is up to a 5 gallon bucket, anything larger is extra large, but there are some that are macro or jumbo. Tupperware containers are medium, because ammo boxes are regular.

 

This is not a matter of confusion, just some people not liking the current listing norms. If a finder doesn't like it, the proper way to protest is to leave a note rather than a find. It's obviously not worth a smilie.

[+Harry Dolphin]

 

I just don't get the logic that says that since a percentage, relatively small, can not be bothered to follow the prescribed guidelines for Terrain (T1.5, 2.0 in some areas require significant climbing) or size (The smallest size a cache can be is micro), or anything else for that matter, why the game should reward this misuse/lack of knowledge by creating yet another size unnecessarily. Other is generally for something like a magnet that has a log flat on the back of it or the like, something that does not fit any of the descriptions.

 

I have to agree. Just because some people do not realize that 'micro' means 'micro' does not mean that a new size should be created. Educate those people. (Though I did get a nasty comment from a CO who has 519 (or so) caches hidden along the route. I mentioned several times that MKH are 'micro', not small. She accused me of harassing her. Sorry. Your MKHs are micros. Not smalls.) And I have had cachers that comment: You should have mentioned the cache size as nano. It's a micro, and it says so on the cache page. I'm sorry that some cachers are not too bright. But that's not my problem. Red the guidelines! Nanos and MKHs are 'micro'. That's simple and easy.

[+AKACRider]

this one's had it's run, could I have it locked down please?

[Cascade Reviewer]

Closing at OP's request.