Jump to content

Size creep


L0ne.R

Recommended Posts

I've been noticing a distinct trend in upsizing, at all levels of sizes.

  • Most regular size containers are actually small containers (usually 100ml-500ml)
    Last week I found a palm size 100ml Lock&Lock style container listed as a regular
  • Most small size containers are micros (often pill bottles, preforms or magnetic keyholders)
    Last week I found a small 10ml capacity magnetic keyholder listed as a small
  • Cache owners will not change their incorrect size, even when size is explained and a link is provided to the guidelines

I'm use to micros listed as small, but it used to be about 60/40, that is there was a 40% chance that the small size cache is actually a micro (under 100ml). Now, in my area I'd say it's now 30/70, 70% chance that the small is actually a micro.

I've started filtering out smalls. But now I'm noticing that the regular and large are also upsized. It really surprised me when I saw a 100ml container listed as a regular, then irritated me that the owner chooses to ignore the size guidelines. Someone with a large TB might be irritated because there are so few larger containers to leave TBs in.

 

 

Link to comment

I've been noticing a distinct trend in upsizing, at all levels of sizes.

  • Most regular size containers are actually small containers (usually 100ml-500ml)
    Last week I found a palm size 100ml Lock&Lock style container listed as a regular
  • Most small size containers are micros (often pill bottles, preforms or magnetic keyholders)
    Last week I found a small 10ml capacity magnetic keyholder listed as a small
  • Cache owners will not change their incorrect size, even when size is explained and a link is provided to the guidelines

I'm use to micros listed as small, but it used to be about 60/40, that is there was a 40% chance that the small size cache is actually a micro (under 100ml). Now, in my area I'd say it's now 30/70, 70% chance that the small is actually a micro.

I've started filtering out smalls. But now I'm noticing that the regular and large are also upsized. It really surprised me when I saw a 100ml container listed as a regular, then irritated me that the owner chooses to ignore the size guidelines. Someone with a large TB might be irritated because there are so few larger containers to leave TBs in.

 

I've noticed this also. Seems that anything larger than a 35 mm film can is "small" these days and anything larger than a sandwich box is "regular." An ammo box was listed as "large." And of course a "nano" is "other."

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

We've noticed for some time pill bottles as small, maybe thinking that more than one coin can fit inside.

We're also seeing the small peanut butter jars now as regular, guess they'd think the regular size would be large. :)

 

Notice it with regularity though with the throwdown crowd, replacing a small, or regular sized lock n lock with a pill bottle.

New person sees that, thinking that's correct, since it's often the long-time cacher (with high numbers) who leaves 'em, until they're guided to geocaching 101.

Link to comment

I can forgive a mistake, but I don't understand why a cache owner would refuse to correct the problem once it's been pointed out.

 

Probably because they think they're right, because that's what they've been seeing in the caches they find.

 

Yep! Gonna put on my flameproof suit here but,, I believe this has become more widespread because of the phone app. Not the app itself, but the simple fact that people download it and start playing without much knowledge of how things work. I would say that many, if not most, new people go with the hands on, learn as you go, monkey see, monkey do approach.

Link to comment

I've noticed two things.

 

First, yes, in my area, most caches are listed a half a size larger than the geocaching.com specs. Well, OK, maybe 2/3rds of a size larger, particularly at the small/regular and regular/large boundaries. But I'm not really seeing a creep: it's been about the same since I started in 2010. To the degree there's any change, it's that sizes have become more consistent as fewer people are sticking to the GC standard when they realize it's at odds with local standards.

 

The second thing I've noticed -- and, again, this has always been the case -- is that some areas have a much smaller standard. When I cached in Florida, for example, key holders were always listed as small which would be considered ridiculous here in the SF bay area.

 

I assume in some areas there's a visible creep as a community slides from one standard to another, but in the areas I've cached in repeatedly, the sizes in any given place seem fairly constant year to year.

 

And, let me say, I think there's a good reason for this. The existing standards leave large to be so rare as to be pointless, so people are naturally using it to mean "large for a cache" and ignoring the original standard of being large for a thing. Yes, it's fun when someone hides a bucket (or a house), but it can never happen where most caches are hidden these days, so I can't really work up much concern about the fact that people are no longer worrying about distinguishing their cache large nut container from a bucket.

Link to comment

I can forgive a mistake, but I don't understand why a cache owner would refuse to correct the problem once it's been pointed out.

 

Probably because they think they're right, because that's what they've been seeing in the caches they find.

 

Yep! Gonna put on my flameproof suit here but,, I believe this has become more widespread because of the phone app. Not the app itself, but the simple fact that people download it and start playing without much knowledge of how things work. I would say that many, if not most, new people go with the hands on, learn as you go, monkey see, monkey do approach.

 

Between the appification of the game, and the general trend toward power-trail-style geocaching, I believe there are many newcomers entering the game without encountering anything that teaches them good values, or best practices for hiding and finding. The efforts that Groundspeak has made to engage people about the right way to do things only reach those who are already listening.

 

We see this through things like size creep and a general disregard for other elements of the geocache description. A cacher who has only ever seen 1.5/1.5 pill bottles tossed onto the side of the road doesn't have a reason to look at a cache description, and isn't in a position to understand its importance.

Link to comment

Also worth noting is that the ever-expanding numbers game tends to place value on larger cache sizes. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some community pressure to nudge the listed size upward because geocachers feel they deserve credit for finding a regular the same way they think they deserve credit for finding a particular D/T rating.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I've noticed two things.

 

First, yes, in my area, most caches are listed a half a size larger than the geocaching.com specs. Well, OK, maybe 2/3rds of a size larger, particularly at the small/regular and regular/large boundaries. But I'm not really seeing a creep: it's been about the same since I started in 2010. To the degree there's any change, it's that sizes have become more consistent as fewer people are sticking to the GC standard when they realize it's at odds with local standards.

 

The second thing I've noticed -- and, again, this has always been the case -- is that some areas have a much smaller standard. When I cached in Florida, for example, key holders were always listed as small which would be considered ridiculous here in the SF bay area.

 

I assume in some areas there's a visible creep as a community slides from one standard to another, but in the areas I've cached in repeatedly, the sizes in any given place seem fairly constant year to year.

 

And, let me say, I think there's a good reason for this. The existing standards leave large to be so rare as to be pointless, so people are naturally using it to mean "large for a cache" and ignoring the original standard of being large for a thing. Yes, it's fun when someone hides a bucket (or a house), but it can never happen where most caches are hidden these days, so I can't really work up much concern about the fact that people are no longer worrying about distinguishing their cache large nut container from a bucket.

 

It works better when everyone is on the same page. It works much better when everyone uses the site standard.

 

Like playing baseball, we could bring a squash ball to the game but it works better when everyone expects we'll be playing with the standard size ball.

If Joe, Bob, Mike and Steve agree that when they are up at bat they'll be playing with the squash ball and everyone else will be using the standard baseball it messes up the flow of the game and for what reason. How does it improve the game?

Or I drive 20km to go to watch a baseball game. I expect everyone will be following standard baseball guidelines, but instead I get to see a game where the players are using squash balls. I would have saved myself some time and gas money and stayed at home, or I would have gone to another game where they play by the pastime's standard guidelines.

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Sometimes it gets annoying when you have a travel bug that you really need to get out of your hands, and you keep finding "smalls" that really should have been called micros. I had one, it was the key to a cache called "Find the Key" (Altoona, PA). You had to find a TB that was the key to the cache, in order to open it, and the TB key needed to be dropped again somewhere in the Altoona area. I drove all over, looking for a cache large enough for the darn thing to fit into, and finally found something just big enough to squeeze it in. All it was, was a regular key with a laminated tag explaining what it was.

Link to comment

Yep! Gonna put on my flameproof suit here but,, I believe this has become more widespread because of the phone app. Not the app itself, but the simple fact that people download it and start playing without much knowledge of how things work. I would say that many, if not most, new people go with the hands on, learn as you go, monkey see, monkey do approach.

 

Between the appification of the game, and the general trend toward power-trail-style geocaching, I believe there are many newcomers entering the game without encountering anything that teaches them good values, or best practices for hiding and finding. The efforts that Groundspeak has made to engage people about the right way to do things only reach those who are already listening.

In my area, if anything, it's newcomers that follow the GC.com standards and old timers that follow the local standard. And I don't detect any pressure for numbers in any of this, just that an urge to have 4 useful sizes instead of just 3.

 

It works better when everyone is on the same page. It works much better when everyone uses the site standard.

 

Like playing baseball, we could bring a squash ball to the game but it works better when everyone expects we'll be playing with the standard size ball.

Consider softball. A few people play baseball with strict rules in formal settings, but most people play softball with local ground rules. And a bigger ball.

Link to comment

I've noticed two things.

 

First, yes, in my area, most caches are listed a half a size larger than the geocaching.com specs. Well, OK, maybe 2/3rds of a size larger, particularly at the small/regular and regular/large boundaries. But I'm not really seeing a creep: it's been about the same since I started in 2010. To the degree there's any change, it's that sizes have become more consistent as fewer people are sticking to the GC standard when they realize it's at odds with local standards.

 

The second thing I've noticed -- and, again, this has always been the case -- is that some areas have a much smaller standard. When I cached in Florida, for example, key holders were always listed as small which would be considered ridiculous here in the SF bay area.

 

I assume in some areas there's a visible creep as a community slides from one standard to another, but in the areas I've cached in repeatedly, the sizes in any given place seem fairly constant year to year.

 

And, let me say, I think there's a good reason for this. The existing standards leave large to be so rare as to be pointless, so people are naturally using it to mean "large for a cache" and ignoring the original standard of being large for a thing. Yes, it's fun when someone hides a bucket (or a house), but it can never happen where most caches are hidden these days, so I can't really work up much concern about the fact that people are no longer worrying about distinguishing their cache large nut container from a bucket.

 

Yes, I think you've explained the reason for size creep. Many people who cache only in the city or suburbs will probably *never* see a true "large" cache. Therefore, "large" for them means the largest 20% of caches that they've seen.

Link to comment

I've been noticing a distinct trend in upsizing, at all levels of sizes.

 

Yes, I've noticed it, also. But I would say it is not recent; I first noticed it about the same time the "small" cache category arrived.

 

I think it has two primary causes. First is the general trend toward low-quality cache containers. What size should a relatively large pill bottle be? You could stick a few items into it, which makes it larger than "micro," but only barely. Same thing for a disposable tupperware container.

 

Both containers have in common that they are lousy, and both have in common that they are a little too small to comfortably fit into the category most hiders choose for them.

 

Second is the trend towards nanos. Because (for whatever reason) Groundspeak doesn't include "nano" as a cache size, many newer cachers understand a bison tube as the large end of the "micro" category. So caches that were traditionally "micro" (e.g. film canisters) have been moved up to "small."

 

All this could easily be addressed by a set of examples attached to the guidelines, but it has not.

 

For someone who is size-sensitive, like you, this must be immensely frustrating. Me, I don't care much unless I am caching with children, but then I try hard to find the words "ammo can" in the description!

Link to comment

Yes, I think you've explained the reason for size creep. Many people who cache only in the city or suburbs will probably *never* see a true "large" cache. Therefore, "large" for them means the largest 20% of caches that they've seen.

Well, not to quibble, but saying "many people who cache only in the city or suburbs" is equivalent to saying "almost all geocachers". When the overwhelming majority feel that way, it strikes me that it's the guidelines that are wrong.

 

All this could easily be addressed by a set of examples attached to the guidelines, but it has not.

No, I don't think that would make any difference to change the guidelines. (I thought there was a set of examples somewhere in all the GS stuff, although perhaps not in the guidelines themselves.) Most people are setting the size based on what they see in the field, and my feeling is that those that actually think about the size should be according to some standard will typically be well aware of the official sizes and are already consciously ignoring them. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think the only people that have any interest in keeping "large" large are the old timers that fondly remember that day 10 years ago when they once found a large. (Well, I'm being a little harsh: I'm not an old timer, but I also remember the larges I've found fondly, I just don't consider the size sacrosanct.) Most geocachers today have no use for that size, so the only question is whether we make it useful or just have 3 sizes.

Link to comment

Yep! Gonna put on my flameproof suit here but,, I believe this has become more widespread because of the phone app. Not the app itself, but the simple fact that people download it and start playing without much knowledge of how things work. I would say that many, if not most, new people go with the hands on, learn as you go, monkey see, monkey do approach.

 

Between the appification of the game, and the general trend toward power-trail-style geocaching, I believe there are many newcomers entering the game without encountering anything that teaches them good values, or best practices for hiding and finding. The efforts that Groundspeak has made to engage people about the right way to do things only reach those who are already listening.

In my area, if anything, it's newcomers that follow the GC.com standards and old timers that follow the local standard. And I don't detect any pressure for numbers in any of this, just that an urge to have 4 useful sizes instead of just 3.

 

It works better when everyone is on the same page. It works much better when everyone uses the site standard.

 

Like playing baseball, we could bring a squash ball to the game but it works better when everyone expects we'll be playing with the standard size ball.

Consider softball. A few people play baseball with strict rules in formal settings, but most people play softball with local ground rules. And a bigger ball.

 

Softball is a highly organized sport in its own right with its own distinct rules, field set-up, and equipment. It's not just some pseudo-baseball type pick-up game with a bigger ball.

 

Like finding a micro listed as a small, it would be frustrating for a real softball team to show up for a game only to find out that the team hosting the game brought a bag of baseballs and set up the field for baseball because they didn't know there was a difference.

Link to comment

I've been noticing a distinct trend in upsizing, at all levels of sizes.

 

Yes, I've noticed it, also. But I would say it is not recent; I first noticed it about the same time the "small" cache category arrived.

 

I think it has two primary causes. First is the general trend toward low-quality cache containers. What size should a relatively large pill bottle be? You could stick a few items into it, which makes it larger than "micro," but only barely. Same thing for a disposable tupperware container.

 

Both containers have in common that they are lousy, and both have in common that they are a little too small to comfortably fit into the category most hiders choose for them.

 

Second is the trend towards nanos. Because (for whatever reason) Groundspeak doesn't include "nano" as a cache size, many newer cachers understand a bison tube as the large end of the "micro" category. So caches that were traditionally "micro" (e.g. film canisters) have been moved up to "small."

 

All this could easily be addressed by a set of examples attached to the guidelines, but it has not.

 

For someone who is size-sensitive, like you, this must be immensely frustrating. Me, I don't care much unless I am caching with children, but then I try hard to find the words "ammo can" in the description!

 

I suppose a nano size might help but imo, it's not really needed. A nano is definitely a micro. As far as the guidelines go, i believe there are already good descriptions for the different sizes there. The problem is as i stated above, many people play but don't read the guidelines in the first place.

Link to comment

I suppose a nano size might help but imo, it's not really needed. A nano is definitely a micro. As far as the guidelines go, i believe there are already good descriptions for the different sizes there. The problem is as i stated above, many people play but don't read the guidelines in the first place.

I am not so sure it's creep but our perception/expectation. A small is defined as 100ml to 1l in volume many "pill bottles" are larger than 100ml (roughly just under a 1/2 of a cup) and are rightly classified as small its just we rarely see anything that approach's the upper limit of the small clasification.

 

The examples I recall use 16 year old container examples (they have evolved mostly to a LnL standard) and were often given in a relative volume of space IIRC, not the easiest to grasp for some of us.

 

 

Micro – Tiny containers that most likely will only hold a log sheet, e.g. a film canister.

 

Small – Just big enough to fit a sandwich. Holds only a small logbook and small items, e.g. a small plastic container. Note: Please don’t put a sandwich in your gecoache.

 

Regular – Think shoe box. If you could fit a pair of shoes inside, you’re golden, e.g. an ammo box.

 

Large – Think Bigfoot’s shoe box. If he could fit his hiking boots inside, it should probably be labelled as a Large, e.g. a 5 gallon bucket.

 

Other Categorizations

 

For times when the traditional categories simply aren’t enough, you might need to use the following:

 

Nano – For the very tiniest of geocaches. ‘Nano’ is not officially listed on geocache pages, so players should mark Nanos as Micros, e.g. a fake bolt.

 

Other – Unusual geocache containers that just don’t fit into other categories, e.g. a magnetic strip.

 

Unknown – For when a little extra surprise is needed, e.g. when knowing the size of the container would completely give away the find.

 

 

Sizes

 

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.

 

small: 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar. Holds only a small logbook and small items.

 

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.e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

 

other: See the cache description for information. Unusual geocache containers that just don't fit into other categories.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I'm not using an app now, so not sure if it's still like this, but apps used to call some caches "extra small", further confusing things.

 

When the site isn't even on the same page, maybe depending on who's writing the program (and whether they cache or not?), no wonder us regular folk get confooooosed. :)

The former Intro app and the current Geocaching® app refer to Micros as "Extra small" or "XS", and refer to Regulars as "Medium" or "M". That certainly doesn't help matters.

Link to comment

I'm not using an app now, so not sure if it's still like this, but apps used to call some caches "extra small", further confusing things.

 

When the site isn't even on the same page, maybe depending on who's writing the program (and whether they cache or not?), no wonder us regular folk get confooooosed. :)

The former Intro app and the current Geocaching® app refer to Micros as "Extra small" or "XS", and refer to Regulars as "Medium" or "M". That certainly doesn't help matters.

 

It sounds more like clothing sizes, further confusing things. And ironically, little kids who wear XS clothes tend to prefer XL caches with swag.

Link to comment

When geocaching becomes a highly organized sport, maybe we can expect stricter adherence to specified standards. While I agree that more uniformity would be nice regarding cache sizes, it's not something I really expect to see.

I actually don't think it would be that hard to be uniform. I suspect if we reset the sizes to reflect the range of cache sizes people currently hide instead of what people hid back in 2001, most people would follow the standard.

Link to comment

When geocaching becomes a highly organized sport, maybe we can expect stricter adherence to specified standards. While I agree that more uniformity would be nice regarding cache sizes, it's not something I really expect to see.

I actually don't think it would be that hard to be uniform. I suspect if we reset the sizes to reflect the range of cache sizes people currently hide instead of what people hid back in 2001, most people would follow the standard.

I have my doubts. I think one of the reasons why people tend to inflate their cache sizes is because they want to attract more finders. Finders tend to prefer smalls over micros, regulars over smalls, and larges over regulars.

 

If Groundspeak slashed the definition of micros to be those containers with a volume <= 50 ml, then certain people with 35mm film canisters (about 30 ml in volume) will start rating their caches as small (to attract families with children looking for small swag or geocachers with trackables).

Link to comment

When geocaching becomes a highly organized sport, maybe we can expect stricter adherence to specified standards. While I agree that more uniformity would be nice regarding cache sizes, it's not something I really expect to see.

I actually don't think it would be that hard to be uniform. I suspect if we reset the sizes to reflect the range of cache sizes people currently hide instead of what people hid back in 2001, most people would follow the standard.

...which of course would have the side effect of instantly make the size ratings of many existing caches "wrong" according to the new definitions.

 

I see no reason to change the sizes. If the root of the problem is that people don't know about the size descriptions and are just picking what they feel is right based on the caches they've found, then we need to come up with ways to better bring the size descriptions to the attention of cache hiders. Revising the sizes won't matter to these people anyway. As has been mentioned, maybe have more guidance on the cache submission page, including examples.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I actually don't think it would be that hard to be uniform. I suspect if we reset the sizes to reflect the range of cache sizes people currently hide instead of what people hid back in 2001, most people would follow the standard.

...which of course would have the side effect of instantly make the size ratings of many existing caches "wrong" according to the new definitions.

But it would instantly make far more size rating that are currently "wrong" correct. But I don't think that's something we should worry about one way or another. I'm more interested in making the sizes more useful.

Link to comment

But it would instantly make far more size rating that are currently "wrong" correct. But I don't think that's something we should worry about one way or another. I'm more interested in making the sizes more useful.

 

Re-aligning the sizes isn't necessarily going to make people more inclined to follow them. The sizes are defined very clearly, and the reason they aren't useful is because cache owners aren't correctly classifying their own caches. Moving the goal posts just changes which ones are correct and incorrect. It doesn't make the sizes any more useful and doesn't improve the credibility of cache pages overall. We'd still be in a situation where we can't trust size ratings. We could have a system with ten different size categories for extra precision and it still wouldn't matter a whit if cache owners aren't held accountable for their cache descriptions.

 

I haven't really noticed this on a problematic scale around here, tbh. It happens, sure, but improperly-sized caches get called out by early finders, and new cache owners generally seem to learn quickly by receiving feedback. "Disappointed to find a regular sized ammo can when we were expecting a large cache based on the description." "Took us a little longer to find this micro sized cache because we were looking for a hiding place that would hold a small container."

Link to comment

I haven't really noticed this on a problematic scale around here, tbh. It happens, sure, but improperly-sized caches get called out by early finders, and new cache owners generally seem to learn quickly by receiving feedback.

That's been my experience as well, both in my home area and places I've visited. Certainly "most" small and regular caches I've found aren't improperly sized, which appears to be the situation for the OP.

Link to comment

Re-aligning the sizes isn't necessarily going to make people more inclined to follow them.

My point is that realigning will make the standard agree with what people are doing. People are already following a smaller standard: additional inclination is not needed. In particular, I see no reason to think that if the sizes were reduced, there'd be further pressure to make the sizes even smaller. In my opinion, this is not a slippery slope.

 

The sizes are defined very clearly, and the reason they aren't useful is because cache owners aren't correctly classifying their own caches.

No, the reason "large" isn't useful is because only a vanishingly small number of new caches are that size.

 

I haven't really noticed this on a problematic scale around here, tbh. It happens, sure, but improperly-sized caches get called out by early finders, and new cache owners generally seem to learn quickly by receiving feedback. "Disappointed to find a regular sized ammo can when we were expecting a large cache based on the description." "Took us a little longer to find this micro sized cache because we were looking for a hiding place that would hold a small container."

The same thing happens around here, except people rarely complain about caches sized according to the local size standards. Someone calling a hide-a-key "small" will get comments, but almost no one will complain about an ammo can listed as "large".

Link to comment

Finders tend to prefer smalls over micros, regulars over smalls, and larges over regulars.

 

While I may "prefer" larger caches over smaller I've never looked at the size of a cache other than to know what I'm looking for. I make a selection on "cache quality" not size.

I think it's human nature for most people to automatically assume/think a larger cache may be of better quality. Myself, i tend to think this! Sure, we've found some outstanding micro caches but for the most part, largers are of better quality and more preferable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

But it would instantly make far more size rating that are currently "wrong" correct. But I don't think that's something we should worry about one way or another. I'm more interested in making the sizes more useful.

 

Re-aligning the sizes isn't necessarily going to make people more inclined to follow them. The sizes are defined very clearly, and the reason they aren't useful is because cache owners aren't correctly classifying their own caches. Moving the goal posts just changes which ones are correct and incorrect. It doesn't make the sizes any more useful and doesn't improve the credibility of cache pages overall. We'd still be in a situation where we can't trust size ratings. We could have a system with ten different size categories for extra precision and it still wouldn't matter a whit if cache owners aren't held accountable for their cache descriptions.

 

 

Well said.

 

Even when the size guidelines are pointed out, 99% won't change it (I have had a couple of CO's in 15 years change the size once my log pointed out the issue).

I only point out the guidelines in my log when looking for small but finding a micro. I'm mostly concerned about whether the cache will be big enough for TBs and swag. But I did mention size guidelines last week when I was shocked to find a 100ml (minimal "small" size, almost a micro) listed as a regular. That was a new and rather surprising and worrisome size-creep. It's been my experience that at least regular and large size categories were not affected by size-creep, but now it's a crap shoot. As long as it can hold swag it might be listed as a small or regular depending on the whim of the hider, and maybe their way to get more visitors. Maybe more of us are now filtering out smalls, so regular size is the new target of mishandling size for "credit" or to make one's cache more likely to get visitors.

If Groundspeak did change the sizes, then simplify it. Get rid of size small. Micro is less then 100ml. Regular is 100ml - 1L. Large is anything over 1L.

But the easiest thing would be to keep the current size guidelines. They work as long as people understand how consistency makes the hobby work best for everyone.

Link to comment

Finders tend to prefer smalls over micros, regulars over smalls, and larges over regulars.

 

While I may "prefer" larger caches over smaller I've never looked at the size of a cache other than to know what I'm looking for. I make a selection on "cache quality" not size.

Similar, we still prefer larger caches, and when we find one, fill it with "stuff". :)

We have two steamer trunks of goodies to drop off (leftovers from when "regular" caches were the norm).

Sure would like to dump 'em before they age too much (already pitched all the toys powered by balloons and rubber bands).

 

We've seen ever since the intro app, with caches being left open, missing (often "found" again elsewhere), and trackables swiped, never to be seen again, many here have gone to small/micro on-the-cheap side containers, and now I'm okay with that.

For me personally, the location is what I search for anyway, with the container secondary.

Link to comment

 

No, the reason "large" isn't useful is because only a vanishingly small number of new caches are that size.

 

 

Why is the popularity or prevalence of the size relevant?

 

The expectation for a searcher looking for a large is quite different than it is for a regular. Even if large caches are relatively rare, it's still important information to have. Remember that the cache description is intended to help the searcher in the field.

 

I can see an argument in favour of adding "extra small" to cover the nano range and restore "other" to its intended purpose, but none of this matter since cache owners aren't held accountable for their cache pages anyway.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

But it would instantly make far more size rating that are currently "wrong" correct. But I don't think that's something we should worry about one way or another. I'm more interested in making the sizes more useful.

 

Re-aligning the sizes isn't necessarily going to make people more inclined to follow them. The sizes are defined very clearly, and the reason they aren't useful is because cache owners aren't correctly classifying their own caches. Moving the goal posts just changes which ones are correct and incorrect. It doesn't make the sizes any more useful and doesn't improve the credibility of cache pages overall. We'd still be in a situation where we can't trust size ratings. We could have a system with ten different size categories for extra precision and it still wouldn't matter a whit if cache owners aren't held accountable for their cache descriptions.

 

 

Well said.

 

Even when the size guidelines are pointed out, 99% won't change it (I have had a couple of CO's in 15 years change the size once my log pointed out the issue).

I only point out the guidelines in my log when looking for small but finding a micro. I'm mostly concerned about whether the cache will be big enough for TBs and swag. But I did mention size guidelines last week when I was shocked to find a 100ml (minimal "small" size, almost a micro) listed as a regular. That was a new and rather surprising and worrisome size-creep. It's been my experience that at least regular and large size categories were not affected by size-creep, but now it's a crap shoot. As long as it can hold swag it might be listed as a small or regular depending on the whim of the hider, and maybe their way to get more visitors. Maybe more of us are now filtering out smalls, so regular size is the new target of mishandling size for "credit" or to make one's cache more likely to get visitors.

If Groundspeak did change the sizes, then simplify it. Get rid of size small. Micro is less then 100ml. Regular is 100ml - 1L. Large is anything over 1L.

But the easiest thing would be to keep the current size guidelines. They work as long as people understand how consistency makes the hobby work best for everyone.

 

I wonder if the word "regular" is the problem here. Micro, small, regular, large - one of these things is not like the other. If everything you've ever found is under 100ml, then that's what a "regular" cache looks like. Without better enforcement of cache description elements it is hard to fault new cache owners for the mistake.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 15/09/2016 at 12:07 PM, cerberus1 said:

We've seen ever since the intro app, with caches being left open, missing (often "found" again elsewhere), and trackables swiped, never to be seen again, many here have gone to small/micro on-the-cheap side containers, and now I'm okay with that.

For me personally, the location is what I search for anyway, with the container secondary.

 

I'm disappointed with the trend to the cheap side. You're right, all sizes are mostly cheapy (free or dollar store) containers. Most of the swag-size caches can't actually hold swag because they are not meant for outdoor use and end up wet and moldy within a couple of months.

 

But I do like finding caches, and then finding what's in the cache. Every cache is similar yet different. It's fun to paw through the stuff even if it's nothing I want. Swag has never really been about finding stuff I want, it's about seeing what people leave in the cache. And it is interesting to find the occasional geocoin or travelbug. Even if I don't take it, I like to look at it, perhaps take a photo and add it to the trackables gallery. It adds another layer of intrigue and enjoyment to the pastime, makes for a fuller experience. The pastime is a more pleasant experience when the cache owner works within the guidelines (proper size and D/T ratings) and provides a container that can handle the elements, along with periodic visits to clean out the container.

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
I wonder if the word "regular" is the problem here. Micro, small, regular, large - one of these things is not like the other. If everything you've ever found is under 100ml, then that's what a "regular" cache looks like. Without better enforcement of cache description elements it is hard to fault new cache owners for the mistake.

I agree, regular is what you regularly see...

 

- But it doesn't help when Groundspeak themselves sells a "Medium" Geocache container (that looks like a small to me), when we don't even have that size.

Link to comment
We've seen ever since the intro app, with caches being left open, missing (often "found" again elsewhere), and trackables swiped, never to be seen again, many here have gone to small/micro on-the-cheap side containers, and now I'm okay with that.

For me personally, the location is what I search for anyway, with the container secondary.

 

It is understandable but i'm not quite "ok with that". It is what it is because of gc.com's marketing strategy. The bad thing is that, like you, location is a big part of the fun for us. Unfortunately, we rarely find new caches hidden in interesting or nice locations. Doesn't leave much unless you're into numbers. :(

Link to comment
I wonder if the word "regular" is the problem here. Micro, small, regular, large - one of these things is not like the other. If everything you've ever found is under 100ml, then that's what a "regular" cache looks like. Without better enforcement of cache description elements it is hard to fault new cache owners for the mistake.

I agree, regular is what you regularly see...

 

- But it doesn't help when Groundspeak themselves sells a "Medium" Geocache container (that looks like a small to me), when we don't even have that size.

 

Yeah, it's not the only instance where the commercial/marketing aspect of the site isn't aligned with the realities of the game. <_<

Link to comment

I wonder if the word "regular" is the problem here. Micro, small, regular, large - one of these things is not like the other. If everything you've ever found is under 100ml, then that's what a "regular" cache looks like. Without better enforcement of cache description elements it is hard to fault new cache owners for the mistake.

 

Moreover, there are also caches remaining from the times when the cache size small did not exist and many of them are still classified as regular. back then the big majority of caches I found were of size regular (micros were not that frequent and large even much more rare) - so regular back then indeed had the meaning "what you typically find".

 

I'm also not too happy with the way the cache container sizes are described at different places. For example small does not require for me that a sandwich fits into the container and the sandwiches I have in mind do not fit into containers of 100ml size (not even in 200ml size containers). Of course sandwich does not mean the same everywhere and it also depends on the shape of the container and not only on the volume.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

with periodic visits to clean out the container.

 

That's a bit much to expect in my opinion.

 

I have long ago stopped to put swag into my cache containers (none of them is a micro) and I do not encourage to leave cachers swag. If they do nevertheless and leave junk I will remove it when I happen to visit the cache anyway but I will not pay a visit to a cache just to clean out worthless items. It's a different story to take care of a cache if the logbook is full or damp or the container is not tight.

 

I refrain from hiding micros as I want to offer a real log book and and to offer the chance to leave trackables. I do not care at all about swag. I accept that some cachers like to look through swag but then those should take the responsibility and take away worthless junk (not just things they personally do not like, just things like used vouchers, chestnuts etc) and do not leave this job to the cache owner.

Link to comment

I think it's human nature for most people to automatically assume/think a larger cache may be of better quality. Myself, i tend to think this! Sure, we've found some outstanding micro caches but for the most part, largers are of better quality and more preferable.

No, I don't get that at all. Larger caches are rarer, so that's an attraction, but I've seen nothing to support saying that they are better quality. Larger caches are more often off the beaten track, and caches off the beaten track tend to be visited less frequently by geocachers that are more dedicated, but once I take that into account, larger caches off the beaten track down seem as good as micros off the beaten track.

 

Why is the popularity or prevalence of the size relevant?

It's not a question of popularity but one of being unused. Only 3 official sizes are used. Making ammo cans "large" would give us 4. Each size a slightly smaller range, so more accurate.

 

I'm not so much advocating a change but only pointing out that the change has occurred, yet the official sizes haven't been adjusted. I concede the sizes used today vary from place to place, but I claim that's because of the limitations of the official sizes have forced us into local standards.

Link to comment
We've seen ever since the intro app, with caches being left open, missing (often "found" again elsewhere), and trackables swiped, never to be seen again, many here have gone to small/micro on-the-cheap side containers, and now I'm okay with that.

For me personally, the location is what I search for anyway, with the container secondary.

 

It is understandable but i'm not quite "ok with that". It is what it is because of gc.com's marketing strategy. The bad thing is that, like you, location is a big part of the fun for us. Unfortunately, we rarely find new caches hidden in interesting or nice locations. Doesn't leave much unless you're into numbers. :(

Well, I say I'm "okay" with it because it wouldn't be fine. :)

 

I'm not into "numbers", yet still manage to find caches I'll do.

Maybe the difference is that it's rare these days to bother with many "new" caches, but by extending the radius, and my "numbers" reflect that.

No pqs or gsak, I look on the map for large patches of green, and start from there. :)

Link to comment

I think it's human nature for most people to automatically assume/think a larger cache may be of better quality. Myself, i tend to think this! Sure, we've found some outstanding micro caches but for the most part, largers are of better quality and more preferable.

No, I don't get that at all. Larger caches are rarer, so that's an attraction, but I've seen nothing to support saying that they are better quality. Larger caches are more often off the beaten track, and caches off the beaten track tend to be visited less frequently by geocachers that are more dedicated, but once I take that into account, larger caches off the beaten track down seem as good as micros off the beaten track.

 

Why is the popularity or prevalence of the size relevant?

It's not a question of popularity but one of being unused. Only 3 official sizes are used. Making ammo cans "large" would give us 4. Each size a slightly smaller range, so more accurate.

 

I'm not so much advocating a change but only pointing out that the change has occurred, yet the official sizes haven't been adjusted. I concede the sizes used today vary from place to place, but I claim that's because of the limitations of the official sizes have forced us into local standards.

 

The notion that we should entirely discard large caches, or any other less common but valuable aspects of the game, simply because they are uncommon is abhorrent. The entire game doesn't need to be dismantled to appease the power trail crowd.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I think it's human nature for most people to automatically assume/think a larger cache may be of better quality. Myself, i tend to think this! Sure, we've found some outstanding micro caches but for the most part, largers are of better quality and more preferable.

No, I don't get that at all. Larger caches are rarer, so that's an attraction, but I've seen nothing to support saying that they are better quality. Larger caches are more often off the beaten track, and caches off the beaten track tend to be visited less frequently by geocachers that are more dedicated, but once I take that into account, larger caches off the beaten track down seem as good as micros off the beaten track.

 

Why is the popularity or prevalence of the size relevant?

It's not a question of popularity but one of being unused. Only 3 official sizes are used. Making ammo cans "large" would give us 4. Each size a slightly smaller range, so more accurate.

 

I'm not so much advocating a change but only pointing out that the change has occurred, yet the official sizes haven't been adjusted. I concede the sizes used today vary from place to place, but I claim that's because of the limitations of the official sizes have forced us into local standards.

 

The notion that we should entirely discard large caches, or any other less common but valuable aspects of the game, simply because they are uncommon is abhorrent. The entire game doesn't need to be dismantled to appease the power trail crowd.

 

I can't think of any aspect of this game that warrants a response as strong as "abhorrent".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...