Jump to content

Path Signal vs. Path Rover


GeoWyrm

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, GeoWyrm said:

In the Cache size survey that came out in the newsletter one of the questions is "Path Signal or Path Rover". Can anyone provide an explanation as to what this means? I understand the answer is arbitrary, but I would still like to know.

Does seem to be a reason.  Maybe a personal bet between Lackeys.   :)    Didn't make a difference in anything other than that GPSr / phone app thing with cache sizes, which wouldn't matter really, since you enter without any explanation why first.

An email to Groundspeak by the "Contact Us" at the bottom of most geocaching pages (and this forum) asking why is worth a shot.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Aha. One path uses the website terminology (micro), the other the house-brand app's terminology (extra-small).

With no explanation ... to then get a (by now)  typical notification later of the vast numbers of members requesting one over the other.  :laughing:

Link to comment

I wanted to quit the survey when I couldn't see a Nano option.

I should've quit the survey when I didn't see a Micro option.

But I had to explore.  It's kind of fun (sometimes) reverse-engineering the system, to try to understand the logic.

Maybe they're measuring unfinished surveys.  (Like retailers watch for abandoned shopping carts, which they agonize over.)

Link to comment

"Choose a path. These paths are arbitrary and will not affect your results."

No.

If they're going to put arbitrary and confusing questions in the survey for no apparent purpose, then I choose not to continue. If they really want some valid and useful data from these surveys, they should include only relevant and understandable questions.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Aha. One path uses the website terminology (micro), the other the house-brand app's terminology (extra-small).

Maybe the signal-vs-rover coin toss determines once and for all the winner behind the scenes:  Which team runs the show?

I can't divulge how I know at this time, but this would not be the case.

Link to comment

I don't care about the Rover-vs-Signal option. What concerns me is that the final thank-you message suggests to me that they may change the size definitions depending on the results of the survey. If enough people call a small container a regular/medium, will that make it one? :o Cache size by vote?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

I don't care about the Rover-vs-Signal option. What concerns me is that the final thank-you message suggests to me that they may change the size definitions depending on the results of the survey. If enough people call a small container a regular/medium, will that make it one? :o Cache size by vote?

:o indeed...

Link to comment
2 hours ago, TriciaG said:

I don't care about the Rover-vs-Signal option. What concerns me is that the final thank-you message suggests to me that they may change the size definitions depending on the results of the survey. If enough people call a small container a regular/medium, will that make it one? :o Cache size by vote?

I hadn't thought of it that way... very good point indeed; however, I would like to see the terminology standardized (preferentially to the one it was for the majority of years, with nano a possible new category)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, TriciaG said:

I don't care about the Rover-vs-Signal option. What concerns me is that the final thank-you message suggests to me that they may change the size definitions depending on the results of the survey. If enough people call a small container a regular/medium, will that make it one? :o Cache size by vote?

My guess is that they're looking to standardize the sizes to one system (xs, s, m, l) vs (micro, small, regular, large). I very much prefer the latter.

Doing a survey could be testing if cachers choose the correct size more often with one system vs the other. If cachers choose incorrectly with the (micro, small, reg, large) system more than they do with the (xs, s, m, l) system, then that might suggest that (micro, small, reg, large) is not as clear as (xs, s, m, l).  Not sure I agree with that. If cachers get the sizing correct, then it's probably related more to their caching experience, rather than the sizing system used.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, noncentric said:
2 hours ago, TriciaG said:

I don't care about the Rover-vs-Signal option. What concerns me is that the final thank-you message suggests to me that they may change the size definitions depending on the results of the survey. If enough people call a small container a regular/medium, will that make it one? :o Cache size by vote?

My guess is that they're looking to standardize the sizes to one system (xs, s, m, l) vs (micro, small, regular, large). I very much prefer the latter.

Doing a survey could be testing if cachers choose the correct size more often with one system vs the other. If cachers choose incorrectly with the (micro, small, reg, large) system more than they do with the (xs, s, m, l) system, then that might suggest that (micro, small, reg, large) is not as clear as (xs, s, m, l).  Not sure I agree with that. If cachers get the sizing correct, then it's probably related more to their caching experience, rather than the sizing system used.

I shudder to think what might come out of this. I picked the Rover stream and a couple of the caches looked borderline in the photos - one looked to be about 20 litres so could have been regular or large, and the other looked close to 1 litre so could have been small or regular. It was hard to tell from the two-dimensional photos. If they shift all the size definitions based on what comes out of the survey, it'll mess up the vast majority of existing caches where the CO used the correct size designation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I think it would be much clearer if they were consistent and included the information that's available in the Help Center, on the Submission form.

I think they can also tighten up the Help Center info by explaining why size, especially the difference between Micro(XS) and Small(S), matters with regard to trackables and trade items. They could also give more examples of micro containers (centrifuge tube, bison tube, film canister, prescription pill bottle - maybe include a link to a page of typical container photos-especially a variety of micros).

Most importantly put the information in the help center, on the submission form, especially the volume ranges. 

Help Center. Sizes: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=815

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment

Interesting survey. I didn’t think the photos were ambiguous. I wish terms were consistent using the original ones. I’ve never understood why the app changed it. That’s just confusing. As is “activity” instead of “logs.” Which is why I finally abandoned the GC app. I think it’s awful. Wonder if the survey results will be posted? I think some people use “small” instead of “micro” on purpose.  I’ve been to many “small” caches hoping to drop a TB only to find it’s a match-stick container...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I think it would be much clearer if they were consistent and included the information that's available in the Help Center, on the Submission form.

I think they can also tighten up the Help Center info by explaining why size, especially the difference between Micro(XS) and Small(S), matters with regard to trackables and trade items. They could also give more examples of micro containers (centrifuge tube, bison tube, film canister, prescription pill bottle - maybe include a link to a page of typical container photos-especially a variety of micros).

Most importantly put the information in the help center, on the submission form, especially the volume ranges

Help Center. Sizes: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=815

 

Your statements make too much sense, so it will not be the solution used.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, PlantAKiss said:

I didn’t think the photos were ambiguous.

Maybe different people get different sets of photos. I'm sure one looked about this size (I wish I'd thought to take screen shots when doing the survey) ...

20180405_120630.jpg.468628643fdf197c1de6b3243ffa8b08.jpg

This container is exactly one litre (it says so on the label) so is right on the borderline of small and regular.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, PlantAKiss said:

 I think some people use “small” instead of “micro” on purpose.  I’ve been to many “small” caches hoping to drop a TB only to find it’s a match-stick container...

Sign of the times here.  :)

Here, it's along the same thing as calling a nano "other" or not chosen.   Place a nano/micro for people to find and they ignore it because of the container, it's going to be called "other" for future hides.  Though most caches here lately are either pill bottles listed as small or preforms listed the same.  I say on most found logs that's housed in a  pill bottle-sized small " 'small' container too small for a tb I wanted to drop" or similar, whether I have one or not.  Have received a couple emails with "thanks for the heads-up" (looking to drop trackables too).   ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, noncentric said:

Not sure I agree with that. If cachers get the sizing correct, then it's probably related more to their caching experience, rather than the sizing system used.

Yeah, I agree.  I was sorta borderline on at least two, it'd be interesting to see what a newer person thought.  Noticed folks are finding MKHs listed small quite a distance away.  They (newer folks mostly) see that often enough, it becomes norm.   :)

Link to comment

To add to the confusion, I notice that the official Geocaching Shop describes its bison tubes as small, large and XL, but even the XL one (3" long x 0.75" diameter) equates to about 22ml volume so is still a micro. Also the "Official Large Geocache with Logbook and Pencil" gives the dimensions as 8.5" x 6", with no height shown, but for it to be more than 20 litres it'd have to be two feet high!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I think a nano and a bison are to Micro what a tub and a 5 gallon bucket are to Large.  Near the there seemed a whole lot more 'micro' containers, so they might be gauging whether a smallish bison might be classified as 'small'.  But there were definitely two very different sized, and yet very large 'Larges'.

Almost seems to me like they might be considering adding to both ends (and, sadly, voting as to which terminology set may be standardized)

Nano(N?) / Micro(XS) / Small(S) / Regular(M) / Large(L) / Extra Large(XL)

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...