Jump to content

Opinions please


Recommended Posts

Do you consider this cache a micro or a small? Geocaching says a micro is "about the size of a film canister or smaller", and a small is "about the size of an apple".

 

The cache is slightly narrower at the base than a film canister, as I can sit it inside a film canister, but about half as long again as the film canister (in the photo it is not touching the bottom of the film canister, so looks longer than it is). So the opening is slightly smaller than a film canister, but the cache is half a film canister longer. It appears to be slightly 'longer' than the apple, but nowhere as wide, and it doesn't have the internal space of an apple.

 

What size would you call this cache?

Cache & apple.jpg

Cache & film canister.jpg

Cache in film canister.jpg

Link to comment

This Help Centre page defines sizes in terms of the container volume in litres.

 

Quote

Micro (XS)

Micro containers are less than 100 milliliters. They’re about the size of a film canister, or smaller. They can hold a tiny logbook or log sheet. If a micro cache is less than 10 milliliters, it’s often called a nano cache.

Small (S)

Small containers are 100 milliliters to 1 liter. They’re about the size of an apple. They can hold a small logbook and trade items.

Regular (M)

Regular containers are 1 to 20 liters. They’re about the size of a shoebox. Many of these caches are ammo cans.

Large (L)

Large containers are more than 20 liters. They're larger than a shoebox. Buckets, bins, or even railroad freight cars can be large containers.

 

So if it's less than 100ml, which it appears to be, then it's a micro, otherwise it's a small. The film canisters, apples and shoeboxes are just examples, not the definitions.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 4
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

They are what are given when people set the size on their cache, and possibly the only size guide that most people see.

 

Which is why there are so many mint tins listed as small because they're bigger than a film canister. Given that the sizes are objectively defined in the Help Centre, I really don't understand why that information can't be included on the cache creation page.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Which is why there are so many mint tins listed as small because they're bigger than a film canister. Given that the sizes are objectively defined in the Help Centre, I really don't understand why that information can't be included on the cache creation page.

Maybe, but I also think that many people who joined in the last few years see nanos as micro, as micro is the smallest rating; therefore anything bigger must be a small. I blame nanos and not having a nano rating for much of the rating issues.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Maybe, but I also think that many people who joined in the last few years see nanos as micro, as micro is the smallest rating; therefore anything bigger must be a small. I blame nanos and not having a nano rating for much of the rating issues.

 

Nanos are fairly rare in these parts, with micros only making up about 18% of the caches around here and most of those being bison tubes, preforms, film canisters and correctly-listed mint tins, yet I still see the occasional mint tin listed as a small. The dadgum things are rectangular so it's only a few seconds work to measure one and discover that it's a smidgen over 50ml. Putting those actual sizes on the cache creation page ought to encourage people to do just that - it's something I do on all my hides and include the measured or specified volume in the reviewer note.

 

image.png.56dec6a5520c2f1a06f6a178725b5b94.png

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I´d consider it to be a micro. The volume is not really larger than a film canister.

And another good thing to tink about (even though it´s not an official GS view) is: Would a Travel bug dog tag fit insinde? If no, it´s a micro.

Edited by DerDiedler
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Perhaps the easiest way to measure it is to fill it with water then weigh just the water on a set of kitchen scales. One gram of water is 1ml, so you'd need to get 100g of water or more out of it for it to be a small.

A measuring jug with 100mls would work too.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Probably a micro but, around here, I've seen ones smaller than that listed as small for sure. And regular.  And in one spectacularly bad case, large. I no longer look for that person's caches.

 

If I listed it as a small I'd say on the cache page that it's as small as a small can get and there's no room for most trackables.

Edited by Blue Square Thing
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

If I listed it as a small I'd say on the cache page that it's as small as a small can get and there's no room for most trackables.

I would say there would be no room for 95% of trackables; maybe more. The opening dimension is less than a film canister, because I fitted the tube in the film canister. (Above photograph.)

Edited by Goldenwattle
Link to comment

I am amazed by how many logs I see from experienced cachers saying "that shouldn't be listed as a micro - it's a nano" when as we all (?) know a nano is classified as a micro.

 

I have a couple of caches where I've made a "cradle" out of gardening wire (seen too many caches blown out of tree forks / roll away from bases of trees, so just to clarify put a pic on the cache page... https://coord.info/GC6PR62 (that's an army surplus cigarette tin...), I photographed it in my hand to indicate scale though that wasn't the issue here - but unless the container is a "surprise" / novelty, can be a worthwhile thing to do?

 

That's reminded me of a local cache where the hint was "bison" - so off I went looking in the dense hedge / fence for something hanging, as they usually are... when the bison was actually inside a false stone which in turn was under a mountain of dead foliage. But I digress - apart from to illustrate that container expectations are often wrong...

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Oxford Stone said:

"bison" - so off I went looking in the dense hedge / fence for something hanging, as they usually are... when the bison was actually inside a false stone

Usually those rock key-holders are listed here by many people as a 'small', when it actually has micro capacity inside (may even have a micro bison tube inside), which is where it counts, because it won't fit small trackables and trinkets, as many people expect a 'small' to fit. I would list the size of a 'rock key-holder' as an 'other'.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Maybe, but I also think that many people who joined in the last few years see nanos as micro, as micro is the smallest rating; therefore anything bigger must be a small. I blame nanos and not having a nano rating for much of the rating issues.

Yeah, if only people had brought up the issue of size creep in the bugs & feedback forums. For example...

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Usually those rock key-holders are listed here by many people as a 'small', when it actually has micro capacity inside (may even have a micro bison tube inside), which is where it counts, because it won't fit small trackables and trinkets, as many people expect a 'small' to fit. I would list the size of a 'rock key-holder' as an 'other'.

We have the same thing around here - and I agree, other is by far the best size for stuff like that. People should probably use other more frequently.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Thats a micro.

 

10 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

Micro.

 

My reasoning: I would expect to be able to get something in a small, maybe only a geocoin or a couple of pin badges, but something at least. I wouldn't expect to be able to get something in a micro.

 

 

This IMO is the best definition, it does not have to be exact science. A small cache should be large enough to most trackables and nobody should stuff a trackable in a micro.

 

9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Maybe, but I also think that many people who joined in the last few years see nanos as micro, as micro is the smallest rating; therefore anything bigger must be a small. I blame nanos and not having a nano rating for much of the rating issues.

 

You may be onto something here, nanos seem to cause a lot confusion. Most nanos that I have visited were listed as "other". It's a dead giveaway but in my opinion better than "micro".

 

And for the record, the box in my profile image is "regular" and the dog is "medium". Neither is large.

Edited by papu66
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Do you consider this cache a micro or a small? Geocaching says a micro is "about the size of a film canister or smaller", and a small is "about the size of an apple".

It's definitely a micro. Groundspeak's wording is more than sub optimal in this place as the the size counting for being a micro or a small cache is smaller or larger than 100 ml. (a film canister's volume  is appr. 40 ml)

Ie: even boxes bigger than a film canister have to be listed as a micro if their volume is lesser than 100 ml.

 

Hans

Edited by HHL
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I'd call it a micro. 

We see pill bottles that size now called small for some odd reason.

Just this past Christmas my logs were saying "Not sure why folks are calling micros smalls. Seems a shame.  I had a bag full of Hallmark ornaments to fill  the small caches in this area, to find micros instead".

So far, no one got the hint...

Link to comment

I wanted to get people's opinions before I gave the reason I asked this question. It appears everyone here thinks (or at least leans to) this being a micro.

 

I told the CO in my log that cache (listed as a small) was really a micro and the size should be corrected. I was very disappointed to find most caches in a Challenge series listed as 'small' were actually 'micros', as I had packed a bag of nice trinkets (jewellery) to take on the walk to put in the caches, but cache after cache (with a couple of exceptions, which really were small - plastic boxes instead) were the micro caches shown in the photograph. I gave the definition of "about the size of a film canister or smaller" , which now after the comments here realise it was not the best definition, but I doubt that would have made any difference to the CO. What really upset the CO was I put the definition in bold, because telling a CO their cache is really a micro in almost 100% of caches makes no difference and nothing happens, so I thought in 'bold' might get it noticed. I think this is likely the first time I have used bold on this site, and it certainly got my log noticed, as the CO deleted my log. I admit, the bold was maybe over the top from me, but I was still disappointed (and still had most of the jewellery) from finding micro after micro.

I would like to quote the CO here, but they are not here to defend themselves. But they were really upset about the bold.

 

I had qualified for the challenge and I had signed the log, now twice, as I re-signed when I returned to photograph the cache with the film canister and apple. (And fight off the ants - difficult photographic session.)

I complained to a local reviewer asking for my log to be reinstated, but they said a reviewer couldn't do that and gave me a link to HQ. I haven't followed that through yet.

 

I do agree putting it in bold was probably over the top, but more so was the CO who deleted a log, where I signed the paper log and listed the reason I qualified for this challenge. I don't think they should have the right to do this where a log is genuine. They said I could re log, but without mentioning the cache size of course. I won't re log in this circumstance, as I believe my first log should stand. Me being stubborn.

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

With respect brother, but I would delete a log like that too. I think you acted poorly and I think from what you write that you feel that you did too. 

I expect that you wish that you had sent him a private message instead if you felt so strongly. That would have been better. 

As for the whole issue of incorrectly specified container sizes, well I suppose that can be a bit annoying sometimes. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Mermaid.Man said:

With respect brother, but I would delete a log like that too. I think you acted poorly and I think from what you write that you feel that you did too. 

I expect that you wish that you had sent him a private message instead if you felt so strongly. That would have been better. 

As for the whole issue of incorrectly specified container sizes, well I suppose that can be a bit annoying sometimes. 

That's where you and I differ. I would not delete a genuine log. I would either roll my eyes and move on, fix the rating if it were wrong, or carefully explain why the logger was wrong. Delete a genuine log (unless they were raving and swearing and the like) absolutely not.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Yes I understand your point and I even understand that the micro / small thing could really annoy somebody. 

Our opinions differ where your found-it log is concerned though. If I received a log criticising my cache with parts of it in bold type I'd be furious and so would most owners I think. It really is no way to carry on, stuff like that is OK in these forums but honestly a log like that on somebody's cache page is bang out of order. 

Well you did say "Opinions please". 

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:
32 minutes ago, Mermaid.Man said:

With respect brother, but I would delete a log like that too. I think you acted poorly and I think from what you write that you feel that you did too. 

I expect that you wish that you had sent him a private message instead if you felt so strongly. That would have been better. 

As for the whole issue of incorrectly specified container sizes, well I suppose that can be a bit annoying sometimes. 

That's where you and I differ. I would not delete a genuine log. I would either roll my eyes and move on, fix the rating if it were wrong, or carefully explain why the logger was wrong. Delete a genuine log (unless they were raving and swearing and the like) absolutely not.

 

Yep, the only grounds for deletion are a false log (no signature in the log or other corroborating evidence) or an inappropriate one, and I don't think simply being critical of the cache or cache page falls into either of those categories. A log is an account of the seeker's adventure in attempting the cache and sometimes adventures go bad. I've received a few critical logs in my time, most recently on a new cache where I hadn't been paying close attention to the steepness of the track when placing the physical waypoint and final and had listed it as a T2.5, but the first group of finders thought it deserved at least a T3 and I was happy to bump it up to that. And yes, on my subsequent visits they were right, it's definitely a T3 track. Sometimes I think the criticism might be unjustified, but I've learnt to just cop it on the chin and make it a learning experience. Fortunately I live in a small caching community where we all know each other, at least in passing, and can joke about such things at the next event.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Yes I understand your point and I even understand that the micro / small thing could really annoy somebody. 

Our opinions differ where your found-it log is concerned though. If I received a log criticising my cache with parts of it in bold type I'd be furious and so would most owners I think. It really is no way to carry on, stuff like that is OK in these forums but honestly a log like that on somebody's cache page is bang out of order. 

Well you did say "Opinions please". 

 

As I said the reason for my bold type (first time I have done this), was past history, where I have arrived at a cache, marked 'small' to find say a Bison tube or other micro cache. I might have specially brought trinkets to leave in the marked small cache, or a TB*. In the past I might have written something like this (not in bold), "because of the wrong rating, this took a lot longer to find than it should have. It's a micro, not a small. Disappointing, as I planned to leave a TB here.'. It would normally not be my whole log, as I might describe the walk, the view, say something positive about the log, which I like to do, if I can (admittedly not always possible without lying). In almost 100% of cases the size of the cache is never corrected. The bold came from past frustrations. Yes, I will be unlikely to use bold again.

 

* One such example was a TB I made a special trip for (about 700kms round trip), to drop it off in an area that its owner had asked if someone could do this. A sister had sent it from England and wanted it to go to her sister in Australia. I had already picked it up in England and brought it to Australia, so what was an extra 700kms. So, not for the first time, I made the extra effort to fulfil the TB owners wish. I arrived in the area and targeted marked 'small' sized caches. Cache after cache so marked 'small' caches were micros, often mintie tins. None  would fit (the not big) TB. This started to get very annoying after I had visited a number of not 'small' caches. I did finally find a real small cache, but after a number of wrongly size rated caches, I really wondered if I was going to. It is not hard to correctly rate the size.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

As I said the reason for my bold type (first time I have done this), was past history, where I have arrived at a cache, marked 'small' to find say a Bison tube or other micro cache. I might have specially brought trinkets to leave in the marked small cache, or a TB*. In the past I might have written something like this (not in bold), "because of the wrong rating, this took a lot longer to find than it should have. It's a micro, not a small. Disappointing, as I planned to leave a TB here.'. It would normally not be my whole log, as I might describe the walk, the view, say something positive about the log, which I like to do, if I can (admittedly not always possible without lying). In almost 100% of cases the size of the cache is never corrected. The bold came from past frustrations. Yes, I will be unlikely to use bold again.

 

* One such example was a TB I made a special trip for (about 700kms round trip), to drop it off in an area that its owner had asked if someone could do this. A sister had sent it from England and wanted it to go to her sister in Australia. I had already picked it up in England and brought it to Australia, so what was an extra 700kms. So, not for the first time, I made the extra effort to fulfil the TB owners wish. I arrived in the area and targeted marked 'small' sized caches. Cache after cache so marked 'small' caches were micros, often mintie tins. None  would fit (the not big) TB. This started to get very annoying after I had visited a number of not 'small' caches. I did finally find a real small cache, but after a number of wrongly size rated caches, I really wondered if I was going to. It is not hard to correctly rate the size.

 

I most often will leave a light remark when a super tiny pill bottle or whatever is listed as “Small”.  I don’t know of any such find where a CO corrected it.  I wrote to a friend once about it, and he said “I listed it as Small because you can fit a pencil in it.”  And so it goes. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I wanted to get people's opinions before I gave the reason I asked this question. It appears everyone here thinks (or at least leans to) this being a micro.

 

I told the CO in my log that cache (listed as a small) was really a micro and the size should be corrected. I was very disappointed to find most caches in a Challenge series listed as 'small' were actually 'micros', as I had packed a bag of nice trinkets (jewellery) to take on the walk to put in the caches, but cache after cache (with a couple of exceptions, which really were small - plastic boxes instead) were the micro caches shown in the photograph. I gave the definition of "about the size of a film canister or smaller" , which now after the comments here realise it was not the best definition, but I doubt that would have made any difference to the CO. What really upset the CO was I put the definition in bold, because telling a CO their cache is really a micro in almost 100% of caches makes no difference and nothing happens, so I thought in 'bold' might get it noticed. I think this is likely the first time I have used bold on this site, and it certainly got my log noticed, as the CO deleted my log. I admit, the bold was maybe over the top from me, but I was still disappointed (and still had most of the jewellery) from finding micro after micro.

I would like to quote the CO here, but they are not here to defend themselves. But they were really upset about the bold.

 

I had qualified for the challenge and I had signed the log, now twice, as I re-signed when I returned to photograph the cache with the film canister and apple. (And fight off the ants - difficult photographic session.)

I complained to a local reviewer asking for my log to be reinstated, but they said a reviewer couldn't do that and gave me a link to HQ. I haven't followed that through yet.

 

I do agree putting it in bold was probably over the top, but more so was the CO who deleted a log, where I signed the paper log and listed the reason I qualified for this challenge. I don't think they should have the right to do this where a log is genuine. They said I could re log, but without mentioning the cache size of course. I won't re log in this circumstance, as I believe my first log should stand. Me being stubborn.

Take it to Appeals. The CO needs to be shown that they can't delete logs they don't like.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

 I do agree putting it in bold was probably over the top, but more so was the CO who deleted a log, where I signed the paper log and listed the reason I qualified for this challenge. I don't think they should have the right to do this where a log is genuine. They said I could re log, but without mentioning the cache size of course. I won't re log in this circumstance, as I believe my first log should stand. Me being stubborn.

 

I'd take them at their word and change my log to  "TFTC"...      :D

 - It gives you your smiley back, and doesn't say anything "negative" about the sensitive CO's cache container.

Of course if they then claim that TFTC doesn't say anything "nice" about their challenge, then HQ knows where the issue is.

 

To be clear (on my prior post...), when I state something about the cache's size, I've also said nice things about the area, and thanked the CO for the hide.   :)

Edited by cerberus1
to be clear :)
Link to comment

I'm sorry to hear that your education campaign has been unsuccessful. The times I've pointed out that a "small" cache should really be listed as a micro, I've had better results. But usually I express surprise, as in: "The description lists this as a small-size cache, so I was surprised to find a film canister, which is almost the definitive example of a micro-size container."

 

4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I complained to a local reviewer asking for my log to be reinstated, but they said a reviewer couldn't do that and gave me a link to HQ. I haven't followed that through yet.

Yep. The volunteer reviewers can't do a thing. Only lackeys can reinstate deleted logs, so go ahead and contact Groundspeak directly.

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

Yes, I will be unlikely to use bold again.

 

 

Why would they have the bold font option if it's not to be used?

I think when you post corrected coordinates, for example, they appear bold by default and I don't see any way to change that.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

With respect brother, but I would delete a log like that too. I think you acted poorly and I think from what you write that you feel that you did too. 

I expect that you wish that you had sent him a private message instead if you felt so strongly. That would have been better. 

As for the whole issue of incorrectly specified container sizes, well I suppose that can be a bit annoying sometimes. 

 

I disagree. The cache owner is dishonest and disrespectful.  He duped people who expect to be adequately informed. It’s obvious he deliberately misinformed because instead of apologizing and changing the size he deleted the logs. Likely in order to dupe more cachers into going for his caches. It is disrespectful of a finder”s time, money, choices and enjoyment of the pastime. It is disrespectful of the activity’s guidelines.  Eventually many of us give geocaching a pass out of frustration.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
18 hours ago, captnemo said:

It's a Micro but I have seen many Micros listed as small.  Used to care but now I just Geocache.

I understand what you mean when you say that you used to care. But...

 

My concern is that I've seen a very obvious shift. People new to the game are finding 35mm containers or smaller. Lots of them, many times listed as "small". So that's what they hide - lined as "small" (or regular...) because that's what a small is to them - it's what they're finding lots of. I know plenty are sized correctly as micro, but I still find a reasonable number that are flat out wrongly sized.

 

I don't care *that* much, but I do think it's important to really point this out consistently. I found a tiny tube today embedded in a bit of stump. Sized as regular - due to the size of the stump. Sorry, but to me that's other size - which is what I've said (without the use of bold face ... :-) ) in my log.

 

 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I do agree putting it in bold was probably over the top, but more so was the CO who deleted a log, where I signed the paper log and listed the reason I qualified for this challenge. I don't think they should have the right to do this where a log is genuine. They said I could re log, but without mentioning the cache size of course. I won't re log in this circumstance, as I believe my first log should stand. Me being stubborn.

 

In my view you did nothing wrong.    Ok, quoting the details of the guidelines can seem a bit "preachy", and making it bold I suppose makes it more so.   But still what you said is correct and you weren't offensive in any way.

I'm sure I've posted similar logs before, though more recently I use a "softer" log like "I would have listed this as micro rather than small".    

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

I'm sure I've posted similar logs before, though more recently I use a "softer" log like "I would have listed this as micro rather than small".

That's like me when I think the coordinates are out. I don't say directly the coordinates are out, unless many have already said that in their logs before mine; then I just add my comments to the previous comments. I usually say, my GPS had the coordinates at.....

That's not saying their coordinates were wrong, but my GPS managed another set.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I haven't read your log.  But I've done the same thing. Sometimes I've been passive and polite, other times I've thrown it in as an aside, and every once in a while I've let my irritation show -- this usually only if I was looking in places a small could be and then learned it was some tiny micro instead.

 

I've gotten CO pushback at times, mostly it seems they've ignored it.  (Not that I have a lot of data on this - I don't often worry about auditing whether COs have followed up, as I don't review physical hides, so I get my smiley and move on.  But certainly I've seen where COs have not done anything with caches in similar containers that I've later found.) 

 

I don't think I've gotten logs deleted.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I disagree. The cache owner is dishonest and disrespectful.  He duped people who expect to be adequately informed. It’s obvious he deliberately misinformed because instead of apologizing and changing the size he deleted the logs. Likely in order to dupe more cachers into going for his caches. It is disrespectful of a finder”s time, money, choices and enjoyment of the pastime. It is disrespectful of the activity’s guidelines.  Eventually many of us give geocaching a pass out of frustration.

 

You know nothing about the CO, other than they incorrectly (or so I believe) deleted the OP's logs and incorrectly (most agree but some don't) sized the cache. You don't know why they did either of those things and you jump to the conclusion that they are deliberately doing this to deceive cachers in order to get them to waste their time and money to find their caches and have a less than enjoyable experience because the size is incorrect.  You overreacted as much as the CO who deleted the logs.

 

13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

What really upset the CO was I put the definition in bold, because telling a CO their cache is really a micro in almost 100% of caches makes no difference and nothing happens, so I thought in 'bold' might get it noticed.

 

And you probably pushed the envelope a bit too far here, which you even believe a bit.  I'll always mention a size discrepancy in my log but I realize that in the larger scheme of things, although it's an annoyance, it's really not that big a deal.  Save your swag for a cache that it will fit in (and a CO who will probably appreciate it more).  File your appeal to get your log re-instated (I'd find it hard to believe they wouldn't) and move on.  

 

Perhaps a private message or email would have gotten your thoughts about the incorrect sizing noticed in a less dramatic fashion than a public log that obviously ticked off the CO.  

Link to comment

I don’t think you did anything wrong, but probably better to have left something less confrontational in the log, and followed it up with a message, for quoting the rules, etc.  Less likely to provoke a knee jerk reaction, and may even start a more constructive conversation.

Edited by IceColdUK
Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

You know nothing about the CO, other than they incorrectly (or so I believe) deleted the OP's logs and incorrectly (most agree but some don't) sized the cache. You don't know why they did either of those things and you jump to the conclusion that they are deliberately doing this to deceive cachers in order to get them to waste their time and money to find their caches 

 

Based on what has been described, I know something about the behavior of this owner. Golden knows something about the behavior of this owner.  You look at the behavior and conclude that the owner is merely (innocently) mistaken but where's the evidence to support that conclusion?  He deliberately tries to prevent future finders from knowing that actual size of the container.  Does not change the size. And does not invite Golden to post it again without bold lettering (since it is the bold style of the text that offends him and not apparently the context). In my conclusion based on evidence presented, he is deliberately misleading future finders.  

Edited by L0ne.R
sentence structure
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

In my conclusion based on evidence presented, he is deliberately misleading future finders.

 

Sometimes an inexperienced hider tries to use offset coordinates to make a cache harder to find. In the same way, it is possible that a hider tries to mislead to look at a wrong type of cache by using wrong attributes. I report normally this kind of deviations in my log, mostly to inform other visitors. Some cache owners adjust the cache according to the feedback and some others doesn't.

  • 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...