Jump to content

Opinions please


Goldenwattle
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

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

 

OK.  Let's go with your premise.  So they're doing this on purpose.  In essence, this means you believe that they KNOW their caches are micros but have chosen, on purpose, to list them as micros.  To what end?  For what reason?   Does he wait by the computer and then gleefully cackle and rub his hands together when someone mentions that they found the cache but it wasn't what they thought a small should be?  If you truly believe he is misleading future finders on purpose, my question to you becomes, "Why?"  What other devious machinations does this CO go to to get more finders of his caches?

 

Which scenario below is more believable?

 

Your scenario - this CO deliberately chooses to keep seekers from knowing that his small caches are actually micros (and they know this), just to rope in more finders of their caches and fool them into thinking that they're smalls, so they waste their time and money finding incorrectly sized listed caches and have a not so good experience because they can't put in any swag they brought along.  There is apparently a purpose behind their actions, which is malicious in intent and it's carried out by knowingly falsifying the fact that their cache is a small, even though it's a micro.

 

My scenario - this CO has incorrectly determined the size of the cache for some unknown reason.  Perhaps they believe it's the size of the exterior of the cache and not the interior volume that determines the size of the cache.  Perhaps they have found lots of other mislabeled caches, similar in size to the one they have hidden and assume that since they found one like it and it was a small, that means theirs is a small as well.  Perhaps their caching community believes that this size are actually smalls (see the OP's Austria examples).  Then someone comes along and points out the appropriate guideline that shows the correct interpretation of sizing but then highlights that point by bolding the font to draw extra attention to the fact that basically, the seeker just told them they're cache is "wrong".  Perhaps nothing much about the cache or the location is even mentioned, just the notion that they've been told their cache is listed wrongly.  The CO gets upset with the manner in which they were told they were wrong and then wrongly deletes the log.

 

In both scenarios, the CO acted incorrectly in their response to the log by deleting it, but you believe the motivation behind the deletion is to keep the "secret" that these caches aren't actually smalls.  I believe the motivation is that the CO was offended by the manner in which they were told their caches aren't smalls, but instead micros.  If we truly want to be better stewards within the community, a kind word privately goes a much longer way than a calling out of something in a log in a direct manner, and then emphasizing that calling out by drawing even more attention to it.

 

I'm not debating that it's most likely listed incorrectly.  I'm countering your point that there is a willful and malicious reason behind the CO's belief that their cache is a small rather than a micro.

 

 

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

I put the definition in bold,

 

You should not have done that.

 

See, it comes across as aggresive, preachy, holier than thou, etc...

 

I appreciate the sentiment and I might have written the same advice, but don't think using bold was very tactful. I accept that you think the more gentle approach hasn't worked in the past, but this approach worked even less well.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

So they're doing this on purpose.  In essence, this means you believe that they KNOW their caches are micros but have chosen, on purpose, to list them as micros.  To what end?  For what reason?

 

The reason is to present the cache more attractive than it really is. Getting more finders is the reason to gloss over the attributes. Another example is to use T3 for a T4 cache, because less visitors will be interested if the rating is correct.

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The reason is to present the cache more attractive than it really is.

Do you really think that there are enough cachers out there who would actively search out smalls over micros to be statistically significant? I don't, so I think  @coachstahly's own scenario is by far the most likely.

 

 

14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Another example is to use T3 for a T4 cache, because less visitors will be interested if the rating is correct

It's not clear which direction your argument is going here. Are you suggesting that a genuine T3 cache which is rated at T4 would attract more visitors simply because it's a higher rating,  or that a genuine T4 cache rated at T3 would attract more people who might feel a T4 is too much for them? Either way you have to balance the number of cachers who would be attracted by a slightly higher T rating, against the number of cachers who would be put off by the  extra effort required for a higher T rating, and unless you have some statistics to back up your case then this is a non-argument.

 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Do you really think that there are enough cachers out there who would actively search out smalls over micros to be statistically significant? I don't, so I think  @coachstahly's own scenario is by far the most likely.

 

Probably not anymore. Those cachers have stopped caching. Most of the cachers who are left barely care if there's a cache there, just so long as the listing is active. But for the few of us who filter out micros and prefer caches with more than a log sheet, we shouldn't be tossed aside in order to degrade the game to it's minimal standard. We can all enjoy the activity when we can use the tools appropriately. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment

I thought you asked for our opinions because you recognized there were other valid opinions. But apparently you were just hoping we'd give you ammunition. The way you handled it in the logs, you told the CO he was wrong, and then kept insisting he was wrong and there was no room for him to be right after he clearly demonstrated his contrary opinion by not changing anything. You're done here. Time to move on. Repeating it over and over -- never mind the bold -- told the CO you weren't going to take "no" for an answer. Things escalated from there, and now you've made an enemy for no good reason.

 

I'm sure appeals (i.e., "HQ") would reinstate your log since I can't imagine them coming down against a legitimate find, but I suggest that instead of asking them to, you just talk to the CO, both to make sure he agrees where your opinions differ and to apologize for being so insistent. Then ask for permission to relog the caches if you don't talk about the size. As I said in my initial response, I might mention the size seeming wrong to me in one or two of the logs, but now that you're in this situation, you should just drop it. I think you've forfeited your right to mention your opinion about the size.

 

The basic problem here -- and I'm seeing this more and more often -- is you seeing the CO as an enemy combatant instead of a friend who hid a cache for you. Is there any chance you can take him out for a beer or meet him at an event to have a friendly discussion about container sizes? Figure out where he's coming from, and see if you can accept his opinion as valid for his caches and let him try to convince you it's valid for other caches. Maybe he really is trying to inflate the value of his caches -- kinda hard to imagine in this day and age, frankly -- and, if so, see if you can change his mind about that, perhaps. Naturally you want to make sure he understands the impact on you and others like you when you thought there'd be room for swag and there wasn't. Maybe he hasn't consider that.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
35 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Do you really think that there are enough cachers out there who would actively search out smalls over micros to be statistically significant? I don't, so I think  @coachstahly's own scenario is by far the most likely.

Probably not anymore. Those cachers have stopped caching.

No, the cachers that sought out smalls haven't all stopped caching. They've just learned that times have changed, and that they can still appreciate bigger caches even though micros are now much more common. I think most of them just started doing micros, anyway. Any that still target smalls accept that that means they ignore a lot of newer caches. Big deal. Most geocaches also know that smalls are sometimes smaller than they expected, and some can mention that a small seems too small without making it sounds like a crime.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

But for the few of us who filter out micros and prefer caches with more than a log sheet, we shouldn't be tossed aside in order to degrade the game to it's minimal standard.

This part of the discussion has nothing to do with your standards, or tossing you aside, or degrading the game. It's about whether it's more likely that the CO in question mis-rated his cache mistakenly or maliciously.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, dprovan said:

No, the cachers that sought out smalls haven't all stopped caching.

They've just learned that times have changed, and that they can still appreciate bigger caches even though micros are now much more common. I think most of them just started doing micros, anyway. Any that still target smalls accept that that means they ignore a lot of newer caches. Big deal.

Yep, sorta.   :)

We've slowed down one heck-of-a-lot, but it's location, not cache size that did it.  Just to be clear, we started with regulars.

The times we get a bit ticked about the "small is a micro" thing, is if we head out only to drop trackables, or maybe some seasonal swag.

 - We needed that size for a reason...

It really doesn't bother me that swag others now look for can't be placed because of the "change", it's the TO who sees me hold on to their trackable way too long before I can finally drop it.

 

For a few years now, (for me) the location is what I look for.  A 50cal hidden in someone's yard outside town doesn't mean anything (to me).

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

This part of the discussion has nothing to do with your standards, or tossing you aside, or degrading the game. It's about whether it's more likely that the CO in question mis-rated his cache mistakenly or maliciously.

 

Then why did you ask?:

 

Do you really think that there are enough cachers out there who would actively search out smalls over micros to be statistically significant? 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

The reason is to present the cache more attractive than it really is.

Do you really think that there are enough cachers out there who would actively search out smalls over micros to be statistically significant?

 

You analyze this matter fom the wrong direction. You should ask, do the cache owner think that there is more players interested in small caches than micros? Yes he does, because small caches are easier to find.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Whittles said:

but who really knows the differance from T3 to T4 its all in the CO,s opinion really,what a T4 to you might well be in my mind a T3 as im quite active and can climb trees and rockfaces therefore thinking its easy

 

Terrain rating scale is not depending on the condition of the player :D 

 

The terrain scale is this:

T1: You can find with using one limb only

T2: You need two limbs

T3: Three limbs required

T4: Four limbs needed

T5: Four limbs is not enough

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 4
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

You analyze this matter fom the wrong direction. You should ask, do the cache owner think that there is more players interested in small caches than micros? Yes he does, because small caches are easier to find.

Well, of course I agree the CO should be straightened out if he thinks it's ever valid to misrepresent his cache, let alone to fool someone into looking at it, but I'm really hard pressed to imagine someone doing a bunch of challenge caches thinks the size of the cache would be a draw. And that's even before considering that this particular size differential is well within the range where it's a common mistake made by people that have "learned" by example that a magnetic key hide is a small.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, dprovan said:

but I'm really hard pressed to imagine someone doing a bunch of challenge caches thinks the size of the cache would be a draw.

 

If there is a challenge cache for small size containers, wouldn't that explain it without doubt? :D

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

If there is a challenge cache for small size containers, wouldn't that explain it without doubt? :D

 

So maybe what we really need is a whole lot of challenge caches for micros :).

 

Edit to add: Or a souvenir.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Well, of course I agree the CO should be straightened out if he thinks it's ever valid to misrepresent his cache, let alone to fool someone into looking at it, but I'm really hard pressed to imagine someone doing a bunch of challenge caches thinks the size of the cache would be a draw. And that's even before considering that this particular size differential is well within the range where it's a common mistake made by people that have "learned" by example that a magnetic key hide is a small.

I had filled a bag with jewellery and carried it on my walk to leave in the caches, because and only because, these caches were marked as small.  If they had been correctly marked micro, I would know that the jewellery wouldn't fit and I wouldn't have bothered to carry the bag. Not even a small pendant would fit in the micro caches. The entrance of the cache was slightly narrower than a film canister. This can be seen in the above photograph, where the base of the tube fits inside the film canister. Part of the description of a small sized cache is: " They can hold a small logbook and trade items." This wouldn't, unless the item is unusually very small; not the size I commonly see being traded.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Spelling mistake
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

@coachstahly there's only one way to know for sure, Goldenwattle could experiment by reposting the log without the bold text. Will it stay, or will the owner delete it again? 

I suspect delete, because they also didn't like the size quote. Could be wrong though.

 

Actually, I would have gone back after thinking about it and removed the bold, but by then I couldn't do that, as the CO had deleted it. They gave no warning they would do this. Although they expressed displeasure of the bold text, they never explicitly asked me to remove it. I could re paste without the bold, but I think that is unnecessarily confrontational . And I will not have my opinion shut out by meekly logging again the way the CO wants. If I did log again, I think I would log a blank log (if it's possible), or only a . Not planning at present to re-log. (Stamp my foot; I can be stubborn :cool:) It's only one cache.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, dprovan said:

I thought you asked for our opinions because you recognized there were other valid opinions. But apparently you were just hoping we'd give you ammunition. The way you handled it in the logs, you told the CO he was wrong, and then kept insisting he was wrong and there was no room for him to be right after he clearly demonstrated his contrary opinion by not changing anything. You're done here. Time to move on. Repeating it over and over -- never mind the bold -- told the CO you weren't going to take "no" for an answer. Things escalated from there, and now you've made an enemy for no good reason.

 

I'm sure appeals (i.e., "HQ") would reinstate your log since I can't imagine them coming down against a legitimate find, but I suggest that instead of asking them to, you just talk to the CO, both to make sure he agrees where your opinions differ and to apologize for being so insistent. Then ask for permission to relog the caches if you don't talk about the size. As I said in my initial response, I might mention the size seeming wrong to me in one or two of the logs, but now that you're in this situation, you should just drop it. I think you've forfeited your right to mention your opinion about the size.

 

The basic problem here -- and I'm seeing this more and more often -- is you seeing the CO as an enemy combatant instead of a friend who hid a cache for you. Is there any chance you can take him out for a beer or meet him at an event to have a friendly discussion about container sizes? Figure out where he's coming from, and see if you can accept his opinion as valid for his caches and let him try to convince you it's valid for other caches. Maybe he really is trying to inflate the value of his caches -- kinda hard to imagine in this day and age, frankly -- and, if so, see if you can change his mind about that, perhaps. Naturally you want to make sure he understands the impact on you and others like you when you thought there'd be room for swag and there wasn't. Maybe he hasn't consider that.

I gave a neutral question first, because I didn't want to colour opinion. I was very careful to try to ask this fairly, from both the CO and my own direction. I don't know how I am supposed to use this as ammunition, because the CO has no idea what is being said here. I haven't given them the link. Notice I didn't mention the cache or CO name here; nothing to link to them, and I wouldn't. You won't even find it in my log list if you search, because the log has been deleted. After I got the neutral replies, I thought I should be honest and come clean and explain why I wanted others' opinions. I could have been less honest and kept this to myself. Would you have preferred me to be less honest?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

So I see that you found quite a few of this chap's caches along the trail that day. In each found-it log you make reference to the incorrect size attribute, and not really in a very diplomatic way (... this needs correcting...). But this chap can live with this, those logs are still there. 

Then he sees that the next log is something quite different. Now his disgruntled visitor has posted a log quoting the regulations from geocaching.com and highlighting these rules in bold lettering.

"Hold on a minute" he thinks, "I'm not having that, does he think I want that nonsense to be on my cache page?". And so he does the right thing and contacts the visitor, expresses his displeasure and asks him to remove the bold font. Unfortunately the visitor is not prepared to do this. 

So this chap takes the next step - he deletes the visitors log and invites him to log again in a more respectful way. 

 

Assuming that my understanding of events is correct then I'm afraid to say that my sympathy here is with the CO. As I said earlier in the thread I feel that you have acted poorly here. But hey we all do that from time to time and I'm not critisising you, I'm just giving an opinion which is what you asked for. Cheers. 

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

So I see that you found quite a few of this chap's caches along the trail that day. In each found-it log you make reference to the incorrect size attribute, and not really in a very diplomatic way (... this needs correcting...). But this chap can live with this, those logs are still there. 

Then he sees that the next log is something quite different. Now his disgruntled visitor has posted a log quoting the regulations from geocaching.com and highlighting these rules in bold lettering.

"Hold on a minute" he thinks, "I'm not having that, does he think I want that nonsense to be on my cache page?". And so he does the right thing and contacts the visitor, expresses his displeasure and asks him to remove the bold font. Unfortunately the visitor is not prepared to do this. 

So this chap takes the next step - he deletes the visitors log and invites him to log again in a more respectful way. 

 

Assuming that my understanding of events is correct then I'm afraid to say that my sympathy here is with the CO. As I said earlier in the thread I feel that you have acted poorly here. But hey we all do that from time to time and I'm not critisising you, I'm just giving an opinion which is what you asked for. Cheers. 

Actually I have considered it and I am prepared to remove the bold, but he deleted the log and I can't, with no warning he was about to delete it. I did not continue in the same way for the other logs, because once was enough to hopefully get the log read. (And as a flow on, hopefully the others.)

If it really is a small, then I doubt the CO would get so upset, because others would be able to see how wrong I was. Maybe it's because he doesn't want his mis-rating highlighted. And he has actually rated some of his caches with the exact same size cache as micros, so if they are micros, why aren't these rated also as micros? Seems the CO does know they are micros.

 

As has been quoted here before,  a small " can hold a small logbook and trade items". This cache has a smaller opening than a film canister.

 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I had filled a bag with jewellery and carried it on my walk to leave in the caches, because and only because, these caches were marked as small.

I understand that. Now you know that caches that are too small are sometimes marked as "small". And you're disappointed. That's a good thing to tell the CO. It's not a good thing to get in a fight with the CO about. Yes, I get it, you had to carry all that swag and didn't get to drop any of it. Not a big deal. If this disappointment made you angry, geocaching might not be for you.

 

4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

If it really is a small, then I doubt the CO would get so upset, because others would be able to see how wrong I was. Maybe it's because he doesn't want his mis-rating highlighted. And he has actually rated some of his caches with the exact same size cache as micros, so if they are micros, why aren't these rated also as micros? Seems the CO does know they are micros.

That's really all beside the point. He may have made a mistake when he called some of them small, or he may have been thinking he made a mistake when he called some of them micros. He may be doing something evil, although, honestly, this is geocaching: how serious is "evil". He may just be messing with people. All interesting theories to talk to him about to find out which is true. None are good reasons to become belligerent because he didn't react to your input.

 

4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

As has been quoted here before,  a small " can hold a small logbook and trade items". This cache has a smaller opening than a film canister.

No one's arguing that it would be better to call this a small. We're past that. Now we're just talking about how to handle it when you think a cache should be called a micro but it's listed as a small.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, dprovan said:

No one's arguing that it would be better to call this a small. We're past that. Now we're just talking about how to handle it when you think a cache should be called a micro but it's listed as a small.

 

Escpecially, when the CO admits that the cache is micro but still keeps the wrong size on the description. I have a case where a CO told me that she is not going to correct the size after I reported the problem in my Found it log. That's fine for me but it tells that this situation is possible where the size is deliberately wrong.

 

Is it effective to report the situation to the reviewer? I have got some effect for reporting about offset coordinates but wrong terrain or cache size and other attributes may be out of reviewer's hands?

Link to comment

I am usually verry clear about a cache. Wether I find it good or bad. Doesn´t matter to me. A honest feedback is never wrong. Sometimes I might overpace with criticism or wording, but it verry rarely happend that a log was beeing deleted.

At the end some people are more open to objective feedback, others take it as an offence.

I think you did nothing wrong, even highliting the issue boldly is appropriate from my perspective. I´d have never delet a log like this.

Edited by DerDiedler
  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment

As a CO, if anyone had an issue with one of my caches I'd much rather they be up front about it in their log rather than just go off muttering to their friends about BFJ's horrid hides. I can't fix problems I don't know about, and better it be in the log so that when I post my OM it has context.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, DerDiedler said:

I´d have never delet a log like this.

I would not either. I would certainly not take the offence that the CO has. If someone wrote that it would just be 'funny', as my micros are micros, smalls small. I am very careful to list them correctly. That's why some are listed as Other, because the outside container is about small sized, but only have micro capacity. So neither micro or small would fit them; therefore other.

 

They are not rock keyholders, but it similar to them in idea. Bigger outside, but only micro inside (often a bison tube), so neither small (doesn't have space for trades,), nor micro, as the container is too large, so Other is a handy rating for misfits like this.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would not either. I would certainly not take the offence that the CO has. If someone wrote that it would just be 'funny', as my micros are micros, smalls small. I am very careful to list them correctly. That's why some are listed as Other, because the outside container is about small sized, but only have micro capacity. So neither micro or small would fit them; therefore other.

 

They are not rock keyholders, but it similar to them in idea. Bigger outside, but only micro inside (often a bison tube), so neither small (doesn't have space for trades,), nor micro, as the container is too large, so Other is a handy rating for misfits like this.

 

This came up for discussion a few years back on our local FB caching group and the consensus was that the size rating should reflect the outside dimensions of the cache, because its primary purpose is as an aid to finding it and you can't put swag or trackables in it if you can't find it. One of my caches is a hollow odd-shaped thing with a capacity of several litres but the opening in its base is only 60mm across. Yes, you could fit a TB tag through it but you might have trouble getting it back out (the log is attached to the screw-on lid). I've listed that one as a regular (defined as 1-20 litres) as at GZ there are a gazillion places you could hide a micro or even a small but far fewer where a regular could be concealed, and if I called it an "Other" it wouldn't give anyone any help. Another one is a regular-sized toy steam locomotive with the logbook in the driver's compartment, the only part of it you can actually put something in. But most of my novelty hides like this are T3+ with the "takes more than an hour" attribute (those two I mentioned are T4), so no-one's likely to do them just to drop a TB or some swag, and I'm more concerned with someone coming away empty-handed because they spent all their time looking for a bison tube and didn't see the great big thing right under their nose. They also go a long time between finds (the first I mentioned only had two finds last year and none so far this year) so marooning TBs there isn't a good idea anyway.

 

I should also add that caches in New South Wales national parks aren't allowed to have any trackables or swag in them, so it's moot trying to take that into consideration when deciding on size. My two of those use regular-sized containers and are listed as such, mainly to make them easy to find without disturbing the surroundings.

 

 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

This came up for discussion a few years back on our local FB caching group and the consensus was that the size rating should reflect the outside dimensions of the cache, because its primary purpose is as an aid to finding it and you can't put swag or trackables in it if you can't find it.

 

It seems to be very difficult to get reliable information about the cache size. For example, you can find this:

https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2013/06/name-that-geocache-what-size-is-this/

 

And you can see this

Clipboard01.png.a718dfb9bf6c84a6598ddc272ecefb16.png

 

The definition has become more vague after simplification. Instead of the "SIZE" there could be "INTERNAL SIZE" or "EXTERNAL SIZE" to make it clear for the reader.

 

If we do not know what the size means, it is just another collectible item for statistics and a CO is using the most attractive option regardless the size of the container.

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

f I called it an "Other" it wouldn't give anyone any help

When I put this cache's - GC55AQQ - size as Other, I was asked by the reviewer to put in the description the size of the container to make it easier for the people looking for it, so hence I have written, " The item you are looking for is about the size of a small, but will only fit the log." That makes it clearer.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

When I put this cache's - GC55AQQ - size as Other, I was asked by the reviewer to put in the description the size of the container to make it easier for the people looking for it, so hence I have written, " The item you are looking for is about the size of a small, but will only fit the log." That makes it clearer.

 

Mine is a fair bit bigger, as you can see in comparison to the Garmin in the foreground, and there'd be room in the log pouch for a TB tag or geocoin, but that one was last found over four months ago so leaving trackables there really isn't such a good idea. It's also a multi with a lot of information on the cache page, so calling it "Other" and relying on some mention of the size in the text is less than ideal, particularly for someone trying to read it at the end of a gruelling T4 hike on something like that 62S.

 

20170621_094349.jpg.52b94ff1e9d2a93bc7de1c1792d35e3d.jpg

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Mine is a fair bit bigger, as you can see in comparison to the Garmin in the foreground, and there'd be room in the log pouch for a TB tag or geocoin, but that one was last found over four months ago so leaving trackables there really isn't such a good idea. It's also a multi with a lot of information on the cache page, so calling it "Other" and relying on some mention of the size in the text is less than ideal, particularly for someone trying to read it at the end of a gruelling T4 hike on something like that 62S.

 

20170621_094349.jpg.52b94ff1e9d2a93bc7de1c1792d35e3d.jpg

Lovely train. Better than mine. You could put the size comment in the hint instead of a page with lots of writing. I was told by someone else their definition of a regular and I think it's a good one (to add to the shoebox comment), is it's big enough to hold a paperback book. That would mean, also have an opening big enough as well to get the book in and out of the cache. I would call your cache an Other, as it doesn't have the internal space of a regular.

I once called one of my cache's a micro, because the log went inside a bison tube. But this was attached to a larger object. One DNF searcher grumbled about looking for a micro among rocks, and they were quite right to do this, as really it wasn't a micro, and their comment was justified. I changed it to Other.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I was told by someone else their definition of a regular and I think it's a good one (to add to the shoebox comment), is it's big enough to hold a paperback book.

 

A one litre cube (by definition a regular) is 10cm x 10cm x 10cm but a standard paperback book is 17.5cm high. They won't even fit in a 1L Sistema (which I always list as a regular), let alone a 1L milk bottle :).

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

A one litre cube (by definition a regular) is 10cm x 10cm x 10cm but a standard paperback book is 17.5cm high. They won't even fit in a 1L Sistema (which I always list as a regular), let alone a 1L milk bottle :).

I have fixed in my mind the old definition of an ammunition tin, where a paperback would fit. Yes, sadly definitions have changed.

Link to comment
On 3/4/2019 at 7:34 AM, hzoi said:

Looks about the size of a regular  typical size PET preform or PETling.

 

PETling-gross_1.png

 

I'd call either a micro.

 

Yes, definitely a Micro or at least an Other. Holds no swag, volume is under the limit. It's basically a tall film can in terms of size.

 

It's an outstanding container though - in terms of durability and reliability second only to an ammo can.

Link to comment

When I disagree with the D/T, size, or coords of a cache I simply state this in my log matter-of-factly, with a brief explanation if I feel it's needed. I do this in a log instead of a message so that other seekers can see it and may find it useful - especially if the CO doesn't change anything. 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, arisoft said:

The reason is to present the cache more attractive than it really is. Getting more finders is the reason to gloss over the attributes.

 

A small is "more attractive" than a micro?  Other than the swag size seekers (who aren't being tossed aside because someone incorrectly listed them as smalls), the only real attractions I can think of are twofold - one is that it's supposedly easier to find than a micro and for those out for a challenge related to the size of the cache they find.  Neither one of these options really benefits the hider in any manner.  I don't think I've ever come across a challenge related to hiding statistics (maybe there is one?), so I don't think that's it either.  I don't think more people are going to look for smalls over micros, despite what LOne.R might believe.  There are certainly people who will actively seek out smalls or larger, but not in exclusion to micro, other, or unknown.  I don't know many cachers who completely ignore miros like LOne.R.  I know plenty of cachers who prefer smalls and larger over micros, but not to the point of excluding micros from their caching.  

 

17 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Probably not anymore. Those cachers have stopped caching. Most of the cachers who are left barely care if there's a cache there, just so long as the listing is active. But for the few of us who filter out micros and prefer caches with more than a log sheet, we shouldn't be tossed aside in order to degrade the game to it's minimal standard. We can all enjoy the activity when we can use the tools appropriately. 

 

You really believe this?  I would guess that the large majority of the cachers on this forum don't fit into that description.  Many of the cachers in my area, who aren't on the forums, don't fit into that description either.  There are certainly some that are concerned with numbers but they're the minority in my area, not the majority.  For you to insinuate that an incorrectly listed size cache is equivalent to tossing you aside is an overreach on your part.  It's also not degrading the game to a minimal standard.  I would venture to guess that the majority of incorrectly sized caches that are listed are done innocently because of a variety of reasons, none of which are purposeful or mean-sprited.  While it would be great if all caches were listed correctly (and all attributes are applied correctly, and all caches are maintained appropriately, etc..), not everyone dots their "i"s or crosses their "t"s in the same manner.  One community's small is another community's micro.  As noted, there are quite a few descriptions that give varying descriptions of sizing of a cache.

 

16 hours ago, arisoft said:

You should ask, do the cache owner think that there is more players interested in small caches than micros? Yes he does, because small caches are easier to find.

 

While this seems to make sense, it's the D rating that determines the ease in which a cache should be found, not the size.  You tell me which should be easier to find - a 1.5 D rated micro or a 3 D rated small?  Generally speaking, smalls should be easier to find because they're larger but I would venture to guess that there are LOTS more 1.5 D micros than there are 1.5 D smalls.  If cachers are concerned about the ease of the find, they have plenty of options available.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I would venture to guess that the majority of incorrectly sized caches that are listed are done innocently because of a variety of reasons, none of which are purposeful or mean-sprited.

 

I agree with this completely.  But ... it is disappointing that so many CO’s seem reluctant to change the attributes of their caches when clear issues are reported.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

But ... it is disappointing that so many CO’s seem reluctant to change the attributes of their caches when clear issues are reported.

 

Agreed but I still don't believe that it's that big a deal.  Cachers aren't being excluded from caching because the small isn't really a small.  While it's certainly disappointing if they had hoped to drop off something, it's a good bet that a CO somewhere else would love to have someone come find their cache and trade out some swag.  There's usually somewhere else to go to find what you're looking for, even if it's somewhat more difficult to filter out from the mass of caches that are out there.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

Agreed but I still don't believe that it's that big a deal.  Cachers aren't being excluded from caching because the small isn't really a small.  While it's certainly disappointing if they had hoped to drop off something

 

I am disappointed if the CO is trying to make cache more difficult by giving misleading hints. Size is a hint and it should be correct to make me happy. What do you think if there is a hint "under a rock" and the cache is hanging in a tree?

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

 

I agree with this completely.  But ... it is disappointing that so many CO’s seem reluctant to change the attributes of their caches when clear issues are reported.

 

Agreed. And it's disappointing when COs choose not to use the tools correctly. When used correctly, it gives everyone a level playing field. It's courteous and fair and respectful. 

Edited by L0ne.R
sentence structure
Link to comment
9 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

I am usually verry clear about a cache. Wether I find it good or bad. Doesn´t matter to me. A honest feedback is never wrong. Sometimes I might overpace with criticism or wording, but it verry rarely happend that a log was beeing deleted.

At the end some people are more open to objective feedback, others take it as an offence.

I think you did nothing wrong, even highliting the issue boldly is appropriate from my perspective. I´d have never delet a log like this.

Well, from the OP's own description, this isn't just honest feedback highlighting a difference of opinion about the size: this is insisting the posted size is wrong and demanding over and over, with increasing emphasis, that the size be changed. I agree the CO overreacted and deleted the log without justification, but I can understand why he might be annoyed even though I'd tell him he shouldn't be annoyed, and I'd object strongly to him expressing his annoyance by abusing his authority.

 

7 hours ago, arisoft said:

It seems to be very difficult to get reliable information about the cache size.

Size can't be defined precisely because there are too many variables. And we shouldn't expect it to be. I think the example you've found is illuminating, being a statement from GS that clearly indicates the OP is wrong about what the right size of this cache is. I don't agree with the blog any more than the OP does, and I still agree the best size for this container is micro, but it's important to note that our position is, in a sense, officially a matter of opinion.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, coachstahly said:

While this seems to make sense, it's the D rating that determines the ease in which a cache should be found, not the size.  You tell me which should be easier to find - a 1.5 D rated micro or a 3 D rated small?  Generally speaking, smalls should be easier to find because they're larger but I would venture to guess that there are LOTS more 1.5 D micros than there are 1.5 D smalls.  If cachers are concerned about the ease of the find, they have plenty of options available

 

No need to guess, the figures world-wide on 1.5 D caches are:

  • Micro - 628,256
  • Small - 438, 225
  • Regular - 128,348
  • Large - 6561

So yes, there are more 1.5 D micros than 1.5 D smalls, but not by that great a margin. Around my own local area (16km radius from home) it's the other way around:

  • Micro - 13
  • Small - 38
  • Regular - 11
  • Large - 3
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have fixed in my mind the old definition of an ammunition tin, where a paperback would fit. Yes, sadly definitions have changed.

 

If the definitions have changed, it hasn't been during the time I've been caching, as I remember when I first started in 2013 seeing those volume ranges of less than 100ml for micro, 100ml to 1l for small, 1l to 20l for regular and more than 20l for large. An ammo can is a regular, but it's not at the bottom of the range for regulars. This cash box I used on my most recent hide is about 1.5 litres so it's well within the range to be called a regular but it's considerably smaller than an ammo can and a paperback novel won't fit in it.

 

image.png.7528608c1af6521d71a85fc4bf9d8598.png

Link to comment
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This came up for discussion a few years back on our local FB caching group and the consensus was that the size rating should reflect the outside dimensions of the cache, because its primary purpose is as an aid to finding it and you can't put swag or trackables in it if you can't find it.

Hmm... I don't recall seeing much of a consensus, but I tend to come down on the other side: What matters is the size of the actual container, not the camouflage surrounding it. If I embed a blinker or a Bison tube in a huge log, then the geocache, the thing seekers are looking for, is the micro-size container. Finding the large-size log does them no good unless they spot the micro-size container embedded in it.

 

 

8 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

That's actually a pretty useful guide. There are a couple examples where it's hard to tell from the photo how big the container really is, and there are a couple changes I'd make, but overall it's pretty useful. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, niraD said:

Hmm... I don't recall seeing much of a consensus, but I tend to come down on the other side: What matters is the size of the actual container, not the camouflage surrounding it. If I embed a blinker or a Bison tube in a huge log, then the geocache, the thing seekers are looking for, is the micro-size container. Finding the large-size log does them no good unless they spot the micro-size container embedded in it.

 

The consensus was on our local FB group here and I don't recall anyone at the time mounting a counter-argument. So how would you rate my locomotive cache? Is the loco (about a foot long) just camo (not very well camouflaged if it is) and the actual cache just the plastic pouch containing the logbook that gets put into the driver's compartment? While the length and breadth of that log protector are big enough to hold a TB tag or geocoin, I'm not sure it has enough depth to push it out of the micro size range.

 

20170621_094349.jpg.52b94ff1e9d2a93bc7de1c1792d35e3d.jpg

 

As I said earlier, basing the size rating of that one on fitting TBs into it doesn't make much sense as it's a tough T4 (almost a T4.5) and any TB left there is likely to be marooned for a long time.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So how would you rate my locomotive cache? Is the loco (about a foot long) just camo (not very well camouflaged if it is) and the actual cache just the plastic pouch containing the logbook that gets put into the driver's compartment? While the length and breadth of that log protector are big enough to hold a TB tag or geocoin, I'm not sure it has enough depth to push it out of the micro size range.

In cases like this where it doesn't fit cleanly into any of the sizes, Other is probably the best option. Then, like Goldenwattle mentioned in an earlier post, mention in the description that the cache can only hold very small trade items or trackables, but that seekers are looking for something larger.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 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...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...