What size caches do finders prefer?

[+barefootjeff]

From time to time in the Irks thread (and elsewhere in these forums), there are complaints about the scourge of micros dominating the game board. So, with some free time on my hands and a freshly-paid membership on Project GC, I thought I'd do some playing with statistics in my own region (New South Wales Central Coast, Australia). This region is a bit odd, in that micros are in third place behind smalls and regulars in cache numbers, but nonetheless the distribution of find logs during 2022 is interesting:

 

Size               Caches           2022 Finds           Finds per cache        Caches with no 2022 finds

Micro                119                  1167                           9.8                                         8

Small                216                  1501                           8.2                                       33

Regular            130                    554                            5.4                                       27

Large                  13                    160                          12.3                                        0

Virtual/EC          13                    116                            8.9                                        0

 

So it looks like the moral is, if you want to please the community, hide a Large or a Micro and avoid Regulars like the plague. I guess the places where COs put Regulars are the sort of places finders don't want to go.

 

Of course there are no statistics available for Adventure Labs since they're all top secret, but the stats on AL bonus caches might give a bit of an idea of how they compare:

 

AL Bonus Caches          2022 Finds           Finds per cache         Caches with no 2022 finds

             11                            160                             14.5                                          0

 

As expected, these are the most popular of all.

[+Goldenwattle]

I prefer caches to be at least a small; big enough for trinkets and TBs. I enjoy finding ammunition tins (regular size.) It's fun to find a large, but too many of this size would be excessive, and unnecessary. An occasional one is fun.

Last night I was planning my next road trip and was listing caches to find. I often bypassed anything smaller than a small, so that shows my preference. If there are too many caches, I will ignore the micros, unless needed for a challenge, or some other reason. Some of the routes I have driven before and if the only caches left are micros I will then find them. Micros are low down in my choices.

[+barefootjeff]

57 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

It's fun to find a large, but too many of this size would be excessive, and unnecessary. An occasional one is fun.

 

The Large caches on the Central Coast are mostly novelty ones, like the amazingly-constructed Wizard of Oz series in Halloran. It's not surprising that they're pretty popular with finders.

[+Jayeffel]

I prefer caches that have room for TBs, that are hand size or bigger. Most of what I find lately are the nano containers and key holders. A lot of newer caches seem to be aimed for those seeking the east caches. 

[+lee737]

Same here, large enough for a proper booklet/pen/TB. Saying that a bunch of ours have been micro of late, but at the larger end of micro, generally a 3D printed outer that protects a bison or preform tube containing a bone dry logsheet/booklet and pencil. We must hide some more regulars.....

[+Gill & Tony]

I really don't care about the size, but I HATE micros in the woods when a decent sized container could be used.

 

A 20 gallon bucket in an urban are would be silly (although someone will probably show me one which isn't).  A bison tube hanging in a tree 500m from the nearest road?  Yuck!

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

I really don't care about the size, but I HATE micros in the woods when a decent sized container could be used.

 

Yep, unless I'm trying to drop off a TB, I'm not overly fussed about cache size, with location being a much bigger factor in picking what caches I attempt. Often, on my caching trips away there's only a small handful of available caches anyway (sometimes only one) so I can't afford to be fussy. One thing that does irk me with micros, though, are ones where there's a myriad of potential hiding places for it but no hint. I've walked away empty-handed on some of those. Lee's micros are great, though, I've never had any trouble with those.

 

A month ago I placed a regular-sized 1.5/3.5 traditional, a plastic ammo can, and, at the time, had a fair-sized trackable I needed to move on so I placed it in it. That cache has had just two finds and, not only is that trackable still there, one of the finders dropped another one to keep it company. Maybe I should have made it a micro instead so it wouldn't become a TB prison. If they're still there after another month or so, I'll go out to retrieve them and move them to the awesome TB hotel we found in Hornsby the weekend before last.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I'm in Florida. Micro numbers are pumped by numerous roadside power trails, but also because the large amount of public land that is either seasonal flooded (bad for Regulars that drown or float away) or is scrub and flatwoods that gets a prescribed burn every few years (destroys expensive ammo cans) limits the number of regulars.

 

The search is the part of geocaching that interests me the least. I also enjoy learning. Thus good Virtuals and Earthcaches (which should all be size Virtual but aren't) are my favorite.

 

Regular is my second favorite. You might expect Large, but I find rural Larges are more likely to have messy contents and less likely to be in an interesting area due to difficulty moving them.

 

It's hard to say if like Smalls more than Micros. Unless I know what the container is, a Small could be anywhere (Micros are almost never on the ground; Regular and Large are nearly always on the ground). Probably half the caches listed as Small should actually be Micros. On the other hand, I hate shrub hunts (will usually give no more than a minute then walk away) and Micros tucked into the v-shaped "boot" of a palm tree. I'm too blind for those. I probably hold the world record for most DNF'd GRIMs for the same reason.

 

Needless to say, not a fan of Nanos.

 

I would search for size Other if it actually meant unusual containers, but it often just means Nano or "it's a Micro but I want to add to the difficulty by not telling you what you're looking for."

 

My Finds are currently at 30% Micro, 25% Regular, and 19% Small but this is reflective of what caches are available not what I prefer. For comparison, most very active cachers in Florida have over 50% Micros. The number that isn't tracked is how many Small, Micro, and Other caches I walked right by without searching for, often because I never added them to my GSAK database.

[+Goldenwattle]

17 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Probably half the caches listed as Small should actually be Micros.

I remember trying to drop off a TB I brought from London that wanted to go to a particular suburb in Sydney and I was trying to do this. Cache after cache I visited were micros listed as smalls. It got VERY annoying and did nothing to make the game enjoyable. Finally I found a real small and could leave the TB in that. It's not hard to rate the cache size correctly. Those &%$@ & NANOs, they are the cause of many wrong size ratings.

 

21 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I hate shrub hunts

You would have hated my caching trip today. Bush bashing through dense vegetation. After more than an hour we had only got 100 to 200 metres closer to the cache. Called it a day, but will try again.

 

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

8 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

A 20 gallon bucket in an urban area would be silly (although someone will probably show me one which isn't).  A bison tube hanging in a tree 500m from the nearest road?  Yuck!

Check out the pictures on the caches of the Fargo/Moorhead Geotour. A number of them are regular sized ammo cans, inside of larger containers. One is a large, walk-in 'Ammo Can' complete with solar powered lighting. From the outside, it looks like an outbuilding painted green. Beer keg with a door on the side behind a bar, a gadget cache in a box hanging on a fence, a giant 'birdhouse' on a pole near a university research station. They just blending in with the surroundings. I was amazed to find so many regular sized caches in an urban setting. Not large, but some of them could have been. (They would have needed better weatherproofing, that is probably why they were containers within containers.)

[+cerberus1]

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So it looks like the moral is, if you want to please the community, hide a Large or a Micro and avoid Regulars like the plague. I guess the places where COs put Regulars are the sort of places finders don't want to go.

 

Ammo cans are "regular"...

We used to like ammo cans the best.  Plenty of room for swag and trackables, we'd leave umbrellas in ammo cans as swag sometimes.

 - Woulda been nice if folks used them to cover containers in the rain while signing logs...

But now that trade got replaced by take, and even ammo cans have a rolled-up piece of paper called a "log", that's all changed for me.

I might leave an unactivated coin just to get someone to walk (if they even noticed my log...), but I don't care what size the container is any more.

I prefer a long walk or something physical and those caches are rare, so now I consider the container simply a necessity to say I was there...

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by cerberus1

[+ADKer]

4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Cache after cache I visited were micros listed as smalls. It got VERY annoying and did nothing to make the game enjoyable. Finally I found a real small and could leave the TB in that. It's not hard to rate the cache size correctly. Those &%$@ & NANOs, they are the cause of many wrong size ratings.

 

This is 100% because a lot of people think "nano" sized caches are what micro is, then film canister sizes must be small. 

It's been said a thousand times, but an official nano size would help stop the "size creep" that's been going on.

[+CheekyBrit]

Large size are always so satisfying to find but I'm also a fan of the 'not chosen' size since they are pretty rare.

[+JL_HSTRE]

1 hour ago, ADKer said:

It's been said a thousand times, but an official nano size would help stop the "size creep" that's been going on.

 

What's kind of baffling to me is the whole nano size thing was already a request before I started caching in 2010. It's gone a long time seemingly ignored by TPTB.

 

My understanding is Groundspeak was concerned that adding another, smaller size would break too much firmware. That shouldn't really be an issue anymore since updates are much easier to come by with the internet, the API exists, and lots of people use apps. Presumably you could also have some kind of user-specific toggle whether you want your nanos downloaded as nanos, or changed to micros. If geocaching.com can't handle that (GPX 1.0.3?) then I'm sure GSAK and other free programs could.

[+JL_HSTRE]

1 minute ago, CheekyBrit said:

Large size are always so satisfying to find but I'm also a fan of the 'not chosen' size since they are pretty rare.

 

I think Not Chosen is no longer an option for physical caches. Old caches were grandfathered but new ones can only select the four main sizes or Other.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

and even ammo cans have a rolled-up piece of paper called a "log", that's all changed for me.

 

There's a 2005 ammo can cache I adopted that still has its original novel-sized logbook. After 214 finds it's still only about half full.

 

 

I did much the same with the regular I placed about a month ago:

 

 

It's probably an overkill since, being a regular around here, its find count is unlikely to ever get into double digits (currently 2), but the sort of cachers who still go after ones like this often write more than just their name in the logbook.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, ADKer said:

It's been said a thousand times, but an official nano size would help stop the "size creep" that's been going on.

A few of those "thousand times" are my comments 

[+vw_k]

I enjoy finding regular or large caches mostly for the ability to actually fit a trackable in them and also because you can get a decent sized logbook. But I've noticed recently that even when a cache is in an interesting spot with a good sized logbook the written logs over the last few years have gotten shorter and shorter. One example I found recently had a logbook that was over 10 years old, most entries from 10 years ago were a short paragraph taking up half a page or a longer entry taking up a whole page. But the most recent page was just single line entries of date, username and the occasional "TFTC". If cachers aren't even going to write interesting entries in logboks any more and it's all about just signing a name and getting a smiley then I can understand why people wouldn't bother placing larger size caches.

A logbook large enough for interesting entries is the best thing about larger caches for me, I rarely see any swag in them worth trading for these days, mostly McDonalds toys, rusty keyrings etc and in our climate they're usually damp.

[+barefootjeff]

8 minutes ago, vw_k said:

I enjoy finding regular or large caches mostly for the ability to actually fit a trackable in them and also because you can get a decent sized logbook. But I've noticed recently that even when a cache is in an interesting spot with a good sized logbook the written logs over the last few years have gotten shorter and shorter. One example I found recently had a logbook that was over 10 years old, most entries from 10 years ago were a short paragraph taking up half a page or a longer entry taking up a whole page. But the most recent page was just single line entries of date, username and the occasional "TFTC". If cachers aren't even going to write interesting entries in logboks any more and it's all about just signing a name and getting a smiley then I can understand why people wouldn't bother placing larger size caches.

A logbook large enough for interesting entries is the best thing about larger caches for me, I rarely see any swag in them worth trading for these days, mostly McDonalds toys, rusty keyrings etc and in our climate they're usually damp.

 

Writing more than just a name is still a fairly common practice here, at least amongst the more established players. These are from my regular-sized multi GC9M6X5 which was published just on a year ago:

 

 

That cache has only had 5 finds, though, and is unlikely to make it to double digits. Newer players who just see caching as a phone game generally don't write much, either in the logbook or online, and often sign the log with their real name rather than their caching name. Weird.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Newer players who just see caching as a phone game generally don't write much, either in the logbook or online, and often sign the log with their real name rather than their caching name.

I signed the logs on my first 4 finds with my real name, because I hadn't created my account yet. Some of the people I've introduced to geocaching have done the same on their first geocaching hike with me. Sometimes not just their first geocaching hike with me even...

 

I tend to write more in the log when there is an actual log book. I've especially enjoyed having an actual log book for the final of a good puzzle, because then I can write about my experience solving the puzzle without spoiling it for others. But if it's a log sheet, or if I'm with others who don't want to sit around and write more in a log book, then I write only name and date.

 

Regarding the original question, I trade only for personal signature items left by other geocachers, and not many geocachers are making/leaving those any more, so I don't trade much. And I do enjoy clever "hidden in plain sight" camouflage, which often involves smaller (micro or nano) containers. At this point, there's a certain novelty in finding a container that is more than a micro or small, but the novelty is the only appeal. They're usually hidden in less interesting ways.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, vw_k said:

I enjoy finding regular or large caches mostly for the ability to actually fit a trackable in them and also because you can get a decent sized logbook. But I've noticed recently that even when a cache is in an interesting spot with a good sized logbook the written logs over the last few years have gotten shorter and shorter. One example I found recently had a logbook that was over 10 years old, most entries from 10 years ago were a short paragraph taking up half a page or a longer entry taking up a whole page. But the most recent page was just single line entries of date, username and the occasional "TFTC". If cachers aren't even going to write interesting entries in logboks any more and it's all about just signing a name and getting a smiley then I can understand why people wouldn't bother placing larger size caches.

A logbook large enough for interesting entries is the best thing about larger caches for me, I rarely see any swag in them worth trading for these days, mostly McDonalds toys, rusty keyrings etc and in our climate they're usually damp.

I see larger size caches as for placing TBs and trinkets, not so much for the log, but if a bigger log would fit (without taking all the room) I would place one.  I don't expect more than name and date, but a big log doesn't fill up quickly and needs less maintenance. I only put name and date, even in a big log. I do the proper log online. I did once come upon a cache with a large log and a story going. You were meant to write a paragraph and continue the story. I did. Other people were too, but that was years ago. I can't imagine a lot of today's beginner cachers being able to comprehend this. A proper small sized cache should be large enough for TBs and small trinkets. I seem to remember a definition of a 'small' was  big enough for TBs and small trinkets. Pity we no long have that definition, as that makes it clear what a small is. If it's not big enough for this, it's either a micro, or an 'other'.

 

"I rarely see any swag in them worth trading for these days"

I once found over $30 in a cache. I am leaving jewelry (I have a lot of this) I have inherited and other things that came with that. It's costume jewelry (the real stuff I am not giving away), but some of it is very good costume jewelry. I got a thank you note for a pair of earrings I left in one cache. They were very ornate. Pretend diamonds.

I rarely trade, as I see very little I want, but if I find something I just take it. A small notebook...the money . I have left more in value than what have have taken, and that includes that money.

[Moun10Bike]

On 1/16/2023 at 6:10 PM, barefootjeff said:

So it looks like the moral is, if you want to please the community, hide a Large or a Micro and avoid Regulars like the plague. I guess the places where COs put Regulars are the sort of places finders don't want to go.

 

I suspect that this conclusion is based on reduction fallacy. Any chance that the regulars are further away from where the cachers are located, trend higher in D/T ratings, or any number of other factors? I know that I generally prefer regulars to most any other size.

[+JL_HSTRE]

3 hours ago, vw_k said:

But I've noticed recently that even when a cache is in an interesting spot with a good sized logbook the written logs over the last few years have gotten shorter and shorter. One example I found recently had a logbook that was over 10 years old, most entries from 10 years ago were a short paragraph taking up half a page or a longer entry taking up a whole page. But the most recent page was just single line entries of date, username and the occasional "TFTC". If cachers aren't even going to write interesting entries in logboks any more and it's all about just signing a name and getting a smiley then I can understand why people wouldn't bother placing larger size caches.

 

Why should I write a long paper log in my mediocre penmanship when I'm going to write a longer digital log online when I get home?

[+niraD]

4 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Why should I write a long paper log in my mediocre penmanship when I'm going to write a longer digital log online when I get home?

I do it as a way to pause and reflect on the experience of finding the cache. And occasionally, I do it as a way to comment on the process of solving an interesting puzzle without spoiling the puzzle by posting my comments online.

[+barefootjeff]

10 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

 

I suspect that this conclusion is based on reduction fallacy. Any chance that the regulars are further away from where the cachers are located, trend higher in D/T ratings, or any number of other factors? I know that I generally prefer regulars to most any other size.

 

Yes, as I said, it's more likely an aversion to the sort of places regulars are likely to be placed than a particular dislike of that size range. Looking at the stats on my own 18 Central Coast regulars, the average number of finds in 2022 was just 2.6 (half the region's average for regulars) and three got no finds at all. They're all in places I like to visit, a mixture of waterfalls, scenic views and sandstone caves, but all require a bit of time and sweat to get to so they can't compete with urban micros for players with limited caching time or who are just looking to up their find count (or rescue Signal from the labyrinth). None are particularly remote, with parking waypoints all within half an hour's drive of Gosford City or one of the M1 motorway interchanges:

 

 

By contrast, the region's most popular micro with 44 finds in 2022 is a magnetic film canister attached to a road sign in suburban Woy Woy. Nuff said.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

17 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Why should I write a long paper log in my mediocre penmanship when I'm going to write a longer digital log online when I get home?

 

One reason could be that they're for two audiences.

 

I've written stuff in logbooks I'd never write online because it's for the people who come after me; the people with whom I've shared an accomplishment. We're kinda in the same club. WE'RE the ones who've looked this experience in the eye and conquered it.

 

For example, I might write in the physical log for a tough cache something like, "Holy CRAP! Can you believe what you and I just did to get this?!!!"

[+AJB3023]

Myself I prefer small and larger. I enjoy hiking so I dont mind a bit of a walk or hike to find one. Im also thinking I might make some wood tokens or something for folks who are collectors. In fact theres one a few miles from me that I want to find but I need to get a little better  shape to do so. Going after it in the fall after spending the summer camping and caching and hiking.

[+GeoElmo6000]

I prefer nano caches.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Not really.

[+geodarts]

On my profile I describe myself as an ammo can in the woods kind of cacher.  There is something about them that is satisfying.  Perhaps the way the box closes.

 

But size matters less to me than the reason for being in a location.  Several years ago someone pointed out a cache that was placed in a parking lot because there were mo other caches there — his comment was that I guess the game is changing.  He was right.

 

I don’t mind micros if they are appropriate to an area and there is some reason for me to be there, other than to find a cache.  Searching just to search is search is the least important thing about this game.  
 

 

[+colleda]

Any size for me so long as they have good coordinates, are accurately described and well maintained.

[+Mysterion604]

I guess I like regular and small sized. Large is good, but a specialty / novelty thing, placement-wise.

Like many others, micros in the woods, in places where one could easily put a bigger cache without any concealment problems, is something I find cruel / pointless.

 

However, my least favourite size is "other". When I see that, I expect a container type that is some kind of custom job, with a shape that's undefined. However, in practice,  I have found caches listed as other that could just have been called small, micro, etc. (with some unusual concealment).

 

 

[+phx802_11]

I don't mind micros if that's what works at GZ. It's the massive amount of nanos that I'm not a huge fan of.

[+Goldenwattle]

11 hours ago, phx802_11 said:

I don't mind micros if that's what works at GZ. It's the massive amount of nanos that I'm not a huge fan of.

That's one reason it would be good if nanos had their own rating. So those who don't like nanos can ignore them and not bother with them.