Cache size "Other"

[+barefootjeff]

In the past I've used "Other" when it's been a novelty container with a large outside volume (typically regular-sized) but has little in the way of internal volume for anything beyond the log, such as this skull that has the logbook inside a pouch in its mouth, that was published without question as an Other in 2022:

 

 

On my latest cache submission, though, which has a kangaroo jack-in-the-box toy with the logbook in its pouch and the whole thing a snug fit inside a regular-sized outer container, the reviewer knocked it back, asking me to change the size to Regular and saying "we reserve the size "other" for flat caches or things that have no significant volume." 

 

 

The Help Centre says for Other, "Some containers just don't fit into size categories, like a magnetic sheet with a logbook attached" but I thought a magnetic sheet with a logbook attached isn't even allowed now as the container must fully encapsulate the log.

 

I don't want to argue with the reviewer over this so I've just changed it to Regular and resubmitted, but I'm still scratching my head about the best way to convey this type of container that's big on the outside but tiny on the inside and thus unsuitable for swag or trackables. I can imagine someone doing the long steep hike to GZ lugging with them a sack of trackables they want to leave in the regular-sized container only to be thwarted by the micro-sized kangaroo's pouch when they get there.

 

I'm confused.

Edited February 13 by barefootjeff

[+funkymunkyzone]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm confused.

 

I'm with you on that - I thought it was, within reason, at your discretion what size to choose, and sounds to me like Other would have been appropriate here.

 

I suppose you could always state in the description that the cache is not suitable for trackables or swag...?

[+Max and 99]

"Other" seems most appropriate. 

[+Goldenwattle]

Other seems the most accurate rating for those caches, as consideration should be given whether or not they will fit at least one trackable (small), etc, which a small and larger cache (several trackables) should be able to. I did have one cache I rated 'other' and the reviewer asked me to say in the description what size people were looking for, but didn't knock back 'other'. So I wrote, you are looking for an object about small sized, but was able to use other.

 

If an object doesn't have the internal size to match it's outside, it should be 'other'. Very frustrating to arrive with trackables or trinkets and find a micro sized interior and they won't fit. I don't agree with the reviewer.

[+MartyBartfast]

I would also classify that as Other, and have seen many similar such hides.

I've also seen Other used where the container is particularly well camoed so as not to make it to obvious to the searcher.

 

Quote

 "we reserve the size "other" for flat caches or things that have no significant volume." 

It's the first time I've heard that, and it certainly doesn't apply to the 8 "Other" sized hides I have placed.

[+baer2006]

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

we reserve the size "other" for flat caches or things that have no significant volume." 

This policy has been in effect here in Germany for a long time (at least a decade, I'd guess).

[+GeoElmo6000]

The size question is always a question to me for non-standard containers.  Is the cache size the size of the host of the log or the container that houses the log? For example, when I see a description saying something is small, should I be visually filtering on small size items or could it be a large item that houses a small container?  That's just my normal geocaching conundrum.

[+x7Kevin]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

On my latest cache submission, though, which has a kangaroo jack-in-the-box toy with the logbook in its pouch and the whole thing a snug fit inside a regular-sized outer container, the reviewer knocked it back, asking me to change the size to Regular and saying "we reserve the size "other" for flat caches or things that have no significant volume." 

 

 

Yes, to me the jack-in-the-box is exactly what the 'other' size is for, I have one that's a small skeleton with a bison attached. The container is a micro but that would be confusing to list as that size since it's a large object that cachers are finding.

 

I think maybe it's hard to tell from the picture, but even if the outer box was empty it doesn't look like a regular, but barely a small? If a reviewer didn't let me list that as other for some reason then I would list as micro since it seems like it can only hold a small logbook? 

 

I actually thought container size and D/T ratings weren't even reviewed and that it's subjective based on the hiders opinion, but I guess they can request for you to change those aspects.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, x7Kevin said:

I think maybe it's hard to tell from the picture, but even if the outer box was empty it doesn't look like a regular, but barely a small? If a reviewer didn't let me list that as other for some reason then I would list as micro since it seems like it can only hold a small logbook? 

 

The jack-in-the-box, when closed, is about a 15cm cube (3.4 litres) and the outer container, a plastic box it's a fairly snug fit into and what people will be searching for when they arrive at GZ, is slightly larger, so I wouldn't want to be listing that as a micro as that would have people searching in places a micro might be placed (an extreme needle in a haystack there) rather than somewhere suitable for a regular.

 

Anyway, it's been published now as a regular. I should add that this wasn't our regular reviewer, but one from interstate who's covering for him while he's away.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Since when did Reviewers pay attention to cache size???