New And Seperate Icon For Micro's

[+The Jedi]

I have only been caching for about three months, but it seems to me that it would be nice to have a totally separate icon for the micro's (or smaller) instead of the "traditional cache" green box lid icon!

Creating a different type of cache icon would make it easier for most people to know right away if it is a cache with just a log or a larger cache with other stuff inside! Then on your cache page you could track how many of the tiny caches you have found . This would help both those people who don't enjoy finding micros and those that really enjoy finding them .

I don't know if this would be possible. I just wanted to see what peoples' thoughts were on the subject.

Thanks,

Woodie

[+tanstaafl]

I think that a micro icon would be a nice but not necessary item. I'd support it though.

[+IMLost]

I agree that Micros should have their own icons. I could never understand why they didn't they surely aren't traditional cache containers.

[+Red Clover]

I can see the need for a micro icon.. but I do think they are "traditional" cache containers in the respect that they are physical as opposed to Virts, Webcams, Locationless etc. It would be nice to have a diff icon but not really necessary for me personally.

 

Thank god for PQ!

[+greengecko]

As often explained in other threads micros are a cache size, not a cache type. The cache type is indicated by the icon. The size is indicated on the cache page.

[+TeamK-9]

But who's to say you couldn't reinvent micro as a cache type...

[+BeachBuddies]

I think the more attributes (such as container size) that we could search on, the better.

 

However, there would be some issues to resolve. What exactly constitues "microness"? Is it the container size alone? I've seen some pretty small caches that still had trade items (such as coins or pins). If so, what size? I guess most would agree that film canisters are certainly micros. How about the 2x3x4" decon canisters? Those are pretty small, but maybe not micros. Though out in the woods they can be quite hard to find.

 

What about the "inside" size? The gc.com fake rocks are not small, but they certainly don't hold much. PVC containers can be quite long, but the opening isn't big enough for most trade trinkets.

 

Is it the fact that the cache only contains a log, and no trade items? That seems like a reasonable distinction. But then you'd probably want to make a new icon for "logbook only" caches, and size would be less relevant. It would probably lead to fewer traditional trading caches too, since having it's own category would probably encourage easier-to-place log-only caches.

 

What about multis that have some micros and some other parts?

 

Overall, I don't really care so much about the icon or separate category; but I do think we should be able to easily search for (and filter by) all sorts of attributes. These includes size, water caches, night caches, puzzle caches, etc.

[+wildearth2001]

i don't see a problem with the way it is, OR with what you are proposing...both sound good

[+TeamK-9]

I think maybe making micro a cache type with the distinction being anything smaller than about 3"x4"x2" or something around maybe a sandwich sized tupperware container...

[+greengecko]

But who's to say you couldn't reinvent micro as a cache type...

Because whether they’re a micro, regular, or large container size they are all the same type, traditional.

[+southdeltan]

But who's to say you couldn't reinvent micro as a cache type...

Because whether they’re a micro, regular, or large container size they are all the same type, traditional.

I never understood the arguement about the containers. Obviously micros are smaller, hence the name. Saying "The difference in the 2 is the size" is repetitive at the least.

 

For me, the difference between a traditional-regular and traditional-micro is more than just a difference in container size. The hunt/experience is vastly different in my opinion - and obviously in the opinion of many others - since this topic KEEPS coming up again and again (newbies and oldbies alike).

 

I support either a new cache type or new icon for Micros.

 

southdeltan

[+geckoee]

Edit: Looks like southdeltan beat me to the post. Sorry for the redundancy.

 

But who's to say you couldn't reinvent micro as a cache type...

Because whether they’re a micro, regular, or large container size they are all the same type, traditional.

This gecko is going to have to side with the other gecko.

 

You can filter them out if you don't or do like them. That's what PQ is for. A lot of people see them as a different cache type because caches with trade items are typically called traditional in the threads, and micro's refer to a container with just a log, and maybe some room for some coins. Even though there is this clear difference, they are the same cache type, just different sizes

 

The Size of that container determines if it is a micro-trad, or larger-trad (macro-trad if you will)

 

Traditional is defined as

 

Traditional Caches

 

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.  The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("microcache") too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with just an object or codeword for verification may NOT be approved if the cache does not also include a logbook.

 

If it's not broken, don't fix it. There are simple ways to find or avoid micros. Personaly, I think the system works just dandy.

Edited March 22, 2004 by geckoee

[+greengecko]

For me, the difference between a traditional-regular and traditional-micro is more than just a difference in container size.  The hunt/experience is vastly different in my opinion - and obviously in the opinion of many others - since this topic KEEPS coming up again and again (newbies and oldbies alike).

The issue of "hunt/experience" relates to "difficulty" which is also included on the cache page.

Edited March 22, 2004 by greengecko

[+RJFerret]

I rate my micros as a higher difficulty as appropriate, but to add to this discussion, where do multis with micro info stages leading to full-size container fit?

 

I agree that type should not be used to discriminate size...

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

[+greengecko]

I would consider the size of a multi-cache to be the size of the final stage. Stages before the final are only limited by the imagination.

[+katguy]

Most of the third party tools like watcher and gsak already have provisions for filtering by cache size, so this would really not add much in the way of function and might instead open the door for more trouble than its worth (just what size qualifies as micro, what about an icon for minis, extra-larges, ...) My $0.02.

 

edit: left out a critical not

Edited March 22, 2004 by katguy

[+greengecko]

My $0.02.

Hum... would that be change or small change?

[inventorjg]

How about a picture of a film canister for a micro icon.

[+southdeltan]

The issue of "hunt/experience" relates to "Difficulty" which is also included on the cache page.

No, it does not. (That is not what I meant at all)

 

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with how hard it is to find. I'd say half of the micros I've found took me less than 5 minutes to locate. There were some that took over 30 minutes and a few I couldn't find. There have been ammo cans that fit all of those descriptions as well. I think the percentages of both are similar.

 

The size of a container doesn't automatically mean that it will be hard to find. There are an insane amount of throw-away micros out there. I'd say that most micros I've found have taken me similar amounts of time to find as traditionals (minus the hike time, if applicable).

 

The HUNT is totally different. The experience I have when searching for a micro (film cannister, waterproof match holder, magnetic keyholder, etc) is vastly different than the experience of hunting for a regular sized container. You don't look in the same types of places, you don't get the contents, they're harder to process (sign the log) without being seen - etc etc etc.

 

Using PQ's to sort is a cop-out in my opinion. I don't often (and I know I'm not alone, there are thousands upon thousands of geocachers) use PQ's to plan my trips.

 

A new icon wouldn't hurt anything and would simplify it for the many of us who find this to be problematic. It wouldn't require much work either (for those who claim - Jeremy should be working on something useful - you know ... the stuff *I* want).

 

southdeltan

Edited March 22, 2004 by southdeltan

[Geo Sooner]

I think there needs to be an icon for the micros and another for log only caches. The time has come to distinguish between the larger and smaller caches.

[CoyoteRed]

Just how many times does this have to be discussed? Seems like at least once every month or two.

 

Micro is a SIZE, not a type.

 

Yes, the hunt is different because of size, but do we also need to break out the huge bookcrossing caches, too? I mean, the hunt is so different because the cache can be the size of a trunk.

 

~sheesh~ Stop confusing size with type!

[+Polgara]

How about using the SAME icon as traditional cache, just making it micro in size, voila, micro cache icon.

[+robert]

My $0.02.

Hum... would that be change or small change?

smallchange?

[+briansnat]

As has been stated by several, a micro is a size, not a type. Are we going to have special icons for large caches as well?

 

But who's to say you couldn't reinvent micro as a cache type...

 

Changing things this late in the game will only confuse things. What do we do about the many thousands of caches already out there? We can't get owners to maintain their caches, let alone expect them all to go back and update their cache pages.

Edited March 22, 2004 by briansnat

[+bons]

Actually I don't see a reason that we just don't have more icons. One more would suffice for now.

Let's look at the icon page:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx

It seems to me that the ONLY two types where size matters is traditional and multi and both of them have a cache container on them.

For now, if we had an icon for traditional/micro and an icon for traditional/non-micro what harm would it do? Sure, some old caches may be mislabeled, but they already are so what's the difference?

As far as I'm concerned I don't see the need to worry about cache size on multis or mystery caches right now as you don't know what to expect anyway. It may be a combination or something entirely different.

[CoyoteRed]

Actually, it looks like the major theme behind the "micro cache type" push is actually about trading. A lot of people like to trade and given that a lot of micros are too small to trade items of any significance the conclusion is to break off micros to different type.

 

If you're wanting to do something, identify the root and work from there.

 

Problem is, breaking off micros to another type doesn't solve the problem. While it would generally elimate non-trading caches from the traditional, you'll also be eliminating micro trading caches.

 

A much better solution for removing non-trading caches from your hunt is to create a non-trading cache type. Better yet, implement the attributes scheme and make it an attribute. Problem with that is attributes have been talked about for so long without anything moving forward that I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

Further, if you're going to have a non-trading cache type, you'll have to have two; one for non-trading traditional and non-trading multi.

 

But like Brain said, it wouldn't do a bit of good for a long time because you will have plenty of caches that are now mis-typed thus defeating the reason you made the change to begin with.

[+JeepCachr]

You all realize you can make our own maps with as many icons as you want right? Most map programs will allow you to do this. All you need is a program like GSAK to filter them the way you want.

 

The maps I create are more usefull to me because they are available offline and they contain the information I want in the area that I want.

 

Theres lots of fun things to do with mapping. Here's a simple map of my founds-

Both of them...

[+briansnat]

Actually, it looks like the major theme behind the "micro cache type" push is actually about trading. A lot of people like to trade and given that a lot of micros are too small to trade items of any significance the conclusion is to break off micros to different type.

 

But a lot of micros do have trade items. I've placed trade items in film canisters and smaller containers. Perhaps, instead of a micro icon, there should be one for logbook only caches? I'm not saying thats a good idea, but just thought I'd throw out something to add to the arguments.

Edited March 22, 2004 by briansnat

[WynterDreamZ]

Just some more small change... (2cents)

 

I'd really like to see a new icon for the micros . There are simply people who want to only look for the large caches (yep, that's me and my team).

 

I think that if the owner of the micro calls it a micro... no matter the SIZE (film cannister or a 3" container)... it deserves it's own icon.

 

(maybe a microscope or something cute ).

 

Premium Cachers have the opportunity to decide what kind of caches they want to map out... an icon is definitely needed if you simply do not do micros.

 

Anyone need change? WynterDreamz

[+bons]

1) I like looking for micros.

2) I often leave trade items in micros. Heck, I order trade items designed to leave in micros for the next person.

3) I would still like a different icon. Why?

_a) Micros are not exciting for my 4 year old son. I'd rather look for them when I can't be with him.

_ Micros are a different kind of search. I look for different things in different places and most often at a very different height.

 

Honestly, the most popular cache type is the "traditional". There are probably more "traditional regular" and "traditional micro" then there are of all the other cache types combined (including "traditional other" and "traditional large"). Making one more item to split this group into two groups seems to make sense to me.

[CoyoteRed]

Wouldn't it be easier to ask for the size to be included in the Nearest Cache page? There would be no need for a different type, no need to have the script to make any discisions about which icon to display based on size.

 

Could put it right below the D/T and be done with this.

[+Johnnie Stalkers]

May I nominate an ICON?

 

[+av8tors32]

So are we saying that SIZE DOES MATTER?

[+Johnnie Stalkers]

So are we saying that SIZE DOES MATTER?

Yes, size matters but it gets tricky when you try to apply a rule because that requires measurements which are represented by numbers. As we all know, its not about the numbers. So size matters until an actual measurement is made, then size doesn't matter because the 'not about the numbers' thing voids it out.

[CoyoteRed]

So, what score did you get on your last cache?

[+Johnnie Stalkers]

So, what score did you get on your last cache?

The unOfficial Official formula for Cache grading:

((Terrain + Difficulty) x Find Count) - post count = GRADE

 

Cache: The REALLY Big Money Cache

 

 

(( 1 + 1) * 72) - 1245) = -1101

 

Not very impressive.

[CoyoteRed]