Jump to content

Does Geocaching Need Micro Guidelines?


Recommended Posts

I think the idea of having a different icon for micro caches (like virtual, mystery, etc have) would help out a lot. Then if people don't want to do micros, it would be easier to avoid them. Just my .02.

Micro is a cache size, not a cache type.

If you want a different icon for micro, you actually need a ton of new icons:

  • Micro traditional
  • Micro multicache
  • Micro mystery/puzzle
  • Regular traditional
  • Regular multicache
  • Regular mystery/puzzle
  • Large traditional
  • Large multicache
  • Large mystery/puzzle
  • Other traditional
  • Other multicache
  • Other mystery/puzzle

Gee, that looks like fun (and confusing!), doesn't it?

Link to comment
Micro is a cache size, not a cache type.

If you want a different icon for micro, you actually need a ton of new icons ...

But, gee, so FEW people have had so LITTLE to say pertaining to those permutations listed. However, a HIGH NUMBER of people have had a GREAT DEAL to say about micro caches, from a wide spectrum of perspectives.

 

To me, that indicates that perhaps the term "micro cache" denotes something more than merely the size of the container.

Edited by Bassoon Pilot
Link to comment

How about a roll of toilet paper for the micro icon? Not only does it demonstrate its crappiness, but, the owner can make sure its a micro by seeing if it fits inside the toilet paper tube.

 

Just having some fun here, I'm sure there are some fine micros out there, somewhere. :)

Link to comment

Should we also change the icon for regular containers to a toilet bowl to describe the conditions of the log book (damp) and the quality of the trade items?

 

There are plenty of good micros. I encountered a nice fun one this weekend in the middle of Sax Man's campout. Actually there was a good long discussion one morning where people kept talking about the micros they've really enjoyed and how cool it was to find them.

 

I'm sorry that some of you apparently live in areas that don't have the kind of micros so many people at the campout were talking about. What's sad is that you seem to be doing your best to insure that you'll never get to enjoy one either.

Edited by bons
Link to comment
I wonder if there is a way for Jeremy to find the stats ratio on micros vs traditional caches. It would be interesting to see the comparison.

In a 200 mile radius:

 

491 Micros

1469 Other (Regular, Large, and Unknown)

~25% of all caches in my area are micros.

For the state of Connecticut (I left out events and locationless):

 

Caches by container:

Micro: 76 (14.5%)

Regular: 377 (72.1%)

Large: 5 (1%)

Other: 25 (4.8%)

Virtual: 21 (4%)

Unknown: 19 (3.6%)

You need more caches in Connecticut

Link to comment
I think the idea of having a different icon for micro caches (like virtual, mystery, etc have) would help out a lot. Then if people don't want to do micros, it would be easier to avoid them. Just my .02.

"Micro" is not a type.

 

IT IS A SIZE!!!

 

Thank you for your attention.

It would be nice to have a listed deminsion for a micro, I have seen caches listed as a reg size that measurd about the size of a deck of cards.

Link to comment

You need more caches in Connecticut

Really not as bad as it sounds. It's a small state. To better compare, there are 2440 caches within 100 miles, and 1/3 of that area is Atlantic Ocean. Not sure I want to try and set up 5 PQs to compile stats for that, though.

Link to comment
To better compare, there are 2440 caches within 100 miles, and 1/3 of that area is Atlantic Ocean.

:)

 

We've got 515 total in 100 miles and half that is in the ocean.

 

We've cleaned out our area out to 40 miles. We only have 16 caches left to hunt in 60 miles, 3 of which we just logged DNFs on over the weekend. :)

 

I envy you people complaining about too many micros! At least you have something to hunt without having to travel!

Link to comment

A bit OT, but what the heck, seems like a good place to say this:

 

I sure like it when people list the shape/dimensions of their cache container (be it micro or regular). It helps to give me an idea of what I can trade. CDs/DVDs in jackets don't work well in round containers, unless very large -- but fit nicely in regular rectangular bins or ammo boxes.

 

BTW, and OT again: I believe GPS technology does have the capacity to determine locations much closer than the general public is allowed to use. The Department of Defense always gets to have all the fun. :)

Link to comment

Dont know about other areas but in Tennessee Micros are almost a drive up roll the window down and sign the log. I have been doing this 6 months now and had my first run in with the police trying to find on in a Golden Gallon parking lot . I was very discrete in my searching I waited until dusky dark but because I had been parked for 10 minutes the clerk got nervous and called the police. Which I can understand the clerks position I would have probably done the same thing. The officer advised me that the stores next to the interstate are always on the look out for suspicious vehicles because of all the hold ups and the next time I looked for one in a setting like that to just tell the clerk what I was doing. But Im pretty sure they dont know its there to start out with so that would only get it taken up. So my ? is should certain areas be off limits?

Link to comment
Dont know about other areas but in Tennessee Micros are almost a drive up roll the window down and sign the log. I have been doing this 6 months now and had my first run in with the police trying to find on in a Golden Gallon parking lot . I was very discrete in my searching I waited until dusky dark but because I had been parked for 10 minutes the clerk got nervous and called the police. Which I can understand the clerks position I would have probably done the same thing. The officer advised me that the stores next to the interstate are always on the look out for suspicious vehicles because of all the hold ups and the next time I looked for one in a setting like that to just tell the clerk what I was doing. But Im pretty sure they dont know its there to start out with so that would only get it taken up. So my ? is should certain areas be off limits?

The way to avoid this is to actually SEEK and RECEIVE permission from the property owners/tenants to place a cache there, like people are supposed to.

Link to comment
I'm sorry that some of you apparently live in areas that don't have the kind of micros so many people at the campout were talking about. What's sad is that you seem to be doing your best to insure that you'll never get to enjoy one either.

I don't want to see micros done away with. They are a great addition to the game when used properly.

 

My point is, micros are too easy to hide and they are being dropped everywhere and approved without regard to whether the area could handle a bigger container or not. They are taking up spaces for bigger containers to be hidden. If there was a limitation on how many could be placed, maybe people would put more thought and creativity into hiding them. Micros are not creative when hidden in a wooded area. They cause the area to be torn apart by people looking for a needle in a haystack. I will never hide a micro just because I think there are too many of them being hidden now. I will hide ammo cans and other containers to give people something to enjoy besides a logbook. Some micros don't even give you that much satisfaction. It's sign your name and be done with it. So when you find a micro out in a wooded area, there's no reading about what other people thought about the area or anything. Those are the ones I think have been dropped just for the hide stats.

Link to comment

I just have one thing to add to this discussion.I am just thankful that I live in this beautiful state of Maine and the micro issue is not an issue at all.We have thousands of acres of forests and ocean vistas to enjoy and where there is a micro or 2 they are pretty minimal.

Link to comment
My point is, micros are too easy to hide and they are being dropped everywhere and approved without regard to whether the area could handle a bigger container or not. They are taking up spaces for bigger containers to be hidden.

Let's just say for argument's sake, GC.com made this into a rule. The "You must use the biggest cache possible for an area" rule.

How do you make this work? I'm guessing at the very least, a cache reviewer would have to visit each proposed cache location, and arbitrarily decide whats the smallest cache permitted there. Then define the location. What if there really is only room for a 35mm at the exact spot, but 100ft away you can hide an ammo can? The micro would block the ammo can spot, right? If you can hide an ammo can nearby, you can't hide a micro. Why stop there though? If you can hide a 5gal pail nearby, you can't hide an ammo can. It would be just like virtuals, only you might have to wait a month or 2 for a reviewer to check out your spot and arbitrarily decide what size cache you must hide there. Yup, I'm sure everyone would love that rule!

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

Don't start picking it apart and making it bigger than it is. We are talking about micros and traditional cache containers here. Not the different sizes of each. At the very least, the approver should ask the cache hider if the area would support a bigger container when they see that someone is submitting a micro in a park or wooded area. That would be an indicator to the approver that they need to ask if a bigger container could be put there instead of a micro in order not to cause people to tear apart an area looking for a micro. But if they submit it as a hide in a parking lot or other concreted urban area, there would be no sense in asking.

I am assuming that there are certain things that you have to describe to an approver to give them an indication of where your cache is hidden. I haven't hidden one yet so I don't know for sure. But if someone says "it's a micro hidden in a bunch of rocks at the edge of a park", then I would think the approver might look at that and think to ask about the bigger container. I looked for one just like this recently. Now, I don't mean to bash the hider because they are a newbie and this was their first hide. But if the approver had asked whether a bigger container could have been put there instead of a micro, I'm sure there wouldn't already be a bunch of DNF's right off the bat on their cache page. No one wants to stick their hands into a bunch of dark, snake nest, crevices in a pile of rocks to find a micro when a bigger container could have been put there in the first place. I use this cache hide as an example of not enough questions being asked about its location before it was approved.

Edited by PandyBat
Link to comment

Exactly where in the cache listing guidelines does it say that the reviewer is supposed to ask questions about whether the cache size is appropriate for the location?

 

Exactly how is the reviewer supposed to make an informed judgment about each and every cache location, short of visiting it? Some parks are largely open spaces dotted with a few trees that aren't hollow, a playground and some ballfields. They can only support a micro. I have a few micros hidden in parks like that.

 

If you feel that a cache is hidden inappropriately for an area, say so in your log. Peer pressure can go a long way to influence hiding patterns.

Link to comment

My only comment on this one is a concern over logbooks. At a minimum, a micro should only be approved if it has a logsheet and a writing utensil. I always try to leave something in even mini-micros and take something if it is available (big part of the game to me) but without a logbook of some sort it may as well just be a virtual. Only way to track down legit visits to a cache and best way to find out about caching stories. I actually would like to see a new size - minis. A mini is something like a sandwich sized rubbermaid that has room for a mini notebook at a minimum. Writing utensil is for those of us to lame to bring one along. :D

Link to comment
My point is, micros are too easy to hide and they are being dropped everywhere and approved without regard to whether the area could handle a bigger container or not. They are taking up spaces for bigger containers to be hidden.

And yet you're not complaining that ammo cans are easy to hide and that the areas where they are could handle bigger containers as well. You seem to draw the line at the size of container you personally prefer. It's almost as if you want all caches to conform to your particular style.

 

As far as size goes, I want the right container for the cache, and that may not be the largest container for the cache. Dead drops, fake bricks, bison tubes, and clever uses of rare earth magnets have a great appeal to me because they allow for a wider variety of caches.

 

And to me that seems to be the difference between our points of view. You seem to want all the space reserved for the types of caches you personally enjoy. I'd rather have a great variety of caches placed so that everyone can find something they enjoy.

Link to comment
At the very least, the approver should ask the cache hider if the area would support a bigger container when they see that someone is submitting a micro in a park or wooded area.

So what if it CAN contain a bigger cache? I've hidden ammo cans in places that could easily have held a railroad car if I'd have one in my pocket. That doesn't make for a better cache.

Link to comment

And yet you're not complaining that ammo cans are easy to hide and that the areas where they are could handle bigger containers as well. You seem to draw the line at the size of container you personally prefer. It's almost as if you want all caches to conform to your particular style.

 

As far as size goes, I want the right container for the cache, and that may not be the largest container for the cache. Dead drops, fake bricks, bison tubes, and clever uses of rare earth magnets have a great appeal to me because they allow for a wider variety of caches.

 

Actually, it sounds like you want all caches to conform to your particular style.

 

I have found some enjoyable micros, but I still prop my TP deal.

My point is, micros are too easy to hide and they are being dropped everywhere and approved without regard to whether the area could handle a bigger container or not. They are taking up spaces for bigger containers to be hidden.

 

I agree.

Edited by Polgara
Link to comment
Actually, it sounds like you want all caches to conform to your particular style.

Not really. I fully support your right to place a cache I have no interest in looking for. In fact, I'm likely to visit the area out of curiosity and after having enjoyed my visit, not look for the cache. I've done it before. I'll do it again.

 

I've sucessfully completed virtuals that I didn't log simply because I didn't feel like describing the escargot waltzing beneath the iridium flares. I've gone to the location of a micro in a woods and walked away knowing I didn't feel like looking for it.

 

I didn't complain about any of those or try to come up with a new guideline so I wouldn't have to see such things in the future. I just accepted that, like key lime pie, it was something I just didn't have a taste for but I could understand how someone else might enjoy it.

Link to comment
If you feel that a cache is hidden inappropriately for an area, say so in your log.  Peer pressure can go a long way to influence hiding patterns.

True, but unfortunately some cache hiders get a bit, uh, "huffy" if you say anything even remotely critical (even if CONSTRUCTIVELY critical) in your log entry. Even a delicately phrased private note can become cause for concern.

 

I'm now at a point where I have enough Finds that I can afford for an easily-offended hider to delete my log entry and cause me to lose a stat, but I still don't like for that to happen - I made the effort to make a Find, I want the stat. (and I make no apologies for my playing the game this way).

 

If the hider is a repeat offender in an area I frequent, they now get a two-letter (not two-word, two-LETTER) log entry: "SL".

 

-Dave R. in Biloxi

 

Shameless plug: Dave's Opinions on Geocache Hiding

Link to comment
Micro is a cache size, not a cache type.

If you want a different icon for micro, you actually need a ton of new icons...

No, no, no. Nobody is concerned about anything but traditional micros.

 

Why is there such insistence that this is an enormous task? All that is necessary is to put the cache size on the search results page. Sure, we size-discriminators would prefer to be able to filter them out of our results completely, but just knowing it's a micro before I get excited about it and open it up is enough.

 

I know that many of you out there can't understand why we want to avoid micros. For my part, it has much to do with children. My daughter loves to find "the treasure". She's not mature enough to appreciate the hunt in itself. And I must admit, when hunting a micro I find that the enthusiasm is over as soon as my eye spots the container, whereas there is still more to come when I spot the ammo can. I, too, am always excited to open the can and see what odd (or not so odd) things people have left--and to leave something myself.

 

I don't mean to open up the pro/anti micro debate, I just hope to explain why some of us so prefer regulars to micros. It seems there are basically 2 kinds of Geocachers: Those who want to hunt regulars (or larger) only, and those who want to hunt regulars AND micros.

 

It seems that there is no harm done to the latter group by putting cache size on the search results (or even by a filter-by-size option), yet it helps the former tremendously. So why not do it?

Link to comment
Nobody is concerned about anything but traditional micros.

If that's the case then you just have to trade micro items.

 

Face it, your concern is not size, but about trading. Filter out micros and you'd filter out a good number of traditional caches that have plenty of trades in them around here.

 

The problem is not micros, it's the placers in your area that are hiding those micros.

 

Here's a little tidbit of information for you. Around here, I can't think of a micro that was log only (I'd have to look back through my logbook to confirm this) until a cacher moved here from the North West. All of a sudden there are plenty on log-only micros--simple scroll logs in a film can. I have to say that at least half of these placements could a) support a regular sized cache or b ) be seeded with micro trades.

 

So, you see, it's the mind-set of the placer and the fact that they choose to not put trades in their caches is what you're having a problem with.

 

I don't have a problem with listing size on the Nearest Cache List, but filtering on size is not the answer.

 

Hopefully, these paid memberships will get a quality programmer to help out Irish in here and get things done. Then we might see some things that would make some people happy without hindering others.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
It seems that there is no harm done to the latter group by putting cache size on the search results (or even by a filter-by-size option), yet it helps the former tremendously. So why not do it?

Because you ALREADY have the capability to do that. Spend two minutes setting up a pocket query to exclude all the micros in your area and be done with it.

Link to comment
... so far no one has offered a good reason why *not* to include it.

Just look to the post above yours. There's a pretty good reason.

 

With fewer "free" tools, the more reason to ante up. Paid members can do as you ask.

 

Okay, so it's not a "good" reason, but reason enough.

Link to comment
The bottom line is, I (and many others) would like to see the cache size on the search results page and so far no one has offered a good reason why *not* to include it.

I'm still not convinced there is a good reason *TO* include it, considering you already CAN filter it out. Why should GC.com spend who knows how many hours re-tooling the site so that you can save yourself from having to spend 30 seconds setting up a pocket query? I'd rather see them spend their time and efforts on features of the website that will benefit EVERYBODY, not just a small but vocal group of people who just happen to have a disdain for one type of cache.

 

By now, I'm sure you've spent far more time posting in this topic than it would have taken to just set up a filter. ;)

Link to comment
Paid members already have a way to filter on a host of things. You really think Irish is going to give up a means of encouraging folks to ante up?

I would be able to talk more families into trying geocaching if the search results (on the non-paid-members site) wasn't cluttered (as we see it) with micros.

 

It may indeed be a regional thing. There may be some places where this is not an issue at all. All I know about is my area.

Link to comment
I would be able to talk more families into trying geocaching if the search results (on the non-paid-members site) wasn't cluttered (as we see it) with micros.

I don't like it when my cage pages are "cluttered" with Gladware and used peanut butter jars that were thrown out into every bush in town with reckless abandon.

 

I therefore wish to request that the kind folks at Groundspeak rewrite the website and create a separate icon for lousy regular caches.

 

;)

Link to comment
I don't like it when my cage pages are "cluttered" with Gladware and used peanut butter jars that were thrown out into every bush in town with reckless abandon.

 

I therefore wish to request that the kind folks at Groundspeak rewrite the website and create a separate icon for lousy regular caches.

 

;)

 

Sarcasm heard (read) loud and clear there...I agree with you on that point. I'll repeat my shameless plug for my document, where I echo that and make some other points you may find useful: Dave's Opinions on Geocache Hiding

 

On the other hand, I would like to respectfully counter this point you made:

 

I'm still not convinced there is a good reason *TO* include it, considering you already CAN filter it out. Why should GC.com spend who knows how many hours re-tooling the site so that you can save yourself from having to spend 30 seconds setting up a pocket query?

 

Some of us (yep, me, and plenty others) don't PDA-cache, and in fact I still paper-cache. I know, I know, geek on the one hand, still in the Stone Age on the other, but it's my preference and it works for me. I have NO problem with GOOD micros in GOOD locations (it's what we're collectively calling the "lame" ones that get on my very last nerve), but the additional filtering tools other than PQs would still make life easier and the experience more enjoyable.

 

-Dave R. in Biloxi

Link to comment

I'm somewhat a "rookie", but 2 cents (x6) any way.

 

#1 ... I agree that sometimes a micro seems to waste a regular size space. But I've seen this happening with choice of hiding locations too. This past weekend I found a piece of tupperware hidden under a pile of bark, 20 feet away was the coolest hollow tree I've ever seen, with about a 1' x 9" natural ledge up inside of it. I plan on watching the cache in that area continously ... if they ever retire it, I'm out to that spot immediately.

 

#2 ... Having said all this, I agree with some others that their are enough rules already. geocaching.com should simply comment/suggest in/near the guidelines. I think true rules should be limited to issues of safety, logic and respect of the area of the cache ... not opinions.

 

#3 ... We should always think about the tasks placed on the approval volunteers! They have enough to look at, without trying to make a judgement call about what would fit inside of a tree that they can not see from their computer.

 

#4 ... I strongly agree that have a different Icon for regular size vs. micros would be excellent. I will still hunt the micros, but it depends on my "mood" that day.

 

#5 ... it would be nice if some official "suggestions" were posted in the GC guidelines as to when something is too big to count as a micro, or too small to be standard size. Example, I've placed a series of PVC pipes with sliding compartments - the hold log pages, pencil and small items - but are they micros when they are 1" in diameter but 12" long? I've been calling them "Other" and describing in the text.

 

#6 ... "Micros" don't have to be boring and require no effort. Again my PVC micro/other caches have taken me much time to perfect, clue together, water-tight test and camo paint. I'm even redesigning to seal better (with O-Rings), with self draining features and I'm making some size specific to a specific hiding spot. I'm enjoying the "engineering" of the containers just as much as the cache hide itself.

Link to comment

 

Some of us (yep, me, and plenty others) don't PDA-cache, and in fact I still paper-cache. I know, I know, geek on the one hand, still in the Stone Age on the other, but it's my preference and it works for me. I have NO problem with GOOD micros in GOOD locations (it's what we're collectively calling the "lame" ones that get on my very last nerve), but the additional filtering tools other than PQs would still make life easier and the experience more enjoyable.

 

-Dave R. in Biloxi

Some people still seem to think the PQs are only for PDAs. That simply isnt the case. Many non-PDA cachers still use the PQs for caching. First, it lets you setup and save up to 20 customized searches that you can run realtime on the website.

Second, there are all sorts of 3rd party applications that let you filter and sort caches in just about anyway you can possibly want. Third, you can import the data into your favorite mapping software to create your own cache routes, topo maps, pick caches to hit on a trip, whatever.

Forth, there are applications that let you batch convert the waypoint info to make it more useful and load it into your GPS. I was talking about this last part last night to some experienced cachers who never realized this last one. JUST STORED IN MY GPS (Garmin 76s, nothing fancy) I have the following cache info, all gleened from a PQ:

GC#

cache type (virt, multi, traditional, etc)

cache size (I can tell just by looking at my GPS it's a micro)

if the cache has a TB

Difficulty/Terrain rating

cache name

if the last 3 logs were DNFs

 

Let me say again, that's in my GPS, using PQs and GPX Spinner, not in a PDA.

 

So you see, even if you are a paper cacher, there are still plenty of reasons to spend 57 cents a week to become a member (besides helping to pay for the bandwidth you use).

Link to comment
On the other hand, I would like to respectfully counter this point you made:

 

I'm still not convinced there is a good reason *TO* include it, considering you already CAN filter it out. Why should GC.com spend who knows how many hours re-tooling the site so that you can save yourself from having to spend 30 seconds setting up a pocket query?

 

Some of us (yep, me, and plenty others) don't PDA-cache, and in fact I still paper-cache. I know, I know, geek on the one hand, still in the Stone Age on the other, but it's my preference and it works for me. I have NO problem with GOOD micros in GOOD locations (it's what we're collectively calling the "lame" ones that get on my very last nerve), but the additional filtering tools other than PQs would still make life easier and the experience more enjoyable.

 

-Dave R. in Biloxi

We're half-paper, half-PDA ourselves (depends on whether we're planning to grab 4 or 40 caches that day), so I feel your pain.

 

I think a lot of people are wary of using the PQ function because they don't PDA cache.

 

However, I still use the PQ function when paper-caching...All you need to do is create the PQ and hit "preview" to immediately generate your filtered list in the standard search results format. Again, it doesn't take long, and it allows me to target exactly those caches I want to find (or eliminate the specific type of cache I don't want to find) easily.

 

(edit: Doh! Guess I gotta type faster to beat Mopar to the punch...)

Edited by Team PerkyPerks
Link to comment

Hi,

 

I could understand the request that a virtual cache not be placed where a traditional cache could be placed, as the physical cache with a log is more in keeping with the spirit of geocaching.

 

I have trouble with the complaints I've read in this and other threads about a micro-sized traditional cache "taking up" the space where a "real" or "normal-sized" (regular sized) cache could go. If the person placing the cache wants to place a micro, based on the thinking behind their cache (and its goal or aim), then that should be no problem for anybody (as long as it gets approved)...spaces are (and should be) allocated on a first come, first served basis for traditional caches (as both regulars and micros are).

 

Lame caches are lame, regardless of their size...and good caches are good, again, regardless of their size. If you don't like micros, don't hunt them.

 

There's an ancient saying I picked up in my travels..."It's not the size of the cache that matters, it's how the owner uses it." ;)

 

nfa

Link to comment

I'll echo what Mopar said. I don't have a PDA (can't justify purchasing something that I'll just break on my next hike), and I use PQs all the time.

 

I bring down the caches in GPX and use Watcher to create a combined GPX file (covers a pretty big area). I then use a little utility I have to convert the GPX files to my Access database. This database also stores other GPS activities I participate in as well as my fixed locations (home, work, the train station, etc.).

 

I then compile the information in Access, and the database spits out a GPX file that will code the icon on my GPS for the type of activity (different icons for Geodashing and Geodashing Golf) and for different size of caches (a regular dot for regular caches and a teeny-tiny dot for teeny-tiny caches).

 

Since I only typically upload traditional (not multi-caches) into my GPS, I can take my GPS out on a whim and know that where the GPS says there's something, there ought to be something - AND I know the relative size of a cache.

 

BTW - it sounds complicated, but the whole process of updating my cache files from the time I first unzip one of my PQs to the time the file is uploaded to my GPS is about 8-10 minutes.

Link to comment
"It's not the size of the cache that matters, it's how the owner uses it."

Usually said by someone who places micros!

 

;) Sorry, couldn't resist! ;)

We mock that which we find funny...

 

nfa

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
I bring down the caches in GPX and use Watcher to create a combined GPX file...  I then use a little utility I have to convert the GPX files to my Access database.  This database also stores other GPS activities I participate in as well as my fixed locations.... I then compile the information in Access, and the database spits out a GPX file that will code the icon on my GPS for the type of activity ... and for different size of caches (a regular dot for regular caches and a teeny-tiny dot for teeny-tiny caches).... I can take my GPS out on a whim and know ...  the relative size of a cache.... it sounds complicated, but the whole process ... is about 8-10 minutes.

Oh, yes, lovely. Snap! Just like that! This *feature* should attract millions to the sport!

 

Seriously, I'm sure this is a great system for the person who created it, but it's hardly user-friendly.

 

WHY IS THIS TOPIC SO HOT ? The only thing I can imagine is that people who don't mind micros have exactly what they want and they fear:

 

1) Any implication that their 100 micro cash hides are inferior to someone else's 10 regular hides.

 

2) That if an obvious distinction is made between micros and regulars it might affect the impressiveness of their 10,000 micro guard-rail finds.

 

3) Time spent to please someone other than themselves is a waste of time.

 

Honestly, I don't care about how many hides or finds you have. In my area, there are so many micros that there needs to be a simple way for anybody (newbies included) to exclude them--or at least quickly identify and ignore them--if that's not what they're interested in. Conversely, if they like micros and hate regulars, fantastic!

 

Flame on.

 

----------------------------------------------

cache - a secure place of storage

- Mirriam-Webster Dictionary

 

What can you "store" in a tic-tac box?

Link to comment
WHY IS THIS TOPIC SO HOT ?

Because two things are being talked about.

 

1) Guidelines that restrict the placement of caches based on size when what is desired is a restriction based on "lameness" (which unfortunately is a lot harder to measure), because of a perception that bigger always equals better.

 

2) A requested site change regarding how search functions work. The information requested already comes in a $3 month PQ and is used in free software that already does things this site will probably never do. The important part of this request is the following: The time spent doing this will be time paid for by people who don't need nor want the service.

 

So I'm sorry, but I have no micro hides, no micro guard rail finds so you're off base there. As for a desire to please you, I've found that it's difficult to please people who want things their way and aren't willing to do the work to make it that way.

 

Want a easy way to exclude micros? Support the site.

Want better local caches? Plant them, and work with your local cachers to plant them. Praise really good caches instead of insulting local caches and make it a local goal to place the best cache that town's ever seen.

 

But don't suggest wasting limited development time on people who won't pay for it and don't suggest rules that won't accomplish those goals and expect either of those things to fly.

Link to comment
1) Guidelines ... based on size when what is desired is ... based on "lameness"...  because of a perception that bigger always equals better.

 

2) ...The information requested already comes in a $3 ...The time spent doing this will be time paid for by people who don't need nor want the service.[/b]

 

1) You couldn't be more wrong. I have yet to come across a regular cache with nothing in it. My little girl has *never* been disappointed with a regular. On the other hand, due to her dissatisfaction with the one micro I took her to (and it was a "good" one), I do not want to take her to another. Bigger isn't necessarily better, but (as my daughter sees it) something IS better than nothing. Nothing = Lameness. Anyway, if I had an opinion that there is no such thing as a good micro, so what? Maybe I'm harming myself by missing out on some good caches, but that's not the issue. The issue is: Since it would help some of us and is likely a relatively simple change, why not distinguish (and or filter) cache size on the search results page?

 

2) I paid my $3, and I DO want the feature... and the mere existence of this conversation proves that I'm not alone.

 

To some of us, (whether you can understand this or not) cache size is as important if not more so than the difficulty level, terrain level, cache name, owner, date placed, or date last found.

 

I agree with you completely about praising the good caches, but that is another topic. I'm not complaining about caches, I'm just saying it would be tremendously helpful for some of us if the cache size was on the search results page. That's all.

Edited by Matthew1344
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...