Jump to content

Regular Or Super-sized?


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

In my limited--though very rewarding--caching experience, I have often wished that I could identify cache types when looking at search results pages and maps without drilling down into each of the cache details pages.

 

This is purely a HYPOTHETICAL question, but...

 

IF the guys at GC.com decided to distinguish cache sizes on search pages and maps (they've already worked their wonders with PQs), what might be the best (most helpful) way?

 

What about adjusting the icon size on search results and maps to reflect the container size? In other words, micro, regular, and large caches would have small, medium, and large icons respectively.

 

Even then, what could be done about unknowns, "others", and virtual containers (I'm not sure what that even means)? Perhaps a subdued icon or pale version of the regular, or maybe a regular with a question mark on it?

 

Any thoughts are welcome, but please do try to stay on the subject. This is not a discussion on whether or not the distinction between cache sizes should be made.

Link to comment

I think it would be helpful to add the size on the search results page next to the terrain and difficulty.

 

Instead of seeing:

 

( D / T )

( 1 / 3.5)

 

It could read:

 

( D / T / S )

( 1 / 3.5 / R)

 

I don't think playing with the icons themselves is necessary, or even a good idea. If you change the size, the difference would be so subtle that casual observers might not be able to tell the difference. And of course, a separate icon for micros isn't the way to go because a micro is just a size, not a type of cache.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
4e8eb442-8e06-44e9-ae2a-bdffaede8386.jpg

Hey! That's GREAT artwork! I'm not sure it would go over well to show a completely different icon for micros... though I consider them to be a different type, micro fans don't.

 

(  D / T / S )

( 1 / 3.5 / R)

Hey, yeah... I like that idea for searches, although it doesn't help much when looking at a map.

 

Maybe if the map would allow you to show only certain sizes (just as it does types)?

 

the difference would be so subtle that casual observers might not be able to tell the difference

 

Wouldn't that be a plus, since some people will oppose any change at all?

 

Thanks to both of you... great ideas!

Link to comment
4e8eb442-8e06-44e9-ae2a-bdffaede8386.jpg

Hey! That's GREAT artwork! I'm not sure it would go over well to show a completely different icon for micros... though I consider them to be a different type, micro fans don't.

 

Makes me wonder, if a micro is not a different type but a size, why are there different icons between a regular and an extra large container then? Why is there even an Unknown icon?

I also consider micros a different type. They are different from a regular cache. We talk about hunting for micros or regular caches here as if they are different because we are more likely to hunt a regular than a micro.

I like the toilet paper tube suggestion someone made earlier. If it fits into a t.p. tube, it's a micro. If it doesn't, its considered a regular because chances are there's room for trades in the container, even if its just small items. I thought that was a great idea. If this type of sizing method was used, you could use a film can for the icon.

Link to comment
Makes me wonder, if a micro is not a different type but a size, why are there different icons between a regular and an extra large container then?

Are there? I don't think so. I think all traditionals (regardless of size) are the same icon.

 

Why is there even an Unknown icon?

All I know is that if I create a pocket query, there are check boxes for "unknown", "virtual", and "other" cache sizes.

 

Some people want to find *any* cache, while some of us often want to see only certain sizes on search results and maps (or at least be able to tell the difference without looking up individual caches).

 

If it fits into a t.p. tube, it's a micro...

 

GC.com already defines cache sizes. Size requirements are a discussion in themselves, but to avoid confusion, we should probably talk about that in a different topic. I'm only interested in how to display the data as it currently exists in the database. In other words, if the hider calls the cache size "regular", we should just assume it really is large enough to be considered a regular.

Link to comment
Makes me wonder, if a micro is not a different type but a size, why are there different icons between a regular and an extra large container then? Why is there even an Unknown icon?

I also consider micros a different type. They are different from a regular cache. We talk about hunting for micros or regular caches here as if they are different because we are more likely to hunt a regular than a micro.

 

There aren't different icons. All traditional caches have the same icons. Unknown, or Mystery is a type of cache. It usually means that there is no cache at the posted coordinates, but you can find it by solving some sort of puzzle, or following clues.

Link to comment

what about micros with different containers? like jars, small tins, homemade, etc. Again, I maintain, that you could not designate different icons efficiently or in a manner that would be consistent.

also, I totally agree with those above, read the logs, enjoy the discovery, and Briansnat is right that it is still a traditional cache, regardless of size.

Link to comment
... that it is still a traditional cache, regardless of size.

Ahh, but is it? A "traditional" cache would have trade items. A log only cache isn't then "traditional" - the three rules (any thing like the robotic three laws?) take something, leave something, sign log don't fit.

 

So read the cache description, it's generally listed

 

The point is to see that info without having to read each cache page.

Link to comment

From the original post:

Any thoughts are welcome, but please do try to stay on the subject. This is not a discussion on whether or not the distinction between cache sizes should be made.

I know some of you don't care to have a distinction between cache sizes, but please respect the fact that some of us do care and would like to talk about it.

Link to comment

I respect that fact, I am just trying to point out that you are adding a different type of categorization level that cannot really be properly addressed without adding more than one or two new size distinctions.

In a way it would make more sense to give the type of container rather than size, but size could be a built in characteristic of the type.

 

For example, a small jar - to describe those that are in just that, a jar like a peanut butter jar, or a vitamin bottle.

a small tin - like an altoid tin.

a tiny tin - like an altoid strip tin or a hide a key.

a film can or key chain container, like the micros you can buy here on gc.com

a nano - like a pet id or I think bison capsules are this small, yes? or a little pill holder (smaller than the common key chain size)

waypoint/puzzle/clue tag or some other small or hidden clue. maybe even data from a sign in an area. Oh wait, I got out of control, that is for multis. :unsure:

 

then the break down for larger ones.

Big pretzel bottles - not as big as 5 gal. bucket, but at least twice the size of an ammo can. Good for dry areas.

small size ammo can - about half the size of a normal one

normal ammo can

extra large - 5 gal bucket and up,

 

etc.

 

I just don't think it is right to try to divide it more. the cache description usually gives some sort of description. If it doesn't and it says micro, don't go. maybe a smaller icon on the listing would help, or a different icon for each of the existing sizes. But, I really think you should be reading the cache descriptions to decide, not just going off the size the hider set. After all, sometimes the type of cache listed is out dated, or even just wrong.

 

our opinions are discussion of the topic at hand. If you don't want to hear all the answers, don't ask the question.

Link to comment

I for one would like to see a generic icon for micros. Recently I looked at caches in an area I normally haven't been to, unfortunatley the first 4 pages in the search were nothing but micros. And yes I to look at a lot of cache pages to figure this out, something that could be avoided if there was a micro icon. something that covers standard micro types, i.e. altoid tins, 35mm film canisters, hide-a-key, ect. Just like there is a generic icon for traditonal caches, that covers ammo cans, tupperware ect.

 

The fact remains that there are some areas that have very high numbers of micros. If you want an example contact me off line and I will send you the zip codes, I wouldn't want anyone to confuse that with a personal attack.

 

The ability to seperate micros from traditonal caches is something that has come up with increasing frequency in the forums. I think the reasonable people here just want a way to seperate them from other caches. Just like we have generic icons for virtuals, locationless, and other cache types. Is it asking to much to be able to identify caches for what they are without having to read every cache page.

 

This sport and website have evolved over time. With the contined growth of micros an icon to identify them is going to be needed.

Link to comment
The ability to seperate micros from traditonal caches is something that has come up with increasing frequency in the forums. I think the reasonable people here just want a way to seperate them from other caches.

And it's currently available. You can filter by cache size (and a host of other things) with Pocket Querries.

Link to comment

Pocket queries are only of use to people who have a membership. I can't afford one, yes money is that tight and I have a mac. Which negates the ability to us third party shareware.

 

Many of the users don't have memberships for any number of reasons and if you don't live in a micro heavy area you may not see the need for a new icon. If you need examples of this contact me off line an I'll supply you with zipcodes, you may get a better grasp as to how difficult "reading the descriptions" becomes. Especially in an area you are not used to.

Link to comment
If you don't want to hear all the answers, don't ask the question.

I do want to hear all the answers to the question I asked, which was:

 

IF the guys at GC.com decided to distinguish cache sizes on search pages and maps (they've already worked their wonders with PQs), what might be the best (most helpful) way?
Link to comment

yep, and answers that aren't exactly what you want, are still valid responses. pointing out that it is not really easily done, and perhaps not worth the extra complexity it introduces (over-engineering?) or possibly introduces is a valid point.

If there is some way to do it that handles those things, I have yet to hear it given. I am open to it, I am just concerned that it probably isn't needed.

Link to comment
answers that aren't exactly what you want, are still valid responses.

Agreed. We haven't heard "exactly what we want" yet. So far, all of the suggestions that each of us have mentioned do have their flaws. But I do appreciate those of you who are giving it some thought. I asked, "what would be the best (most helpful) way" to identify cache sizes on maps and searches because I'm looking for the most helpful way "IF" it were done.

 

A new topic (which might be called, "Should there be a more obvious distinction between cache sizes?") would be appropriate for the very arguable opinion that it isn't needed.

Link to comment

Wouldn't it be easier for the person that creates the cache to add a description of what you are looking for? Many do, and many don't. I enjoy looking for micros as they are the most challenging, but I do get irritated when there is no mention of size or what the heck I'm trying to find. Size is important when you're in a 100 ft. circle of stumps and trees and you have 100's of likely spots for the hide and you can't get better than 50 ft accuracy. I suppose it adds to the challenge, but there are some micros that I've done that were total dumb luck I found them. Signal was so poor my GPSr was worthless. I'd like to see some indication of size and it would be easy to add either icons or another box to fill out when you create the cache.

Link to comment

Yes in an ideal world they should and most do specify what you are looking for. However in areas that have a high density of micros reading each description becomes an issue. Poiunt in case, I recently look at an area to go caching, however the first 80 cahches were almost all micros. Try having to read each individual page in that case.

 

Yes I know this is extreme. But if you are visiting an area that you are not familiar with wouldn't it be nice to identify the type of cache you are looking for. Micro, traditonal, virtual, ect, instead of having to read each individual page.

Link to comment
The easy answer is an icon for micros. There is no need to designate the size micro, just that it is a micro.

As someone pointed out to me earlier, "micro" is a size, not a type. Different types currently have different icons. You can't really make a micro a type because a cache can be a Multi-cache and a micro. Which type would you give it? Multi or Micro?

 

Also, adding another cache type ("Micro" in your suggestion) would require every cache to be evaluated as to whether or not it should be a "Micro" type instead of its current type.

 

The reason I'm starting out with the assumption that identifying cache size is the way to go is because:

 

1) The data is already stored (traditional caches in general already have a size assigned to them--or they are unknowns).

 

2) People who do not care about the feature would not be inconvenienced by this whereas they would be if cache types were changed around.

 

3) Being a programmer myself, I think this would be an easy (relatively speaking) change that would excite many of us, yet hinder none.

 

Are there any more suggestions as an answer to the original question:

 

IF the guys at GC.com decided to distinguish cache sizes on search pages and maps (they've already worked their wonders with PQs), what might be the best (most helpful) way?

Link to comment
Also, adding another cache type ("Micro" in your suggestion) would require every cache to be evaluated as to whether or not it should be a "Micro" type instead of its current type.

 

I think the majority of the caches would not have to be re-evaluted. If they have selected micro as the size designation that should eliminate the need to re-evaluate every cache. The micro desingation would be used for all new caches and I think the majority of cache owners would take a moment to redesignate their cache to a new icon.

 

You can't really make a micro a type because a cache can be a Multi-cache and a micro.  Which type would you give it?  Multi or Micro?

 

There will always be a few exceptions, the cache owner would have to use common sense and designate it as a multi and then in the description explain the final cache is a micro. While this is a good example of an exception, the majority of micros are not like this.

 

A micro icon would merely be an identifyer, if I see a non micro, traditional cache that appears interesting I can then read the decription to see what the container is, i.e. ammo can, tupperware, ect. The same would be applied to micros, I think by now we can safey say that the mjaority of micros tend to be 35mm film cans, hide-a-key, pill bottles. If people are still not sure then they could use the guideline suggested by Bandy Pat, if it fits into a toilet paper tube its a micro.

 

Sorting by size is going to make more work for the programmers, given all of the variations in cache containers. Sorting by type and then letting the person doing the search drill down on the type of caches they have an interest in will be more effective.

 

Lets face it the number of micros being placed is growing so much they can easily be given their own designation. I would say its safe to say that most micros are in urban environments and use the type of coantainer I have mentioned above.

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...