Should Micro Have Its Own Type?

[Jeremy]

It's big enough for small trade items, but I thought sure I was looking for an ammo can!

In this scenario it seems that the size should be promoted (and highlighted) more on the cache listing page.

 

Instead of being moved to the right side of the listing in rather small text (as it is now), we could move it to the left near the cache type.

 

If it was more visible you may have been more aware of the size before seeking it out.

 

Additionally we will be adding size to the nearest cache page in icon form. My first post links to the icons that will be there.

[+briansnat]

I went for yes.  It's still a traditional cache, but micro changes the means and methods of hunting... 

This is the same reason I voted yes. I recently went after FTF on this new cache....=

So if its a micro cache and a puzzle cache, which icon do you choose, micro, or puzzle? If you choose puzzle, the you're back to the issue that caused you to vote yes. If you choose micro, then searchers will be be expecting to find the cache at the published coordinates, when in fact its not.

[magellan315]

I voted yes. On a recent trip to Las Vegas and stayed a few extra days to go Geocaching, but I had to read through a lot of cache pages to see if they were micros or not. Some had the size designation listed, others you had to read the desrciption.

 

Geocaching on vacation or business trips is very easy to do. But if you are not familiar with an area having a way to easily dtermine what type of cache you are looking out without having to read every page would be very useful.

 

I've heard the arguments about using PQ's, but that assumes you have a membership. By creating a micro icon this would benifit people who want to hunt for micros or not.

 

In my opinion a micro cache is a question of the size of the container and as they have become more prevelant in the last year or so. The need to seperate them from regular size caches in important. Clearly what I wera and bring with me to hunt regualr caches is very diffferent from micros.

 

If the micro is part of puzzle cache or something similar than say so in the description

Edited September 10, 2004 by magellan315

[+briansnat]

I voted yes. On a recent trip to Las Vegas and stayed a few extra days to go Geocaching, but I had to read through a lot of cache pages to see if they were micros or not. Some had the size designation listed, others you had to read the desrciption.

 

Geocaching on vacation or business trips is very easy to do. But if you are not familiar with an area having a way to easily dtermine what type of cache you are looking out without having to read every page would be very useful.

 

I've heard the arguments about using PQ's, but that assumes you have a membership. By creating a micro icon this would benifit people who want to hunt for micros or not.

 

In my opinion a micro cache is a question of the size of the container and as they have become more prevelant in the last year or so. The need to seperate them from regular size caches in important. Clearly what I wera and bring with me to hunt regualr caches is very diffferent from micros.

 

If the micro is part of puzzle cache or something similar than say so in the description

But you have to look at the cache page to see the icon...or at least on the search page...and as Jeremy said, the size will soon be on the search page, so I don't see the benefit of a dedicated micro icon.

[magellan315]

The icon would be listed on the search page, just like any other icon. What this would mean I would not have to read every cache page to determine what is and is not a micro. All I would have to do is look for the apprpritae cache page, then read only the cache pages that appear to be of interest.

[+Team Perks]

But you have to look at the cache page to see the icon...or at least on the search page...and as Jeremy said, the size will soon be on the search page, so I don't see the benefit of a dedicated micro icon.

Exactly why I voted no. The size listings, in their planned form, will already tell you what you need to know.

 

How much redundancy on the cache listings do we need?

How much redundancy on the cache listings do we need?

How much redundancy on the cache listings do we need?

 

[magellan315]

But you have to look at the cache page to see the icon...or at least on the search page...and as Jeremy said, the size will soon be on the search page, so I don't see the benefit of a dedicated micro icon.

Exactly why I voted no. The size listings, in their planned form, will already tell you what you need to know.

 

How much redundancy on the cache listings do we need?

How much redundancy on the cache listings do we need?

How much redundancy on the cache listings do we need?

 

The size listing in its current form only work if you read every individual cache page. Which can be a very time consuming process. An icon for a micro would reduce that time and frustration

[+Team Perks]

The size listing in its current form only work if you read every individual cache page. Which can be a very time consuming process. An icon for a micro would reduce that time and frustration

I agree. And Jeremy has already committed to creating a separate SIZE icon in the search results page. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see how creating an entire separate cache TYPE for micros will improve upon what is already in the works.

[magellan315]

The size listing in its current form only work if you read every individual cache page. Which can be a very time consuming process. An icon for a micro would reduce that time and frustration

I agree. And Jeremy has already committed to creating a separate SIZE icon in the search results page. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see how creating an entire separate cache TYPE for micros will improve upon what is already in the works.

Like it or not micros have become a very distinct and unique style of cache, different from those considered as regular caches. Wether they are sorted by size or type we need a way to see in the search page a more refined way to seperate out caches that we prefer to look for.

[+Renegade Knight]

I went for yes.  It's still a traditional cache, but micro changes the means and methods of hunting... 

This is the same reason I voted yes. I recently went after FTF on this new cache....=

So if its a micro cache and a puzzle cache, which icon do you choose, micro, or puzzle? If you choose puzzle, the you're back to the issue that caused you to vote yes. If you choose micro, then searchers will be be expecting to find the cache at the published coordinates, when in fact its not.

You choose puzzle, because in order to find the cache at all you have to solve the puzzle. By the time you are done with that you know it's a micro.

 

Puzzle impacts how you hunt more than size or even the lack of a container. Nobody said a puzzle had to lead to a box, though I suspect this site would frown on that.

[+Renegade Knight]

But you have to look at the cache page to see the icon...or at least on the search page...and as Jeremy said, the size will soon be on the search page, so I don't see the benefit of a dedicated micro icon.

Exactly why I voted no. The size listings, in their planned form, will already tell you what you need to know....

You can already filter in the Pocket Query based on size. The only real benefit to a separate listing for micros is for non members who don't use pocket queries.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Have to vote yes on this one.

 

While it is true that the container size is different, the real issue is the hunt - hunting micros is a completely different experience than hunting traditional caches.

 

Without expressing opinion for or against any certain cache size I think micro and traditional hunting is a completely different TYPE of experience and should be recognized as such.

 

Regardless, have fun out there!

Ed

[Jeremy]

I don't think cache types were ever meant to define experiences. A drive-by traditional is a completely different experience from a cache found during 9 mile hike with a 1200' elevation gain. If I want the latter instead of the former, I adjust my search to only ask for high terrain traditionals.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

It's big enough for small trade items, but I thought sure I was looking for an ammo can!

In this scenario it seems that the size should be promoted (and highlighted) more on the cache listing page.

 

Instead of being moved to the right side of the listing in rather small text (as it is now), we could move it to the left near the cache type.

 

If it was more visible you may have been more aware of the size before seeking it out.

 

Additionally we will be adding size to the nearest cache page in icon form. My first post links to the icons that will be there.

If you are going to move the size descriptor on the cache page why not just move it next to the di./ter. rating? Some type of graphic there would be good, and that would fit in with Briansnats d/t/s suggestion on the search page.

 

Altho it is a bit different from searching for a bigger cache, I think I'd vote no to it as a new type.

[+briansnat]

I don't think cache types were ever meant to define experiences. A drive-by traditional is a completely different experience from a cache found during 9 mile hike with a 1200' elevation gain. If I want the latter instead of the former, I adjust my search to only ask for high terrain traditionals.

Bingo! The experience one has searching for a traditional cache hidden in a gargabe strewn lot behind the Walmart is quite different from a 6 mile hike in the mountains. Should we have a separate icon for those as well?

Edited September 11, 2004 by briansnat

[+briansnat]

The icon would be listed on the search page, just like any other icon. What this would mean I would not have to read every cache page to determine what is and is not a micro. All I would have to do is look for the apprpritae cache page, then read only the cache pages that appear to be of interest.

So why would it be unacceptable if the size was listed on the search page? Is it really necessary to subvert the current system to make things easier for a minority?

 

Like it or not micros have become a very distinct and unique style of cache, different from those considered as regular caches. Wether they are sorted by size or type we need a way to see in the search page a more refined way to seperate out caches that we prefer to look for.

 

Did you miss Jeremy's original question which said " If this influences your decision, we will be including the size on the nearest cache page. "

Edited September 11, 2004 by briansnat

[+Boo & Kitty]

The way I see it there are two different fields. One field describes the cache container. The other describes the hunt.

 

Therefore, you'd have the container list: Micro, Small, Regular, Large, Virtual, Webcam

 

And then the means of hunting it down: Traditional, Offset (I guess), Multi, Puzzle/Mystery

 

I'm not sure if a Letterbox Hybrid is defined by "a container with a stamp" or by "non-gps related clues", so it's a toss up. Locationless is also somewhat ambiguous. Take you're pick with these.

[+art begotti]

i say no, because i dont even look at cache size when i search. it'll just be a bigger pain in the butt for me. i'm already not all that happy with the new box system, so to have something other than a green box to describe what i was already looking for will really make me insane.

[+BackBrakeBilly]

First of all thanks for posting this topic!

Being from Southeast Tennessee, we have quite a few micros in our area to be found and with several trips to Nashville recently as most folks know there are alot of micros there also, we have an ongoing thing going about this subject right now. Seems like there are more than a few folks out there that don't seems to like micros period. We have found by listening to peoples comments that a big reason is that micros have no trade items. Although in MY opinion I think the real reason is that certain people just can't seem to find the more challenging micros. Most of these people brag about how they go out in the woods and can easily find an ammo box under a pile of sticks but they have trouble find the tiny micro in an urban environment. We consider a cache a cache no matter what size!!! I guess you can say we are more in it for the fun of the hunt rather than what we are going to find to trade in that ammo can. We applaud every cacher that places caches whether they place ammo cans or tiny micros! The true prize for us is the adventure in the hunt, not the prize at the end although find the cache is part of it. We have placed about 125 caches in our area with most of them being micros but considering that our local area had only 3 caches before we started in this game now folks that come to our area have something to hunt for when before it really wasn't worth even stopping off the freeway to hunt anything. We also take a lot of flack from local cachers about how they don't consider micros "real" caches, and to them I say again...A cache is a cache if there is some kind of container to find! Sure, some folks say that they will only hunt ammo cans in the woods and that is fine for them but again for us the hunt is the adventure and not the size of the container! Some of the most interesting and exciting finds we have had come from hunting the most challenging micros and one who excludes micros on their hunt is missing out on some of the best adventures in Geocaching!

These are just my opinions and in no way reflect on anything but my opinion. And for those who don't like micros....

[magellan315]

But you have to look at the cache page to see the icon...or at least on the search page...and as Jeremy said, the size will soon be on the search page, so I don't see the benefit of a dedicated micro icon.

Exactly why I voted no. The size listings, in their planned form, will already tell you what you need to know....

You can already filter in the Pocket Query based on size. The only real benefit to a separate listing for micros is for non members who don't use pocket queries.

Thats the reason for having an icon to inidcate size or type, for those people who do not have memberships. Clearly if the majority of the people who used GC.com had memberships there would be no need for this thread.

[+southdeltan]

But you have to look at the cache page to see the icon...or at least on the search page...and as Jeremy said, the size will soon be on the search page, so I don't see the benefit of a dedicated micro icon.

Exactly why I voted no. The size listings, in their planned form, will already tell you what you need to know....

You can already filter in the Pocket Query based on size. The only real benefit to a separate listing for micros is for non members who don't use pocket queries.

Thats the reason for having an icon to inidcate size or type, for those people who do not have memberships. Clearly if the majority of the people who used GC.com had memberships there would be no need for this thread.

I'm a member. I think the answer should be yes. If you'll check my earlier posts in this thread you'll find a link to another thread where I've already explained this. PQ's are NOT the answer to everything.

 

A lot of people (and not just non-members) use the search page when preparing for cache hunts, especially when they're in a hurry. Creating a PQ, then downloading it, unzipping it and opening it is a lot of unnecessary work.

 

I also do not want to FILTER out caches. I just want to know what they are.

 

Of course this thread was doomed from the start because of the NEW icons found on the cache search pages that show the size.

 

Majority of the problem solved, although I still think micros are different enough to warrant a type.

 

southdeltan

[+hedberg]

NO!

 

The size doesn't matter!

 

It doesn't matter if the cache is a 40 feet export container or a icecream box or a film canister. It is still Geocaching!

 

I don't like the idea of seperating everything here, what next:

City Caches - all caches placed within 9 miles from the center of a town must be listed as a city cache

Snow cache - all caches that might be close to snow

Zoo cache - all caches located near zoo

 

It doesn't matter if it is a film canister, or a supersupersuper micro cache or a bigger one, it is still the hunt that counts. If micro caches are gonna be a type of itself, how about the use of micro caches in multicaches? First you must find film canister, then a regular sized box? It will only be confusing for the users, and make it more crazy for the newcomers to understand!!

 

So keep it the way it is!

[+fly46]

My next micro is going to contain some small trade items. There is realy no reason that a film cannister cannot hold a couple small pins, flattened pennies from the neat machine at the zoo, etc.

I agree... I have a M&M Mini tube and it's current contents are

a log book,

a pencil,

a charm,

a quarter,

two foreign coins,

an emerald that, when polished, should be about 1/2 a ct.

 

all in a baggie. And other, larger items than some of the items listed above have been in the cache before.

 

 

 

I do, though, think that micros should be defined as a cache with just a log book - bison tubes, custom tiny containers, etc.... AND listed separaterly and a SMALL cache designation should be made for things that can hold items such as film containers, mini's tubes, etc...

[+briansnat]

A lot of people (and not just non-members) use the search page when preparing for cache hunts, especially when they're in a hurry. Creating a PQ, then downloading it, unzipping it and opening it is a lot of unnecessary work.

 

I voted yes. Anything I can to to help me avoid micro's is good

 

I voted yes. I don't see the issue here. Whats wrong with having a seperate icon for a micro when you are researching caches in the area? If it helps someone plan thier trip then it is a useful tool

 

don't like it when I am looking for a particular type and have to weed through a dozen pages to figure out what is or isn't what I am looking for.

 

I voted yes. On a recent trip to Las Vegas and stayed a few extra days to go Geocaching, but I had to read through a lot of cache pages to see if they were micros or not

 

The size listing in its current form only work if you read every individual cache page. Which can be a very time consuming process. An icon for a micro would reduce that time and frustration

 

Judging from these comments, a lot of people who voted yes did so because they want the icon to allow them to separate micros out without having to look at the cache page. Did these people even read Jeremy's inital post in this topic?

 

If this influences your decision, we will be including the size on the nearest cache page.

[+southdeltan]

Judging from these comments, a lot of people who voted yes did so because they want the icon to allow them to separate micros out without having to look at the cache page. Did these people even read Jeremy's inital post in this topic?

 

If this influences your decision, we will be including the size on the nearest cache page.

If you'd READ my posts (you quoted one of them) you'd know that I did.

 

I didn't let that post by J bias my opinion (I personally think it's unrelated, and was posted their to skew the results).

 

Micros still deserve their own type. It's not gonna happen so I guess I'll just be happy that they put the size on the search pages.

 

sd

[Shoobie & the Sand Crabs]

I think you should be able to.

[+fly46]

I find it interesting that, as of 6 pm central time, we are exactly 50/50 with our vote.

[+Ed & Julie]

Anything that would let me better filter out micros is good for me.

As a 2-year cacher, I am fed up with the "micro maddness" this hobbie/sport/pastime is becoming. Micros, nanos, ultra-super-duper-teeny-tinys. I would love to see them all have their own little world (designation) so I know what and where to stay away from. Life would be easier...

Ed

[+art begotti]

[obviouslybiasedstatement]well if its a tie, then it's pretty obvious that enough people dont like the change, and that it shouldnt be done.[/obviouslybiasedstatement]

 

(just hoping no one uses the debate point of "then that means that there are enough people who want the change!")

[Jeremy]

Thanks folks. We'll give the new icon addition to the nearest cache page a few weeks so everyone can use them, and do this poll again.