Why do reviewers allow COs to list a nano as ?(other) size?

[+L0ne.R]

I am seeing this a lot - the cache size is listed as "? Other" yet the description clearly states that the cache is a nano.

 

The size according to the guidelines falls under micro:

 

Cache Sizes

 

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.

 

* Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)

* Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L – holds trade items as well as a logbook)

* Regular (plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox)

* Large (5 gallon/20 L bucket or larger)

 

Are Reviewers not allowed to require that a CO follow the guidelines when it comes to cache size?

 

If a CO posted a traditional cache but the description clearly states a 3-stage multi, the Reviewer would insist that the CO have to follow the guidelines and post it as a multi, not a traditional, right? So, then why the leniency when it comes to size?

[GOF and Bacall]

I understand your annoyance at this ever increasing practice. I'm not sure, however, that there is a rule that states a CO can't intentionally deceive people about the size of their cache. To me it is no better than posting "soft" coordinates. If a CO doesn't want me to filter out his cache with the micros he should try hiding something larger.

[+KBI]

The number of different ways to interpret the various container size designations is equal to the total number of cachers.

 

I think it’s likely that some cache hiders, while filling out the online new cache form, move rather quickly through the step for selecting container size. "Let’s see, it wants to know the size. Hmm. Mine’s a teeny tiny nano. A nano is way smaller than the micros I’ve been finding, but 'Micro' is the smallest size on the list ... oh but wait, there’s another one called 'Other.' I’ll pick that one, that sounds better."

 

Many cachers have their own idea firmly in mind what the word 'micro' means. Anything outside that concept, whatever it is for that person, will be considered by that cacher to be something else.

 

Officially the description says "35 mm film canister or smaller," which means anything from a film can down to a single subatomic particle counts as a micro, but to use this definition requires that one first read the definition. Otherwise it’s easy to be ignorant of those critical words "or smaller," and to presume that there is a floor in there somewhere when it comes to what size one may consider to be a micro.

 

Of course some hiders may intentionally, possibly even maliciously, avoid the micro designation in order to prevent their cache from being electronically ignored by those who would filter them out. Such a thing makes zero sense to me (Why would you trick someone into finding your micro if you know it will irritate them?) but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. In my estimation, however, the vast majority of these misdesignations result from honest ignorance or misjudgment, not mischief.

[+L0ne.R]

The number of different ways to interpret the various container size designations is equal to the total number of cachers.

 

I think it’s likely that some cache hiders, while filling out the online new cache form, move rather quickly through the step for selecting container size. "Let’s see, it wants to know the size. Hmm. Mine’s a teeny tiny nano. A nano is way smaller than the micros I’ve been finding, but 'Micro' is the smallest size on the list ... oh but wait, there’s another one called 'Other.' I’ll pick that one, that sounds better."

 

Many cachers have their own idea firmly in mind what the word 'micro' means. Anything outside that concept, whatever it is for that person, will be considered by that cacher to be something else.

 

Officially the description says "35 mm film canister or smaller," which means anything from a film can down to a single subatomic particle counts as a micro, but to use this definition requires that one first read the definition. Otherwise it’s easy to be ignorant of those critical words "or smaller," and to presume that there is a floor in there somewhere when it comes to what size one may consider to be a micro.

 

Of course some hiders may intentionally, possibly even maliciously, avoid the micro designation in order to prevent their cache from being electronically ignored by those who would filter them out. Such a thing makes zero sense to me (Why would you trick someone into finding your micro if you know it will irritate them?) but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. In my estimation, however, the vast majority of these misdesignations result from honest ignorance or misjudgment, not mischief.

 

Yes, I agree with your observations KBI. So, isn't it the Reviewer who rights these wrongs by educating and correcting the COs mistaken perceptions? Isn't the Reviewer's job to see that the cache size meets guidelines?

[Keystone]

This is not something that reviewers check for (at least I don't).

 

A "?" can be used any time when the owner wants to keep the cache size a mystery. There's no guideline saying otherwise.

 

Many cache descriptions give no clue about the type of container involved. If I had to stop and quiz each hider until the proper size was selected, there'd be an even longer delay in publishing caches.

 

The community is a good resource for educating hiders/ expressing their opinions. If you don't like the practice, comment in your log that you would've preferred the "micro" size designation. If it's a type of cache you don't like to seek, then write a polite e-mail to the owner, explaining why the practice bothers you.

[Mr.Yuck]

This is not something that reviewers check for (at least I don't).

 

A "?" can be used any time when the owner wants to keep the cache size a mystery. There's no guideline saying otherwise.

 

Many cache descriptions give no clue about the type of container involved. If I had to stop and quiz each hider until the proper size was selected, there'd be an even longer delay in publishing caches.

 

The community is a good resource for educating hiders/ expressing their opinions. If you don't like the practice, comment in your log that you would've preferred the "micro" size designation. If it's a type of cache you don't like to seek, then write a polite e-mail to the owner, explaining why the practice bothers you.

 

I hear ya' Keystone. But I surf the new cache listings in your State, New York and Ontario several times a week. It's like every friggin' nano is listed as an unknown size. No one who doesn't hang out in these forums seems to know they're micros.

 

Not to single anyone out (and I won't give a link), but here's the first few words from the cache description of a new cache in one of those places. The word "NANO" is in the cache name, by the way:

 

Well, many folks have said that I should branch out from the micro thing. So I have taken their advice and have planted my first NANO.

 

Humorous, yes. But you guessed it, that cache is listed as an unknown size.

[+briansnat]

Yes, I agree with your observations KBI. So, isn't it the Reviewer who rights these wrongs by educating and correcting the COs mistaken perceptions? Isn't the Reviewer's job to see that the cache size meets guidelines?

 

Unless the reviewer sees a photo of the container with some sort of scale, or the CO describes it to him, how is he to know what size it should be listed under

[GOF and Bacall]

I have just taken to assuming that any cache listed as an unknown size is a micro. I may miss one or two that aren't but I still have plenty of great caches to find. Just like filtering for micro it mostly just eliminates parking lot hides and such.

 

To be honest I have been depending less and less on PQs and using Google Earth to find areas I actually want to visit while caching. Then I run the PQs in support of that trip.

[jholly]

Its really simple: unknown size = nano = ignore.

 

Jim

Edited November 1, 2009 by jholly

[+L0ne.R]

Unless the reviewer sees a photo of the container with some sort of scale, or the CO describes it to him, how is he to know what size it should be listed under

 

But many of the "other" caches clearly state that they are a nano. Here's a cache description of an "other" size cache, near me:

"Nano cache hidden near a favorite morning stop.

 

This is a Nano Cache. It only has room in the log sheet for your name and date. You may need a tweezers to get the log sheet out. "

 

Shouldn't this cache be required to meet the guidelines and be listed as a micro?

[+Ambrosia]

Perhaps it's regional. Most of the caches in my area that are marked unknown or other indicate that the cache container is part of something else. It may be a micro or a small, and is put in a fake birdhouse or inside a plastic animal, for instance. So the container is a specific size, but the whole is technically bigger. This makes sense to me, and seems to be part of the reason these definitions were created in the beginning. I don't see people in this area using it to intentionally cloud PQ's.

[+wimseyguy]

I guess I'm not reading the guidelines the same as others in this thread. I don't see where the sorting by types states that one of the sizes must be selected.

 

Around here unknown is used when there is unusual camo on the cache like a critter or pinecone.

[+L0ne.R]

Its really simple: unknown size = nano = ignore.

 

Jim

The bandaid solution is to ignore all "others".

But my question focuses on the guideline issue and why reviewers aren't following the size guidelines.

 

Rather then ask premium members to filter out "others" why not follow the guidelines as they are clearly stated. The guidelines indicate that all physical caches must have a size. The reviewer would ask the CO to mark the appropriate size - all physical sizes are covered by the guidelines. I see nothing in the guidelines that say, choose "other" if you want the size to remain a mystery or choose other if you want to circumvent PQs that filter out micros. I thought "other" was supposed to be used for caches that have no physical size -- like events and grandfathered virtuals. If GC decides it wants a "mystery" size maybe they could add that and only use it for the few caches where the CO really wants to disguise the size so it doesn't spoil the surprise.

[+Ambrosia]

I don't think the sizes were supposed to be taken so seriously, or that people are supposed to select a size. If that were a case, I would think that the other and unknown sizes would automatically be linked to Events and Virts, and wouldn't be an option for physical caches. When caching first started, a lot of people in my area didn't choose a size. They didn't think it was that big of a deal, and didn't want to hold people's hands. That's just the way it was in the beginning. I don't think the site has forced any changes from then.

[+wimseyguy]

But my question focuses on the guideline issue and why reviewers aren't following the size guidelines.

Where in the guidelines are you reading that the size must be chosen and that the reviewers must enforce a selection? I'm just not seeing anything in them that states this.

Your question and posts are based on flawed assumptions.

[Clan Riffster]

Shouldn't this cache be required to meet the guidelines and be listed as a micro?

From what you've provided, it does meet the guidelines. As you've no doubt noticed from your perusal of the guidelines, there are no limitations regarding what constitutes an "Other". Ergo, so far as the guidelines are concerned, anything from a container the size of the Queen Elizabeth II, to a fake, (lifesize), amoeba, would qualify. There is no violation for the reviewers to enforce.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+The Jester]

 

But my question focuses on the guideline issue and why reviewers aren't following the size guidelines.

 

The guidelines indicate that all physical caches must have a size.

Where do the guidelines say that? The only reference is:

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.

Which only says what the sizes are, not that they must be listed as such.

[AZcachemeister]

Yes, they should.

Is it the most important thing the reviewer should check for?

No.

Is it even in the top ten things the reviewer should be concerned about?

Probably not.

Are there ways I can deal with this myself if it bothers me so much?

Yes, assuming I use GSAK.

 

I can do a full-text search in GSAK, look in the cache description for 'nano', and then either ignore those caches at the website level, or within GSAK itself.

[+L0ne.R]

But my question focuses on the guideline issue and why reviewers aren't following the size guidelines.

Where in the guidelines are you reading that the size must be chosen and that the reviewers must enforce a selection? I'm just not seeing anything in them that states this.

Your question and posts are based on flawed assumptions.

 

This part of the guidelines says:

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.

 

Looks like most people are interpreting this sentence to mean "These are suggested sizes that can apply to a physical cache."

 

So why the continued ambiguity? Why not have caches adhere to a proper cache size? Use "other" to mean a cache without a size (event, virtuals, webcams). Add a "mystery" size for caches where the CO wants to intentionally disguise the size. But where the owner uses "other" but describes the size as nano the reviewer would require the owner to choose "micro". Is there something wrong with using "micro" as it is intended? Which brings me to another question - why isn't "other" defined in the guidelines.

[+tozainamboku]

The online submission form list the following choices for size

1. Not Listed
   
2. Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)
   
3. Small (holds logbook and small items)
   
4. Regular (Rubbermaid, ammo box)
   
5. Large (5 gallon bucket)
   
6. Other (See description)
   

First of all any cacher should be able to select Not Listed if they simply do not want to reveal the size to the cache hunter.

 

Second is the use of Other. Supposedly Other is for containers that don't fit into one of the other categories. For example flat magnetic sheets with a pocket for the log. However is would be difficult to argue with someone who feels that nanos don't fit any of the other categories. While many of us feel that a nano is smaller than a 35mm film canister and therefore it is a micro, some cachers insist that the nano container is a unique container that doesn't really fit the micro category. So long as there is not a separate nano category they will see the use of Other and a description that the says nano as the proper selection to use. It might even be argued that you could use Other whenever you give additional information about a container size in the description.

 

Instead of having reviewers enforce an arbitrary guideline as to when to use use Other vs. when not to, I suspect that TPTB would just as soon let geocachers work it out among themselves. The best you can do is try to convince cache owners that use Other for nanos that Micro is a better option. I suspect that unless Nano is given its own category, we will continue to see some cachers using Other for nanos and some using Micro.

[Keystone]

You could ask Groundspeak to adopt new rules restricting how the "Other" size choice may be used, ask that the "Not Listed" option be removed, and ask that reviewers begin enforcing correct size choices.

 

So, for any cache that doesn't disclose its volume or basis for qualification as "Other," add an average of one day's delay to the publication cycle while the reviewer quizzes the cache hider. The answer needs to be specified in ounces or litres, per the guidelines.

 

Meanwhile, add time to the publication cycle even for caches whose owners know to specify their details in a reviewer note: "Reviewer, this cache is 4 ounces in volume, and thus qualifies as a 'small.'" That's because the reviewer will be busy going back and forth with yesterday's batch of cache hides where the size is ambiguous.

 

May the reviewers then have your permission to forward all the complaint messages to your attention for a response?

[+Team Bashspa]

Why dont they just add a Nano category and move on. Then you could filter them out and make every ones life easy.

[+baloo&bd]

Why dont they just add a Nano category and move on. Then you could filter them out and make every ones life easy.

 

That would be redundant. It is already covered under micro.

[jholly]

Why dont they just add a Nano category and move on. Then you could filter them out and make every ones life easy.

 

A. We have enough sizes to chose from.

B. Bison tubes to blinkers will be labeled nano's, 35 mm film canisters will be come small, small will become regular and ammo cans will become large. I don't know how many film canisters and pill bottles I have found that were listed as small. right. More choices will lead to more wrong choices.

 

Jim

[+L0ne.R]

The online submission form list the following choices for size

1. Not Listed
   
2. Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)
   
3. Small (holds logbook and small items)
   
4. Regular (Rubbermaid, ammo box)
   
5. Large (5 gallon bucket)
   
6. Other (See description)
   

 

Interesting, the online submission form says "See description" for Other but doesn't list a description. Where on the website is the definition of "Other"?

[+Ambrosia]

Why don't we leave it like it is, cause it's always worked out in general for what it was intended for? It's just like every other semi-irritating thing in this sport. You can't change other cachers and their decisions about how the create/hide caches, but you can lead by example.

[+Team Cotati]

Why dont they just add a Nano category and move on. Then you could filter them out and make every ones life easy.

 

A. We have enough sizes to chose from.

B. Bison tubes to blinkers will be labeled nano's, 35 mm film canisters will be come small, small will become regular and ammo cans will become large. I don't know how many film canisters and pill bottles I have found that were listed as small. right. More choices will lead to more wrong choices.

 

Jim

 

Correct. And if someone in a position to do something about that behavior were to 'appoint' a few select responsible and dedicated 'Cache Cops' to identify and archive these abuses of the system, I wager that the incidents of this would fall dramatically and do so very quickly.

 

That others are so careless and irresponsible is no excuse to not make reasonable accommodation to the rest of the community. Pandering or caving to the lowest common denominator of behavior is rarely if ever desirable.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+Touchstone]

I found a Decon container the other day that was labeled as a Regular on the Listing. Just illustrates that folks can do what they want with that particular option, and enforcing yet another Guideline would only result in more delays in Publication.

 

I'd rather Find/Hide caches than play email ping pong with Reviewers over something that seems relatively trivial in my mind. Just my 0.02.

[Clan Riffster]

Other (See description)

 

Interesting, the online submission form says "See description" for Other but doesn't list a description.

I didn't write the guidelines, but I'm assuming that line refers to seeing the cache page description?

[+Team Cotati]

I found a Decon container the other day that was labeled as a Regular on the Listing. Just illustrates that folks can do what they want with that particular option, and enforcing yet another Guideline would only result in more delays in Publication.

 

I'd rather Find/Hide caches than play email ping pong with Reviewers over something that seems relatively trivial in my mind. Just my 0.02.

 

Oh you're right, I did not make it clear that my 'remedy' would kick-in after publication. No publication modifications are required.

 

Further, I'd wager that there are a fair number of geocachers in the geocaching community at large who do not view this as "trivial".

Edited November 1, 2009 by Team Cotati

[+bittsen]

My 2 cents.

 

I think the container sizes need to be more expanded to represent the containers being used. Or, if you want, have sub categories.

 

Nano sized containers aren't the same search as a film canster search. Excessive searching can lead to destruction at GZ so if someone doesn't know if they are looking for a film canister or a blinkie, it could lead to more destruction at GZ and remember that the more destruction in relation to geocaching, the more restrictions we will have.

 

My other though on this subject is that anyone who deliberately misleads a cacher is just asking for someone to mess with their cache. If you are not around 24/7 to watch your cache, it's better to not piss off those who are looking for your cache. Remember, it only takes one person to ruin your cache.

[+Team Cotati]

My 2 cents.

 

I think the container sizes need to be more expanded to represent the containers being used. Or, if you want, have sub categories.

 

Nano sized containers aren't the same search as a film canster search. Excessive searching can lead to destruction at GZ so if someone doesn't know if they are looking for a film canister or a blinkie, it could lead to more destruction at GZ and remember that the more destruction in relation to geocaching, the more restrictions we will have.

 

My other though on this subject is that anyone who deliberately misleads a cacher is just asking for someone to mess with their cache. If you are not around 24/7 to watch your cache, it's better to not piss off those who are looking for your cache. Remember, it only takes one person to ruin your cache.

 

I don't think that you can say that in here.

[+Team Cotati]

Why dont they just add a Nano category and move on. Then you could filter them out and make every ones life easy.

 

That would be redundant. It is already covered under micro.

 

As you well know, that is only true if you filter out micros. And even I who generally despises micros, recognize that many cache seekers want to be able to continue loading micros and not nanos.

 

So no, it is not 'redundant'.

 

"Why dont they just add a Nano category and move on. Then you could filter them out and make every ones life easy."

[+L0ne.R]

It might also help to have the word "nano" appear in the definition of a micro:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

(includes nano size)

– less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet.)

[+Team Cotati]

It might also help to have the word "nano" appear in the definition of a micro:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

(includes nano size)

– less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet.)

 

Especially if you can filter on the description. Can you?

[Clan Riffster]

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller (includes nano size) – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L

To date, I haven't met anyone who believes that a nano equals or exceeds 3 ounces in volume. In fact, everybody I've discussed this with already recognizes the fact that nanos are smaller than film cans, and as such, already meet the current definition. Further clarification would seem to be redundant. Adding superfluous text to the guidelines won't address your concerns regarding the use of the "other" size choice.

[+bittsen]

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller (includes nano size) – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L

To date, I haven't met anyone who believes that a nano equals or exceeds 3 ounces in volume. In fact, everybody I've discussed this with already recognizes the fact that nanos are smaller than film cans, and as such, already meet the current definition. Further clarification would seem to be redundant. Adding superfluous text to the guidelines won't address your concerns regarding the use of the "other" size choice.

 

Small is defined as less than 1 quart. Nobody would ever argue that a nano is less than 1 quart so it is a "small" container.

 

Regular is defined as less than 5 gallons, and nobody would argue that a nano is less than 5 gallons, so it is a "regular" container.

 

Your logic that another container size is not needed, to represent a nano, is fundamentally flawed.

[Clan Riffster]

Your logic that another container size is not needed, to represent a nano, is fundamentally flawed.

I think this one should be included in the thread about humorous posts.

 

Most folks in here are bright enough to recognize that there are several size categories in the guidelines, and they can apply logic to the list, noting that, if a size is described in one category, it would most likely be excluded in another. Something that fits the definition of a "Micro", would not, therefore, be automatically included in the definition of "Small", "Regular" or "Large". Judging by a couple posts, obviously, not everyone in here has the brain power to grasp such a complexity. I'll let you decide which side of that fence you should be on.

 

(See Ma? I done used that there logic stuff real good!)

Edited November 1, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+Kit Fox]

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller (includes nano size) – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L

To date, I haven't met anyone who believes that a nano equals or exceeds 3 ounces in volume. In fact, everybody I've discussed this with already recognizes the fact that nanos are smaller than film cans, and as such, already meet the current definition. Further clarification would seem to be redundant. Adding superfluous text to the guidelines won't address your concerns regarding the use of the "other" size choice.

 

Small is defined as less than 1 quart. Nobody would ever argue that a nano is less than 1 quart so it is a "small" container.

 

Regular is defined as less than 5 gallons, and nobody would argue that a nano is less than 5 gallons, so it is a "regular" container.

 

Your logic that another container size is not needed, to represent a nano, is fundamentally flawed.

 

I doubt it, since the people who run this site have spoken out against a nano size defenition. Give me one example of a geocache that qualifies as a cache meeting the size of a nanometer.

 

A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A meter is about 39 inches long. A billion is a thousand times bigger than a million, as a number you write it out as 1,000,000,000. That is a big number and when you divide a meter into one billion pieces, well that is very small. So small you cannot see something a nanometer in size unless you use very powerful microscopes like atomic force microscopes.

A nanometer is used to measure things that are very small. Atoms and molecules, the smallest pieces of everything around us, are measured in nanometers.

[+bittsen]

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller (includes nano size) – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L

To date, I haven't met anyone who believes that a nano equals or exceeds 3 ounces in volume. In fact, everybody I've discussed this with already recognizes the fact that nanos are smaller than film cans, and as such, already meet the current definition. Further clarification would seem to be redundant. Adding superfluous text to the guidelines won't address your concerns regarding the use of the "other" size choice.

 

Small is defined as less than 1 quart. Nobody would ever argue that a nano is less than 1 quart so it is a "small" container.

 

Regular is defined as less than 5 gallons, and nobody would argue that a nano is less than 5 gallons, so it is a "regular" container.

 

Your logic that another container size is not needed, to represent a nano, is fundamentally flawed.

 

I doubt it, since the people who run this site have spoken out against a nano size defenition. Give me one example of a geocache that qualifies as a cache meeting the size of a nanometer.

 

A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A meter is about 39 inches long. A billion is a thousand times bigger than a million, as a number you write it out as 1,000,000,000. That is a big number and when you divide a meter into one billion pieces, well that is very small. So small you cannot see something a nanometer in size unless you use very powerful microscopes like atomic force microscopes.

A nanometer is used to measure things that are very small. Atoms and molecules, the smallest pieces of everything around us, are measured in nanometers.

 

With your logic there shouldn't be a Micro cache either. A micro would be 1000th of the size of a "regular" cache.

Since a micro could be 3 ounces, then a regular could be 3000 ounces which translates to 23.5 gallons (approximated) So, technically the micro should be less than .75 ounces.

 

In conclusion, your logic on the cache size naming is fundamentally flawed. Sorry.

[Mr.Yuck]

It might also help to have the word "nano" appear in the definition of a micro:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

(includes nano size)

– less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet.)

 

That would be awesome!! Great idea.

 

No offense to Keystone, but how hard would it be to post a cut and paste reviewer note to OBVIOUS nano's (i.e. Nano in the cache name or in the body of the cache description) educating the placer that a nano is a micro? If the cache owner blows off the suggestion, so be it. I'm sure I know one reviewer who posts a cut and paste note to caches with "useless hints" Such as putting "no hint" or "none" in the hint field. And, as mentioned previously, if they blow off the suggestion, so be it.

 

But I'm sure the status quo will remain in place. I have to go. I have to look at some cache pages of caches in the woods that are rated 1 star handicap accessable terrain, and caches with hints that decrypt to "no hint".

[+Kit Fox]

 

With your logic there shouldn't be a Micro cache either. A micro would be 1000th of the size of a "regular" cache.

Since a micro could be 3 ounces, then a regular could be 3000 ounces which translates to 23.5 gallons (approximated) So, technically the micro should be less than .75 ounces.

 

In conclusion, your logic on the cache size naming is fundamentally flawed. Sorry.

 

Now you see my point, even the definition of Micrometer is too small for most tiny caches. Another cacher had an idea I actually agree with: two size designations, caches that hold trade items, and caches that don't.

 

Since the actual definition of a physical cache is a container used to store things, we could call them geocaches, and log only micros.

[Clan Riffster]

<snip> educating the placer that a nano is a micro </snip>

Perhaps because, while it's true that a nano is a "Micro", fitting within that size category, it is also an "Unknown", and a "Not Chosen". All three categories properly represent a nano. I think the reviewers have enough to do already without forcing them to state the obvious.

[+L0ne.R]

It might also help to have the word "nano" appear in the definition of a micro:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

(includes nano size)

– less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet.)

 

That would be awesome!! Great idea.

 

No offense to Keystone, but how hard would it be to post a cut and paste reviewer note to OBVIOUS nano's (i.e. Nano in the cache name or in the body of the cache description) educating the placer that a nano is a micro?

 

Yes, that's a step in the right direction.

[+Team Cotati]

<snip> educating the placer that a nano is a micro </snip>

Perhaps because, while it's true that a nano is a "Micro", fitting within that size category, it is also an "Unknown", and a "Not Chosen". All three categories properly represent a nano. I think the reviewers have enough to do already without forcing them to state the obvious.

 

Let me ask you. If the goal is truly to make certain that everyone understands that particular micro is in fact a nano type micro, why not just be up front and open and honest about it in the first place.

 

That IS the goal isn't it? This way no one in the geocaching community needs to try and read between the lines or delve into the mystical and mysterious intentions of the hider.

 

You simply say it like it is, nice an respectful and honest like.

[Mr.Yuck]

<snip> educating the placer that a nano is a micro </snip>

Perhaps because, while it's true that a nano is a "Micro", fitting within that size category, it is also an "Unknown", and a "Not Chosen". All three categories properly represent a nano. I think the reviewers have enough to do already without forcing them to state the obvious.

 

Yes, but I think I have a rare disagreement with CR here. It seems to me to be well established around here (i.e. these forums) from the dozens of "nano cache size" threads in 2009 alone, that a nano is a micro. Not unknown size, not not listed, but a micro.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Isn't the "Other" size also used for "Unspecified" If a User declines to mark the size, there's nothing wrong with that. Trust me...some people will be peeved if there are loads of Nanos that are listed as Micro. That's worse in my opinion. The bottom line is that the size is just a hint, and is subject to everyone's opinion.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

It might also help to have the word "nano" appear in the definition of a micro:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

(includes nano size)

– less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet.)

 

That would be awesome!! Great idea.

 

No offense to Keystone, but how hard would it be to post a cut and paste reviewer note to OBVIOUS nano's (i.e. Nano in the cache name or in the body of the cache description) educating the placer that a nano is a micro?

 

Yes, that's a step in the right direction.

I don't agree...That's a step in the wrong direction...I don't want to see Nanos listed as Micro. I often choose to skip Caches with unlisted or "Other" sizes, and I'm glad that Nanos are included. I hate looking for a Micro, and finding a Nano...I can't even fit a Raffle Ticket in most of those.

[+bittsen]

It might also help to have the word "nano" appear in the definition of a micro:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

(includes nano size)

– less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet.)

 

That would be awesome!! Great idea.

 

No offense to Keystone, but how hard would it be to post a cut and paste reviewer note to OBVIOUS nano's (i.e. Nano in the cache name or in the body of the cache description) educating the placer that a nano is a micro?

 

Yes, that's a step in the right direction.

I don't agree...That's a step in the wrong direction...I don't want to see Nanos listed as Micro. I often choose to skip Caches with unlisted or "Other" sizes, and I'm glad that Nanos are included. I hate looking for a Micro, and finding a Nano...I can't even fit a Raffle Ticket in most of those.

 

I, too, tend to filter out "other" and "unknown" caches when I do a PQ. I like to know the approximate size of what I am looking for.

On a guardrail its not important but in a forest, it helps to know.

[+Team Cotati]

It might also help to have the word "nano" appear in the definition of a micro:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

(includes nano size)

– less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet.)

 

That would be awesome!! Great idea.

 

No offense to Keystone, but how hard would it be to post a cut and paste reviewer note to OBVIOUS nano's (i.e. Nano in the cache name or in the body of the cache description) educating the placer that a nano is a micro?

 

Yes, that's a step in the right direction.

I don't agree...That's a step in the wrong direction...I don't want to see Nanos listed as Micro. I often choose to skip Caches with unlisted or "Other" sizes, and I'm glad that Nanos are included. I hate looking for a Micro, and finding a Nano...I can't even fit a Raffle Ticket in most of those.

 

I, too, tend to filter out "other" and "unknown" caches when I do a PQ. I like to know the approximate size of what I am looking for.

On a guardrail its not important but in a forest, it helps to know.

 

Me too. Funny thing though, until today I never knew that I was also unknowingly filtering out nanos.

 

Too cool.