Where Have All The Green Boxes Gone?

May 17, 2004

I recently read and sympathize with the article in "Today's Cacher": Where Have All the Green Boxes Gone?

Just as the author of the article, I have no problem with micro caches in themselves, but I don't care to look for them myself.

Would anyone else like to see an option to exclude micros from search results on the site?

6.4k · May 17, 2004

This option is already available to premium members via the pocket queries.

May 17, 2004

No.

Some micros are fun, I have hid 1 micro because there was no way I could hide a larger container.

All my hides from now on will be 5 gallon buckets (ok I got a deal on buckets)

In before the lock.

May 17, 2004

No.
Some micros are fun, I have hid 1 micro because there was no way I could hide a larger container.

All my hides from now on will be 5 gallon buckets (ok I got a deal on buckets)

In before the lock.

I agree... some micros are fun... so if I want to look for one I should check the "include micros" checkbox.

I'm glad to hear the feature is available for premium members. That's definitely an incentive to become one!

24.7k · May 17, 2004

I already found all the green boxes. All that's left is micro's. Looks like I can quit or keep on caching.

May 18, 2004

I would like to see them put into their own category so that they are easier to screen out. It's impossible to distinguish real caches from micros from the regular search lisings. You have to load each page individually to see if it's another stinking micro. I am a premium member and I have pocket queries and I do filter them out but we need to think of the new players and casual geocachers that don't want to ante up the extra $. There are also times when I don't have access to my pocket queries and special situations where I don't want to be bothered with setting one up. It would be a big improvement to this site.

2.3k · May 18, 2004

I wish I could filter out the stinkin' green boxes so I could just search for the real man's caches: Magnificant Micros!

1.3k · May 18, 2004

distinguish real caches from micros

Just so you know. You lost my ability to care about what you what you were saying right about there. I would have gone for "traditional" or "regular" or a bunch of other terms, but once I saw "real caches" I just gave up hope.

Sorry. Maybe next time.

2.6k · May 18, 2004

May 18, 2004

I wish I could filter out the stinkin' green boxes so I could just search for the real man's caches: Magnificant Micros!

This is exactly the guy whose caches I want to avoid.

*I* consider micros cheap, unimaginative, and litter on the geocaching landscape. They require no effort (financially or mentally--yeah, yeah, I know there are exceptions) on the part of the hider, and give little reward on the part of the finder. When was the last time you found something interesting in a micro? "Hey... this guy used *yellow* paper for his log! How inventive!" I'd much rather find even a virtual cache than a micro. Show a beginner a micro cache and you get, "Look, if I knew you needed a stubby pencil and a post-it note so badly I could have just reached under the seat of my car."

But this is all only *my* opinion! I realize that there are people out there who like micros! Fine! I am not suggesting that micros be taken away, I just want to be able to avoid them myself.

Why would anyone have a problem with that?

By the way, since this discussion began, I have become a premium member and can now filter out the nasty little critters. Still, I think they belong in a completely different category.

2.7k · May 18, 2004

Wow, sarcasm meter not working tonight?

May 18, 2004

I wish I could filter out the stinkin' green boxes so I could just search for the real man's caches: Magnificant Micros!

This is exactly the guy whose caches I want to avoid.

Actually his caches look very interesting. BTW I love micros.

1.4k · May 18, 2004

I sent my International exchange cache to the Netherlands some weeks ago, and it has yet to arrive. I used an ammocan for the cache container, and the delay had me worried that my cache got stopped in customs or maybe even blown up by the cache bomb squad.

I was surprised today when the Postal service delivered the cache to my home. It seems that it got hammered in a sorting facility. The original box is completely missing (A note to my Dutch partner inside the ammocan with my address tipped them off who to return it to).

The ammocan suffered only scratches and a dent. The only casualty was a Yellowstone coffee mug. If this was in anything other than a steel green box, it would have been a total loss.

Respect for the Green Boxes.

7.2k · May 18, 2004

Actually, it seems you are complaining about log-only caches, not micros.

Just because by far the most log-only caches are micros doesn't mean a micro is defined by being only a logbook. There are plenty of trading micros out there.

This subject seems to be resurrected at least once or twice a month, but that may just be my perception.

Filter on micros around here and you'd be excluding some of the best caches in the area. ...and they all are trading caches.

If you want to ask for a change to the site, ask for something worthwhile--ask for a log-only category.

1.6k · May 18, 2004

I think that the bigger question is the ability to sort caches by type. I don't like micros as much as traditional caches, but I will hunt them, particularly if the cache is hidden in an inventive manner.

I really dislike most multicaches and puzzle caches. These seem incoherent with what I want to gain from geocaching and I don't hunt them.

I use the date less pocket query to sort caches, but it would be easier if the sort routine was set up with a do-loop kind of architecture. Do all of trads first, then do all of micros, then do all of multis rather than the distance variable being the controlling variable.

This way a member could choose this option and cluster the types of caches that they want to hide together. Might be a good option for the premium members.

May 18, 2004

I would like to see a button added to the "log your visit" page that says "opt out". When you look at the cache page and you are really not interested in that cache for whatever reason you can hit the opt out button and the cache would no longer appear on your filtered list.

Yes you can do some filtering on the pocket queries, but most of the time I am looking at caches in my area I am doing it from my cache page, and using the pocket queries in the field.

This button wouldn't hurt anybody, wouldn't appear on the cache page, and would help you clean up your list and leave just the caches you want to find. No more sorting through all the same old junk (in your opinion, no one elses) in your area to find the gems. All those caches would still be visible to you in the unfiltered list.

I prefer not to filter any out on my pocket queries because when I plant a new cache I want to know if there is anything else in the area, without running a seperate querie.

2.3k · May 18, 2004

I would like to see a button added to the "log your visit" page that says "opt out". When you look at the cache page and you are really not interested in that cache for whatever reason you can hit the opt out button and the cache would no longer appear on your filtered list.

I like that idea too! That would allow those of us that don't log online to "get rid" of the caches we have already done, since we don't see the checkmarks (already found) on the cache listings...

May 18, 2004

Actually, it seems you are complaining about log-only caches, not micros.

I'm not complaining about *any* cache, I'm complaining that there is little distinction on the website between two significantly different types--regular and micro.

From what I've seen, 9 of 10 micros store nothing but a log book (or should I say, a log *shred*) and (sometimes) a pencil. I once left a small drywall screw anchor in one because it was rolling around in the bottom of my bag and was the only thing I had that would fit. It bothered me not to leave *something*, even though there was nothing to take.

Anyway... I'm not suggesting that micros be wiped from existence. Perhaps even I would even like them more if it weren't for the fact that my 4-year-old looks so forward to finding the "treasure".

The fact that this discussion generates controversy "once or twice a month" is confirmation that Regulars and Micros are very different animals and deserve much greater distinctions than they currently have.

6.4k · May 18, 2004

Actually, it seems you are complaining about log-only caches, not micros.

I'm not complaining about *any* cache, I'm complaining that there is little distinction on the website between two significantly different types--regular and micro.

From what I've seen, 9 of 10 micros store nothing but a log book (or should I say, a log *shred*) and (sometimes) a pencil. I once left a small drywall screw anchor in one because it was rolling around in the bottom of my bag and was the only thing I had that would fit. It bothered me not to leave *something*, even though there was nothing to take.

Sorry, this is gonna probably end up sounding harsher then I intend.

It was pretty easy to see just how much expertise/experience you have with micros, since you only have 11 physical finds. Of those, 4 are micros. I think you're shortchanging yourself if you're eliminating a large number of fun, creative hides based on 4 finds. Sure, many micros are log only, but so are some bigger caches. Besides that, after you've seen 100 broken mctoys, 100 dirty golf balls, and 100 old movie stubs, you may not be as inclined to trade even in 5gal-sized caches (of course when you bring a 4yr old they will ALWAYS want to trade :rolleyes: ). Sure, there are plenty of lame micros, just like there are plenty of lame full size caches. There are also plenty of creative micro hides. More so then fullsize caches. Where ya gonna put an ammo can? Under a log, under a pile of sticks, under a pile of rocks. Sure there are a few not hidden like that, but most are. No different then an altoids under a parking lot lightpole base. Keep searching for those micros on the days the 4yr old stays home, I'm sure you will start finding some that show plenty of thought and creativity.

Edited May 18, 2004 by Mopar

May 18, 2004

I also have a four year old that LOVES the "treasure hunt" so I simply choose not to do log-only micros with her. (just like I wouldn't take her on a terrian above a 3)

I myself am personally not crazy about micros either but I since I have limited time to cache I don't want to exclude any caches that may give me the chance to grab a couple that day or even better, get me to an area I didn't know about.

Plus, micros CAN be extremely creative as well (check out the CCC topic) can't wait to find some of those!! :rolleyes:

Okay, I just read through some comments again and I just realized that perhaps you weren't actually saying to "Get rid of" micros, just perhaps have a different icon for them like the multi-caches, virts, etc., do?

I don't see a harm in that, I'd keep searching either way. :blink:

Edited May 18, 2004 by SunshineSnuz

38.2k · May 18, 2004

Sure, there are plenty of lame micros, just like there are plenty of lame full size caches.

I think the percentage of lame micros is much higher. At least with a full size cache, you have to choose a container pick up a log book and trade items add a geocaching letter and some Ziplocs. Then you have to find a place where you can actually conceal a large container, so that takes some thought. A person placing a full sized cache (usually) has to put some thought into it.

Most of the micros I've found were film canisters with a slip of paper inside (usually torn from a sheet...they couldn't even be bothered with scissors) and carelessly hidden in high traffic areas.

It takes me about 2 hours to prepare a regular cache for placement, between sanding it, painting it, laminating the geo letter, glueing it inside, bagging the logbook, sharpening a few pencils and choosing the trade items. In the same time, I could easily knock out a few hundred film canister with a strip of paper micros.

I'm not saying all micros are bad and all real caches are great, but the ease of creating and hiding a micro tends to attract lazy geocachers who are putting caches out just for the sake of putting a cache out.

Edited May 18, 2004 by briansnat

May 18, 2004

It was pretty easy to see just how much expertise/experience you have with micros, since you only have 11 physical finds. Of those, 4 are micros.

... you will start finding some (micros) that show plenty of thought and creativity.

First, I didn't say had a lot of experience (and I didn't even use the word "expertise") in finding micro caches (or any kind caches, for that matter--actually I'm pretty lousy at it). I only stated what the descriptions of most micros *say themselves* that they contain:

- "Contains only a log"

- "Contains only a log and pencil"

- "Contents: Log only. Bring your own pencil."

- "Contains only a log and pencil" (and now a drywall screw)

Why are you trying to convince me that I should like micros? I'm not trying to convince you to dislike micros. My point is NOT "micros must die!" I simply would like to see an obvious distinction between them and regulars.

SunshineSnuz, you're exactly right. What do you do if you search for zip code 55555 and a cache with "D/T" of "3/4" pops up (and the max you'll do with your child is a 2/2)? You don't check it for download, right? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO WITH MICROS, but I can't because there is no major distinction.

2.3k · May 18, 2004

When I first started, I didn't like them either. Thought they were "too much trouble." Now, I love the challenge of a well-placed, cleverly-hidden micro.

you'll see! :rolleyes:

6.4k · May 18, 2004

Sure, there are plenty of lame micros, just like there are plenty of lame full size caches.

I think the percentage of lame micros is much higher. At least with a full size cache, you have to choose a container pick up a log book and trade items add a geocaching letter and some Ziplocs. Then you have to find a place where you can actually conceal a large container, so that takes some thought. A person placing a full sized cache (usually) has to put some thought into it.

Most of the micros I've found were film canisters with a slip of paper inside (usually torn from a sheet...they couldn't even be bothered with scissors) and carelessly hidden in high traffic areas.

It takes me about 2 hours to prepare a regular cache for placement, between sanding it, painting it, laminating the geo letter, glueing it inside, bagging the logbook, sharpening a few pencils and choosing the trade items. In the same time, I could easily knock out a few hundred film canister with a strip of paper micros.

I'm not saying all micros are bad and all real caches are great, but the ease of creating and hiding a micro tends to attract lazy geocachers who are putting caches out just for the sake of putting a cache out.

If you actually look at the Cool Cache Containers thread, you will see most of them are micros. I've seen plenty of full size caches that were nothing then a coffee can with a logbook made of by taking old printouts from work, tearing them into quarters, and stapling them together to reuse the blank back of the pages. I've seen plenty of full-size caches that were nothing more then a 10 for $1 sandwich box with a sheet of paper and some stuff from the junkdrawer. I've been first or 2nd on enough of them to know thats how they started, not traded down. MOST full size caches out there are NOT ammo cans, sanded and repainted, and stocked with $25 worth of stuff. Just like MOST micros are not like ones in the CCC thread, MOST fullsize caches seem to be thrown together in 5 minutes and then tossed in the 1st place found .1 from another cache.

They are both the same because they are both the same type of cache. There really ISN'T any difference, other then size. That's why they share the same icon.

A micro cache is anything smaller then a standard tupperware/ammo box. It does not define if it contains trade items, or how much time one spends creating or hiding it. Same cache, only smaller.

I still think there is a lot more room to get creative with a micro container then there is with a traditional sized one.

5.9k · May 18, 2004

I guess I’ll take the middle ground on this issue. Yes, there are some cool micros, as well as some time wasting lameo ones. I mean really, do I need to know about the jungle gym at yet another postage stamp sized park? No I don’t. But if it’s in my lunch hour window, I’ll hunt it the same as any other. Will I drive 20 minutes for one on a Saturday afternoon? No, I have too many other things, caches and chores, competing for my time.

Every cache has a purpose, even if it’s just to make you aware of the curly slide at the metro park. You hunt the ones that interest you and back-burner the ones that don’t.

Some cachers find enjoyment in organizing and methodically hunting three dozen micros in an afternoon, I’d rather spend all day in the woods for one ammo can. Doesn’t make me right or anyone else wrong, just different.

9.4k · May 18, 2004

If you don't like micros, get out of the Fudging city!

(sorry, Criminal, I used your word)

6.4k · May 18, 2004

It was pretty easy to see just how much expertise/experience you have with micros, since you only have 11 physical finds. Of those, 4 are micros.

... you will start finding some (micros) that show plenty of thought and creativity.

First, I didn't say had a lot of experience (and I didn't even use the word "expertise") in finding micro caches (or any kind caches, for that matter--actually I'm pretty lousy at it). I only stated what the descriptions of most micros *say themselves* that they contain:

- "Contains only a log"

- "Contains only a log and pencil"

- "Contents: Log only. Bring your own pencil."

- "Contains only a log and pencil" (and now a drywall screw)

Why are you trying to convince me that I should like micros? I'm not trying to convince you to dislike micros. My point is NOT "micros must die!" I simply would like to see an obvious distinction between them and regulars.

SunshineSnuz, you're exactly right. What do you do if you search for zip code 55555 and a cache with "D/T" of "3/4" pops up (and the max you'll do with your child is a 2/2)? You don't check it for download, right? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO WITH MICROS, but I can't because there is no major distinction.

regular size cache

A container about the size of a tupperware or ammo box that contains a log.

It may or may not contain a writing utensil, and it may or may not contain trade items. The ONLY requirement is it has a log of some type.

micro size cache

Any container smaller then a tupperware or ammo box that contains a log.

It may or may not contain a writing utensil, and it may or may not contain trade items. The ONLY requirement is it has a log of some type.

large size cache

Any container larger then a tupperware or ammo box that contains a log.

It may or may not contain a writing utensil, and it may or may not contain trade items. The ONLY requirement is it has a log of some type.

How does sorting by this help me eliminate caches that don't contain trade items me or a 4yr old might like?

How does sorting like this seperate the good caches from the bad?

Seriously, I see your point you're trying to make, but not ALL micros are scraps of paper in a 35mm tossed under a bush, just like not ALL regular size caches are gladware tossed under a bush. You really seem to want to sort out log-only caches, which would be a cache attribute, not a cache size. Cache attributes are something that TPTB here have said is in the site's future, and there are plenty of discussions on it.

May 18, 2004

Seriously, I see your point you're trying to make, but not ALL micros are scraps of paper in a 35mm tossed under a bush, just like not ALL regular size caches are gladware tossed under a bush. You really seem to want to sort out log-only caches, which would be a cache attribute, not a cache size. Cache attributes are something that TPTB here have said is in the site's future...

I didn't say "ALL". I realize that I'm focusing on generalities.

Maybe there's a wildly exciting magnetic key case out there somewhere (with a vast assortment of plastic whistles, CD's, and travel bugs in it, apparently) that I will exclude by filtering out micros. I can handle that severe threat.

And perhaps there's a 50-gallon drum out there with nothing in it but a broken pencil and a piece of paper wrapped around it that I will INCLUDE by filtering out micros. I can deal with that possibility as well.

VERY GENERALLY, micros contain paper and pencil, where regulars contain an assortment of things that 4-year-olds go for.

A "log-only' attribute? That's great too! But WHY NOT show the existing attribute of container size on the search results page? It would seem that this could be done almost immediately, where new attributes would require all cache owners to update their existing caches (and would take a lot more work).

I'm not suggesting that this distinction is something that *everybody* will care about, but some of us will and there is no harm done to those who do not.

May 18, 2004

If you don't like micros, get out of the ... city!

That's exactly why I think the boundaries should be better defined, so that those of you who (generally) like micros can include them and those of us who (generally) don't can avoid them.

May 18, 2004

All I am hearing is the "You" and "Us". I like well hidden caches, whether they are small or large. I like to find a challenge hidden in a natural way that isn't just a film canister thrown out, as well as a good travel bug hotel where there is a lot of exchanging. But to lump all of the soggy bookmarks and Mac toys into a group of "Us" against those who like both or the "You" as you described them seems to be very unfair and I don't think it would be much fun to hunt caches with you if you automaticly generalize the cache quality. I like to see who hid it and that gives me a clue as to the quality.

6.4k · May 18, 2004

I didn't say "ALL". I realize that I'm focusing on generalities.

Maybe there's a wildly exciting magnetic key case out there somewhere (with a vast assortment of plastic whistles, CD's, and travel bugs in it, apparently) that I will exclude by filtering out micros. I can handle that severe threat.

I'm sorry that the 4 micro's you've actually experienced have left such a bad taste in your mouth. Interestingly enough, when I just revisited this thread, it was right below one titled The Kind Of Logs I Like. Earlier, in that thread, I posted some pics of two AWESOME cache locations. It just dawned on me that both of those were micros. The first one is a small log only cache. Hidden very creatively, it's just 2ft off the path practically in plain sight, yet many people have trouble finding it. The second cache I posted there would also be considered a micro, yet it had a logbook, trade items, and a travel bug in it.

But WHY NOT show the existing attribute of container size on the search results page? It would seem that this could be done almost immediately, where new attributes would require all cache owners to update their existing caches (and would take a lot more work).

I'm not suggesting that this distinction is something that *everybody* will care about, but some of us will and there is no harm done to those who do not.

I'm not positive, but I would suspect every search parameter you add would also add to the server load. You would still have to search for every cache in the defined area, then filter out the micros. I'm guessing again (I don't know much about DB design) but every time anyone searched, even those people looking for all 3 cache sizes, each search would still have the added (useless) task of checking the cache size on every page. So there could be a very real "harm" to those who don't, in the form of reduced website performance. The real time free-user searches have to be a compromise between function and server load. By adding the function to the members only PQs, TPTB can limit the added drain to paying members, and also, since the PQs aren't exactly in real-time, there's probably a lower load on the system.

May 18, 2004

While reading this pose I read alot of complaints about the "junk" you find and I guess thats a new topic but it all comes down to responsible cache N. I have found several that look like they have not been checked on since they were placed. I like them all but tend to lean toward the larger ones because its alot harder to hide an ammo can. In my searches I have found some really creative micros the best one yet was a small one about the size of 4 big watch batteries stacked on top of each other. Think I will try to filter my search and look for one with maybe gas cards in them $1.93 here today for regular gas. Just my 2 cents worth.

May 18, 2004

It seems like many are focused on the contents of a cache -- micros are not as good because they cannot hold trade items, they do not have regular logs, etc. In general, I don't care whether it is a regular cache or micro -- the part I am interested in is the search and find, not the trading. In fact, I hardly ever trade -- just leave a signature item (and I have micro versions for those small caches).

My only issue with micros, which are VERY common in south Florida, is that an area can have so few regular sized caches that it becomes hard to find places to put travel bugs.

May 18, 2004

Seriously, I see your point you're trying to make, but not ALL micros are scraps of paper in a 35mm tossed under a bush, just like not ALL regular size caches are gladware tossed under a bush. You really seem to want to sort out log-only caches, which would be a cache attribute, not a cache size. Cache attributes are something that TPTB here have said is in the site's future, and there are plenty of discussions on it.

With all due respect, Mopar, I think you are missing the point.

I don't like micros. I have done enough of them to know that they are not to my taste. I am never impressed by CCC's like you and the other fans of micros. I enjoy the navigation part of geocaching more than looking for a needle in a haystack. Micros are typically hidden in high-traffic areas where I spend more time dodging muggles than looking for the cache. Some people think this is fun. I do not. The exceptions to this rule of thumb would be micros hidden where a regular sized cache would be more appropriate. I feel that this type of micro is a waste of location so I don't like them either. The last category of micros are the drive and dump convenience caches that are scattered around carelessly by the numbers-obsessed cache-bagging crowd. These caches are great if you're playing the game for stats but a total waste of time otherwise. There is the rare exception which proves the rule but I am not going to concern myself with that. The bottom line is that size does matter to some of us. We are asking for a separte category or that the size attribute be displayed in the search listing so that we can more easily identify the caches that we want to hunt. I consider it to be far more valuable than the difficulty/terrain ratings, date last found, and some of the other info displayed in the search listings.

Please consider that it isn't as easy for some of us as it is for you. You have the premium membership and the palm computer loaded with the latest software and a bazillion caches from pocket queries. I often find myself at a computer in a public library looking for a few nearby caches to hunt. I would rather not waste my time on micros which will probably turn out to be a waste.

If you know that there have been discussions about displaying the size attribute on the search pages, please refer me to them. You are much better and sifting through these forums than I am. As I have said, I enjoy the navigation part more than I enjoy looking for a needle in a haystack.

6.4k · May 18, 2004

Please consider that it isn't as easy for some of us as it is for you. You have the premium membership and the palm computer loaded with the latest software and a bazillion caches from pocket queries. I often find myself at a computer in a public library looking for a few nearby caches to hunt. I would rather not waste my time on micros which will probably turn out to be a waste.

Ok, I'll concede that for whatever reasons, some people would rather skip smaller container sizes based solely on the cache container. Forget that excludes caches like this one, that required decent navigation and hiking, and was in a spot that could not support a larger cache. A micro with trade items and travel bugs, no less.

As was explained before, become a supporting member of this website(and yes, I know you already are, Johnny). $30 a yr is less then 58 cents a week. Quite a bargain compared to $2.09 cents a gallon for gas. If you can't afford 58 cents, you probably cant afford batteries for your gps, gas for your car, or paper and ink to print out the cache pages. How is that for blunt?

There is no need for a pda (although, older $25 models are fine for caching). All you need to do is load the queries into a free program like Watcher or GSAK and you can filter and sort caches almost any way you can imagine. You can even tell the PQs to leave out all those nasty little micros in the first place. You can even tell it to filter out all caches from known lamo hiders, so you won't even have to see the latest trashy full-size cache either. Filter out all those lamo 3 terrain and lower caches too. Whatever you like. All stored on your home computer, or maybe burned on a cd, in case you need to keep your personal todo list handy. You can even print caches from there. All without even being online after that PQ email. All without adding to server load. Doesn't even matter if the site is slow or down, cause the searches are flying on your pc.

Even if you are limited to borrowing online time from a library, you can still display your queries output on the website in real-time, thus spitting out your list of caches that are not micos. Added plus is this way your very customized, unusual search parameters are stored and saved, and only a few mouse-clicks away.

Once cache cache attributes are added, you'll even be able to search only for caches that are kid/dog/wheelchair/boat/colt/cinderblock/weak bladder friendly, or maybe just filter out logbook-only caches.

The website is tailored to be easy to use and useful to the large majority of users. If you are not part of that majority, then use the tool provided for you, rather then try and complicate things for everyone else.

Edited May 18, 2004 by Mopar

May 18, 2004

I didn't say "ALL". I realize that I'm focusing on generalities.

Maybe there's a wildly exciting magnetic key case out there somewhere (with a vast assortment of plastic whistles, CD's, and travel bugs in it, apparently) that I will exclude by filtering out micros. I can handle that severe threat.

I'm sorry that the 4 micro's you've actually experienced have left such a bad taste in your mouth. Interestingly enough, when I just revisited this thread, it was right below one titled The Kind Of Logs I Like. Earlier, in that thread, I posted some pics of two AWESOME cache locations. It just dawned on me that both of those were micros. The first one is a small log only cache. Hidden very creatively, it's just 2ft off the path practically in plain sight, yet many people have trouble finding it. The second cache I posted there would also be considered a micro, yet it had a logbook, trade items, and a travel bug in it.

But WHY NOT show the existing attribute of container size on the search results page? It would seem that this could be done almost immediately, where new attributes would require all cache owners to update their existing caches (and would take a lot more work).

I'm not suggesting that this distinction is something that *everybody* will care about, but some of us will and there is no harm done to those who do not.

I'm not positive, but I would suspect every search parameter you add would also add to the server load. You would still have to search for every cache in the defined area, then filter out the micros. I'm guessing again (I don't know much about DB design) but every time anyone searched, even those people looking for all 3 cache sizes, each search would still have the added (useless) task of checking the cache size on every page. So there could be a very real "harm" to those who don't, in the form of reduced website performance. The real time free-user searches have to be a compromise between function and server load. By adding the function to the members only PQs, TPTB can limit the added drain to paying members, and also, since the PQs aren't exactly in real-time, there's probably a lower load on the system.

My question restated:

"Would anyone like to see an option to exclude

micros from search results on the site?"

Had I realized the question would raise controversy, I would have asked:

"Would anyone like to see the cache size added

to the search results screen and the ability to

filter certain sizes?"

Of course, for me that can only mean one thing: that I don't have to look through 65 caches to find 7 regulars.

About the database design issue... I *am* a database developer, and this feature would *not* pose any threats at all. (Unless the database was very poorly designed in the first place, but I don't think that is the case here.).

Again, don't worry about me. If I happen to miss 3 excellent caches by filtering out hundreds of what I consider to be bad ones, that's okay. I promise to take full responsibility for my self-inflicted horrors.

Why is it so important to you to convince me of the virtues of micro caches? I - do - not - like - them. You do? Congratulations! I hope you and your Tic-Tac case have a wonderful life together.

3.8k · May 18, 2004

i like micros. :rolleyes: :blink:

6.4k · May 18, 2004

Why is it so important to you to convince me of the virtues of micro caches? I - do - not - like - them. You do? Congratulations! I hope you and your Tic-Tac case have a wonderful life together.

The website is tailored to be easy to use and useful to the large majority of users. If you are not part of that majority, then use the tools provided for you, rather then try and complicate things for everyone else.

Let me elaborate. You are new, you have found a handful of caches. Forgive me, but no, you don't know what every cache is like yet. Quest Master I can see, and if you come back after a few hundred finds and feel the same way, I would probably let you suffer. :rolleyes:

I don't care for virtuals, and believe it or not, I generally don't care much for micros. Still, with over 500 previous finds, I very recently found both a virtual that is now my all-time favorite cache EVER, and a micro that is among my top 5%. If I had excluded either cache based solely on cache size, I would have missed 2 of the most memorable days of the 40yrs I've been on earth. I've found enough GOOD virtuals, and enough GOOD micros that I'll keep grumbling thru the bad ones. I try (I occassionally fail) to keep in mind there are very few bad caches. They are all varying degrees of good. If any cache hunt becomes unenjoyable, regardless of container size, I just walk away.

Edited May 18, 2004 by Mopar

May 18, 2004

The website is tailored to be easy to use and useful to the large majority of users. If you are not part of that majority, then use the tool provided for you, rather then try and complicate things for everyone else.

Yeah... you've figured me out... that's all I want... I'm looking to complicate things for everyone and I figured the best way to completely confound your world would be to add the cache size to the search results. I'm quite the evil genius.

- Matthew1344 (a.k.a. Simon LeGree)

Premium Member

May 18, 2004

You are new, you have found a handful of caches. ... with over 500 previous finds, I ...

Okay, you are the guru of geocaching and the King of everything... now that we've established that....

Would anyone like to see the cache size added to the search results screen and the ability to filter certain sizes?

38.2k · May 18, 2004

Okay, you are the guru of geocaching and the King of everything... now that we've established that....

Ummmm, I thought I was.

We are asking for a separte category or that the size attribute be displayed in the search listing so that we can more easily identify the caches that we want to hunt. I consider it to be far more valuable than the difficulty/terrain ratings, date last found, and some of the other info displayed in the search listings.

I don't think micros should be in a separate category, because they are a size, not a type of cach, but I think placing the size designation on the search results page would be a great way to address this.

At first, I thought what's the big deal. You click on the cache page and it will tell you of is a micro, but then there are not a lot of micros in my area. Apparently, in some regions micros make up the majority of caches. If I lived in one of those areas, I'm sure I'd like to be able to determine which caches are micros without having to click on each page.

Has anybody asked for this feature in the GC.COM forum? If not, how 'bout it.

Edited May 18, 2004 by briansnat

1.5k · May 18, 2004

... walking in, sitting down. "Pass the peanuts please"... when does the next fireworks show start? :rolleyes:

2.2k · May 18, 2004

we are going to a level blue.

May 18, 2004

As a noob myself I don't have many finds yet, but I am trying to be open. The one micro that I have done so far was a great challenge. so far the enjoyment has been the thing that ill keep me trying. I am also looking forward to this summer with my neice who visits for the summer and see whether she enjoys and do more with her. If I find that there are ones placed by a particular cacher that I do not like I will drop them from my list of must see's. This early in my caching I am still finding out the style that I like.

Wrlwnd

1.5k · May 18, 2004

we are going to a level blue.

I'm still hungry uper, can we go straight to yellow? :rolleyes:

Edit: Spelling

Edited May 18, 2004 by tirediron

1.8k · May 18, 2004

My question restated:

"Would anyone like to see an option to exclude

micros from search results on the site?"

As has been stated, it already is.

Let's doublecheck the Pocket Query Generator page, just to be sure...

Now that we've established that, are there any further questions?

6.4k · May 18, 2004

Has anybody asked for this feature in the GC.COM forum? If not, how 'bout it.

Nope, never.. Matt has found the way to fix everything wrong with searches.

2.2k · May 18, 2004

we are going to a level blue.

I'm still hungry uper, can we go straight to yellow?

Edit: Spelling

go ahead and put the bag in the microwave. :rolleyes:

5.3k · May 18, 2004

38.2k · May 18, 2004

Nope, never.. Matt has found the way to fix everything wrong with searches.

I wasn't talking about distinct icons, or cache types for micros. Just a designation on the search results page. Instead of a heading with (D/T) and ratings like (3/3) below it the heading could be changed to (D/T/S) and under it, (1.5/3/M), (1/2/R), etc...

Edited May 18, 2004 by briansnat

Where Have All The Green Boxes Gone?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment