[Glynis]

I was wondering why micro caches aren't listed separately from regular caches? All too often a micro is placed where a regular cache could easily have been placed, and as a result, I have no interest in searching for micro caches. My area has been flooded with them, and I would personally like to see a way to NOT search for micro caches when bringing up the list of all caches in my area. I know you can exclude caches you've found, and you can specifically look for "traditional" caches, but you can't look for "regular" or "large" caches.

If this is the wrong place for suggesting such a thing, please let me know where the proper forum is to do so!

Thanks!
~Glynis

[Seamus]

This comes up quite a lot, and I believe that the usual answer is something to the effect of, "If you're a paid subscriber to the site, you can filter out the micros when you set up a pocket query".

I've done that on my paperless setup, but it still doesn't filter out the ones listed as "mystery" cache types, or those whose owners erroneously label them as traditionals when they are in fact film cans stuffed in a hole in a wall somewhere.

I believe I have allegedly heard mention of rumors that TPTB might be looking at a possibility (is that vague enough?) of instituting some sort of "cache attributes" function that would allow you to further filter your searches on site. Then again, I've heard many variations on this theme from a good number of people, so who knows?

(Tell Fergus I said "hi")

[CoyoteRed]

See discussions here, here, and here for more on this subject.

(I did a search on "micro size" )

[Markwell]

CoyoteRed, on Jun 30 2004, 03:00 PM, said:

(I did a search on "micro size" )

Good thing you didn't search the whole web for that. I can only imagine the stuff you'd get back on Google...

The biggest detractors to having micros listed as a separate cache type can best be summed up by the hyperbole:

Caches that are camouflaged to blend into their environment and are hidden in parks that don't allow dogs are a different type of cache and should be listed separately...

Micros are a different type of hunt than a traditional sized cache, but the other "types" of caches aren't talking about size. Here's how I summarize them.

Traditional Cache - Here's the coordinates. Go find a container.
Multi-Cache (offset Cache) - Here's the first set of coordinates, that will tell you where the next set of coordinates are. Eventually, you'll find a container.
Virtual Cache - Here's the coordinates for something REALLY cool. Find the spot, and answer my question to prove you were there.
Letterbox Hybrid - Here's the coordinates. You might have to follow some instructions to go find a container. There's a stamp in the box - leave it there.
Event Cache - Here's the coordinates to where a whole bunch of Geocachers are meeting to talk about Geocaching. Hope to see you there.
Webcam Cache - Here's the coordinates to a webcam. Take your picture (with someone's help) and post the picture.
Mystery or puzzle caches - Here's some coordinates. You better read the webpage to find out what the heck is going on.
Locationless (Reverse) Cache - Here's some criteria. Find something that meets the criteria and tell me what the coordinates are.

Micro - the container you're finding is small.
Regular - the container you're finding is about the size of a lunch box.
Large - the container you're finding is pretty darn big (5 gallon bucket).

The best argument is that size is an attribute. It would be great to have searchable attributes to a cache.

[EraSeek]

Micros are traditional in type, just a different size as Markwell states. One thing I would like to see is:
Micro
Mini
Regular
Large

There seems to be a size in here that needs to be listed. Mini is small but can hold one item, a log sheet, and pen, but is not big enough for "stuff". Now this is as opposed to Micros which are tiny and can only hold a small logsheet, no pen or items.

Micro= bison capsules and film cans

Mini= pencil boxes, small jars, the like.

Regluar= Things big enough to put a hardback book in, Ammo cans

Large= 5 gallon cans and the like.

[vagabond]

EraSeek, on Jun 30 2004, 04:51 PM, said:

Micros are traditional in type, just a different size as Markwell states. One thing I would like to see is:
Micro
Mini
Regular
Large

There seems to be a size in here that needs to be listed. Mini is small but can hold one item, a log sheet, and pen, but is not big enough for "stuff". Now this is as opposed to Micros which are tiny and can only hold a small logsheet, no pen or items.

Micro= bison capsules and film cans

Mini= pencil boxes, small jars, the like.

Regluar= Things big enough to put a hardback book in, Ammo cans

Large= 5 gallon cans and the like.

Lets not forget the nano caches

[norbu]

EraSeek, on Jun 30 2004, 04:51 PM, said:

<snip>
Micro= bison capsules and film cans

Mini= pencil boxes, small jars, the like.

Regluar= Things big enough to put a hardback book in, Ammo cans

Large= 5 gallon cans and the like.

this is how we refer to it in our household, I don't mind finding out if it is mini or micro until I find it. Of course, knowing is useful, but the difference is trivial for me. At least so far!

[MikieP]

In my mind the problem arises when the hider lists anything larger that a film canister as a "Regular" sized caches. As stated above (and in many other threads), perhaps a solution would be a size category between the film canister and the ammo box.

[Bilder]

The surplus decon boxes are really popluar up here.

An inbetween the micro and ammo can is a great suggestion and I would like to second it.

[norbu]

Yes, I believe another size attribute would be very useful. maybe call it small rather than mini? is there a perfect name? The hunt for the perfect value can be fun.

[Jeremy]

Good suggestion. I'll make sure that nothing gets broken first then... what.... bring it for a vote? Seems like a small enough change but defining it would be important.

[Markwell]

But back in time when these were being sorted out logscaler suggested five sizes: micro, mini, regular, large and jumbo. I don't see the need to differential between large and jumbo, but the rest of his post sticks. If "those who came before" had suggested it as early as May of 2001.

Hey Wow. I posted to that thread, too two months after I registered. Something about being able to search these size/category attributes...

[dampeoples]

That would be a very good idea, it's bad to get to a cache location with my kids, excited about the 'treasure hunt' to only find a tiny container with no toys, although I don't mind looking for them alone

[73Shuler]

Probably the most common answer that you will get is "you can filter micros."

This is bunk.

You have to be a member to filter them using PQs and other software. And then the GC search page still has them all listed and you have to wade through pages of rubish to see the real caches.

Micro caches are a greater threat to geocaching than virtual or LC ever were. The quantity of these things is going off the scale, a regular plague in the wild.

How in the world can a micro be considered a "cache" in the first place I don't think a damp folded up piece of paper that doesn't have room to write on qualifies as a CACHE.

Micros would be better suited for another web site completely. However...

Groundspeak has found a way to profit off micros, therefore they aren't on the blacklist that virtual and LC are. That is the real answer to your question. It isn't about geocaching, it isn't even about the numbers; follow the greenback.

This post has been edited by Sock Puppet 101: 07 July 2004 - 03:33 AM

[LazyCat]

I've quickly sort of gotten to hate micros located in the woods/wilderness areas. Like looking for a needle in a hay stack where the hay stack is huge and the needle is microscopic.

[IV_Warrior]

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 7 2004, 07:31 AM, said:

You have to be a member to filter them using PQs and other software. And then the GC search page still has them all listed and you have to wade through pages of rubish to see the real caches.

Well, not if you set your PQ to filter out stuff you aren't interest in, hit the "preview" button for the PQ, then bookmark that page. Use the bookmark instead of the zipcode search, "filter finds" link, or whatever you had been using previously..........

Yeah, you do have to be a premium member, but if you can afford $100 or more for a GPS, what's $30 for the Premium membership for a year?

[Gaddiel and OrangeDanish]

Jeremy, on Jun 30 2004, 11:52 PM, said:

Good suggestion. I'll make sure that nothing gets broken first then... what.... bring it for a vote? Seems like a small enough change but defining it would be important.

Sounds good to me. Eraseek's suggestion for Minis sounds about right on the attribute description. I would add large prescription bottles and paintball canisters to that list.

[Mastifflover]

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 7 2004, 06:31 AM, said:

Probably the most common answer that you will get is "you can filter micros."

This is bunk.

You have to be a member to filter them using PQs and other software. And then the GC search page still has them all listed and you have to wade through pages of rubish to see the real caches.

Yep you have to be a member to do this, but if you want convenience you can put up or shut up.

[Marky]

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 7 2004, 04:31 AM, said:

Probably the most common answer that you will get is "you can filter micros."

This is bunk.

You have to be a member to filter them using PQs and other software. And then the GC search page still has them all listed and you have to wade through pages of rubish to see the real caches.

This is an untruth. You can run a pocket query in the GC search page and filter out micros all day long.

--Marky

[rickrich]

We unofficially categorize micros this way:

Ultra Micro - anything smaller than a super-micro
Super Micro - bison tubes, nitroglycerin pill bottles
Micro - Film cans

<offtopic>
What I'd really like to filter out are pog tubes, tupperware, coffee cans, ice cream pails, metal tins, glad containers, and anything else that within a matter of weeks/months is going to be wet.

If only I could filter on the type of seal that is on the container. "Seal == Rubber" would get me super-micros and ammo boxes, which just also happen to be my favorite two caches sizes to hunt.

OK, I'm half joking here. Being officially addicted to the sport, once I've milked the area dry I'll eventually hunt anything with a coordinate. With an area 8 miles in radius around my house completely cleared out, and a larger radius almost cleared out, I'd be happy to hunt the waypointed dog piles that somebody posted.
</offtopic>

[73Shuler]

Marky, on Jul 8 2004, 11:09 PM, said:

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 7 2004, 04:31 AM, said:

Probably the most common answer that you will get is "you can filter micros."

This is bunk.

You have to be a member to filter them using PQs and other software. And then the GC search page still has them all listed and you have to wade through pages of rubish to see the real caches.

This is an untruth. You can run a pocket query in the GC search page and filter out micros all day long.

--Marky

What part are you suggesting is untrue? There isn't anything about PQs on the search page, they have their own section, just like micros should.

[73Shuler]

Mastifflover, on Jul 8 2004, 11:03 PM, said:

Yep you have to be a member to do this, but if you want convenience you can put up or shut up.

Evidently you missed the whole point; micros are not GEOCACHES, they are scraps of trash.

[art begotti]

are you kidding? micros are awesome... i prefer micros over the other uber-too-many-names-for sizes. i mean, a micro is almost always hidden for you to find. big gungo-caches can be see from a hundred feet off, when you're still hiking up to the spot where you decide you're going to look. micros are more of a challenge. micros keep you looking, keep you guessing, keep you thinking creative. hotchsky-sized caches make you say, "oh golly, i wonder what this walrus is doing out in the middle of nowhere. golly gee. what could it be. oh my word, it's the cache. hoop-de-doodles."

[IV_Warrior]

artbegotti, on Jul 9 2004, 10:44 PM, said:

are you kidding? micros are awesome... i prefer micros over the other uber-too-many-names-for sizes. i mean, a micro is almost always hidden for you to find. big gungo-caches can be see from a hundred feet off, when you're still hiking up to the spot where you decide you're going to look. micros are more of a challenge. micros keep you looking, keep you guessing, keep you thinking creative. hotchsky-sized caches make you say, "oh golly, i wonder what this walrus is doing out in the middle of nowhere. golly gee. what could it be. oh my word, it's the cache. hoop-de-doodles."

Gee, I bet that micro is hidden under the cover on that lightpost in the Wal-mart parking lot, where my GPS is pointing toward.......yeah, that's a challenge, and it's typical of MANY micros. Spot the "hiding spot" before you're even out of your car.....

[art begotti]

you know...

okay, scratch that. looking at your sig, you DO live in pennsylvania. the insult i was about to make would have fallen faster than a brick attached to a marble.

but at least where i am from, micros take a good long time for me to find. people get creative around here, and they pick creative places to hide caches.

and we have no walmart. :P

[norbu]

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 9 2004, 07:17 PM, said:

Mastifflover, on Jul 8 2004, 11:03 PM, said:

Yep you have to be a member to do this, but if you want convenience you can put up or shut up. 

Evidently you missed the whole point; micros are not GEOCACHES, they are scraps of trash.

blah blah blah
come out of the drawer and argue in the light.
actually, why argue. You can't have everything you want. deal with it.
Make the best of what you can do, and stop bad-mouthing different types of caches. it just makes you sound kinda silly..
Some micros suck, some regulars suck
I can't tell you how tired I am of finding decimated bushes, with an ammo can under it. Start a save the bushes thread, that would be more constructive than the I hate micros stuff.
geesh

OH Yeah, Micros in my area are often really cool, even some of the ones that aren't urban creative camo is a Lot of fun, and most people who take the time to be creative, also take the time to make something that isn't going to get soggy the first time a sprinkler hits it. Some of our urban micros are sheer genius. but enough of that. You know all that already.

[hedberg]

If you wanna sort out micro caches, why not use GSAK and import your PQs into it, and it can easily sort out all kind of micros for you...

[CoyoteRed]

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 7 2004, 03:31 AM, said:

How in the world can a micro be considered a "cache" in the first place I don't think a damp folded up piece of paper that doesn't have room to write on qualifies as a CACHE.

Wrong. A good majority of micros I've found are trading caches.

Sorry if your area is different, but don't try to force the rest of the world into your definition of how the game is played.

[73Shuler]

artbegotti, on Jul 9 2004, 06:44 PM, said:

are you kidding? micros are awesome... i prefer micros over the other uber-too-many-names-for sizes. i mean, a micro is almost always hidden for you to find. big gungo-caches can be see from a hundred feet off, when you're still hiking up to the spot where you decide you're going to look. micros are more of a challenge. micros keep you looking, keep you guessing, keep you thinking creative. hotchsky-sized caches make you say, "oh golly, i wonder what this walrus is doing out in the middle of nowhere. golly gee. what could it be. oh my word, it's the cache. hoop-de-doodles."

I don't dispute that micros might occasionally provide for an interesting hunt and provide a unique challenge. The point is that they are not CACHES - this game is called GEOCACHING, not find the tiny micro. Two different games.

While it may be true that there are a few interesting micros out there, the vast majority are terribly lame.

[73Shuler]

CoyoteRed, on Jul 10 2004, 04:33 AM, said:

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 7 2004, 03:31 AM, said:

How in the world can a micro be considered a "cache" in the first place I don't think a damp folded up piece of paper that doesn't have room to write on qualifies as a CACHE.

Wrong. A good majority of micros I've found are trading caches.

Sorry if your area is different, but don't try to force the rest of the world into your definition of how the game is played.

What are they trading in these, postage stamps? Now that might acutally qualify as a cache if it were the case. But how many of these exist? I bet it isn't 1 per 1000.

I don't have a problem with a small cache, just those that are not caches. If the "micro" exists as a trading cache then it probably isn't really a micro, maybe a mini, but not a micro.

[IV_Warrior]

hedberg, on Jul 10 2004, 02:49 AM, said:

If you wanna sort out micro caches, why not use GSAK and import your PQs into it, and it can easily sort out all kind of micros for you...

If you don't want to hunt micros, why would you waste valuable PQ space by including them, then filtering them out in a third party program? Filter them out from the start, by NOT selecting MICRO on the size selections, and use that PQ space for caches you WANT to look for.........

[73Shuler]

norbu, on Jul 9 2004, 08:31 PM, said:

come out of the drawer and argue in the light.

Because I don't want owners of trash micros to compromise my real CACHES.

[CoyoteRed]

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 10 2004, 07:08 AM, said:

I bet it isn't 1 per 1000.

If you're talking about caches around here you'd lose that bet. In fact, around here non-trading caches are a bit of an oddity, including micros.

Oh, and yes, I'm talking about 35mm and APS film cans.

[73Shuler]

CoyoteRed, on Jul 10 2004, 07:26 AM, said:

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 10 2004, 07:08 AM, said:

I bet it isn't 1 per 1000.

If you're talking about caches around here you'd lose that bet. In fact, around here non-trading caches are a bit of an oddity, including micros.

Oh, and yes, I'm talking about 35mm and APS film cans.

I was talking about all areas, your area might be a surprising exception. What exactly gets traded in these film cans?

[73Shuler]

CoyoteRed, on Jul 10 2004, 04:33 AM, said:

Sorry if your area is different, but don't try to force the rest of the world into your definition of how the game is played.

I may or may not be a wise old sage, but I definitely did not define the word "cache"

[The Jester]

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 10 2004, 10:52 AM, said:

I may or may not be a wise old sage, but I definitely did not define the word "cache"

If you are going to go by strict definitions, than no geocache is a "cache":

Quote

cache n: a hiding place esp. for concealing and preserving provisions
Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Food ('provisions) isn't allowed in geocaches.

A broad definition is "something hidden" - a logbook isn't 'something'? A bison capsule isn't 'hidden'?

If you are going to argue (and that's the only reason I see that you use a sock puppet for) definitions, don't expect others to accept your personal definition as the only one.

[Marky]

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 9 2004, 07:12 PM, said:

Marky, on Jul 8 2004, 11:09 PM, said:

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 7 2004, 04:31 AM, said:

Probably the most common answer that you will get is "you can filter micros."

This is bunk.

You have to be a member to filter them using PQs and other software. And then the GC search page still has them all listed and you have to wade through pages of rubish to see the real caches.

This is an untruth. You can run a pocket query in the GC search page and filter out micros all day long.

--Marky

What part are you suggesting is untrue? There isn't anything about PQs on the search page, they have their own section, just like micros should.

I won't argue with you or try to explain, since your sock puppet account can't run PQ searches, you can't know what I am talking about. People that do have PQs know how to do it.

--Marky

[CoyoteRed]

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 10 2004, 09:27 AM, said:

I was talking about all areas, your area might be a surprising exception. What exactly gets traded in these film cans?

So just because the cachers in your area fail to provide trading micros the rest of the world should change? It's hard to believe South Carolina is the only place that tends to continue to adhere to the basics of caching.

Well "exactly" I don't remember, but you can peruse my logs to find out. Some of the things I remember are foreign coins, lapel pins, tiny rubber snakes, and small toys.

Sock Puppet spewed forth this as well. said:

I may or may not be a wise old sage, but I definitely did not define the word "cache"

Too true, but take a look at this:

Quoting this site's definition of a cache - emphasis mine said:

Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook.  The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("microcache") too small to contain items except for a logbook. ...

Whoa! Looks like for our purposes "cache" is defined as being trade items optional now doesn't it? So basically, using your camp's logic a traditional cache is not a traditional cache because it's too small to be a traditional cache even though it fits the definition of a traditional cache. Maybe this is why the "seperate the micros" crowd is always on the losing side of the argument.

[Phoenix2001]

norbu, on Jun 30 2004, 09:16 PM, said:

Yes, I believe another size attribute would be very useful. maybe call it small rather than mini? is there a perfect name? The hunt for the perfect value can be fun.

It would help if the size attributes had different first letters for abbreviations. So I would also suggest “Small” instead of “Mini”. So there would be M, S, R, and L, instead of M, M, R, and L.

[Prime Suspect]

Sock Puppet 101, on Jul 10 2004, 09:14 AM, said:

norbu, on Jul 9 2004, 08:31 PM, said:

come out of the drawer and argue in the light.

Because I don't want owners of trash micros to compromise my real CACHES.

That comment might have a little weight to it, if you were posting from an account that actually owned some caches.