Micro Caches

[+tecrane1]

Want micro caches to be in a group by themselves. Not to come up in a

regular or traditional cache query. Quart size or bigger to be regular

traditional caches.

[+cachecows209]

y?

[+tirediron]

Want micro caches to be in a group by themselves. Not to come up in a

regular or traditional cache query. Quart size or bigger to be regular

traditional caches.

I want to win the lottery, but I'm not exactly turning blue, holding my breath waiting for it to happen... why do you want this?

[+bigredmed]

Troll alert.

 

Micros have their own database listing and as long as they are properly entered into the database, could be labeled as such with the logo of a microscope or a pill bottle. That would separate them.

 

Parking lot micros would be labeled with a little walmart logo or a xerox sign to be the cache owners' badge of shame for not spending the time to come up with a better cache.

[+Mopar]

I want a pony!

[+briansnat]

A micro is a traditional cache. Micro is a size, not a type of cache.

[+nfa]

Its not the size of the present, its what's inside that matters

 

Micros can be good and bad, just like regular or large sized caches

 

nfa

[+Renegade Knight]

A micro is a traditional cache. Micro is a size, not a type of cache.

That's true but they sure do cause issues.

[BassoonPilot]

A micro is a traditional cache. Micro is a size, not a type of cache.

It's true micro caches are listed as traditional caches, but are they? The earliest geocaches certainly weren't micro caches. If I didn't have to leave for work, I'd do a search for the earliest micro caches. From what I recall off the top of my head, the earliest caches, (therefore the "traditional" caches,) were of the type we now call "normal" or "large."

 

I don't think having another category is a bad idea. The "micro" designation could cover all those caches that contain a "micro" or "mini" element. I suppose part of the "mystery" designation could be a non-disclosure of cache size, or a mixing of element sizes in multicaches.

 

The categories could stand for a revamping: We currently have mystery caches that are standard multicaches, multicaches that are really mystery caches, traditional caches that are really mystery caches, mystery caches that have no element of mystery to them, physical and virtual caches that are also locationless caches, etc., etc.

Edited August 25, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+Markwell]

The categories could stand for a revamping:  We currently have mystery caches that are standard multicaches, multicaches that are really mystery caches, traditional caches that are really mystery caches, mystery caches that have no element of mystery to them, physical and virtual caches that are also locationless caches, etc., etc.

But all of those don't have anything to do with the cache's size. There already is a designation for size in a separate field from the cache type. As it stands now, with micro as a function of size, not type, we have 34 possible and logical combinations of cache size and cache type.

 

The black ones are combinations that don't make much sense, the grey ones are "iffy" - aren't all events supposed to be either large or regular?

 

If anything needs to be modified, I'd be willing to agree that there should be a "mini" additional size - somewhere between the micro and traditional.

 

Again, as many have said, micro is a size - not a type. Sizes CAN be filtered through almost all of the GPX filter softwares (GSAK, Watcher, etc.).

Edited August 25, 2004 by Markwell

[+Quest Master]

It sure would be helpful if the cache size was displayed in the standard search lisings.

[+carleenp]

You can filter micros out with pocket queries. Note that pocket queries can also be used like a better search tool. You can view the results right after running it. So even if not downloading waypoints etc, the pocket query can be useful for screening some things out of a list of caches.

[+southdeltan]

It sure would be helpful if the cache size was displayed in the standard search lisings.

I agree 100%.

 

And RK is right - the do cause issues don't they?

 

---

 

The standard answer is use PQ's and 3rd party software - but geeze - is it so hard to have different icons for traditionals on the regular search pages? I personally don't use watcher/gsak unless I need to do some fairly complicated trip planning (which is VERY rare). It wouldn't require much - just put a big M on the icon for tradionals that are micros and a big R for regulars and a big L for large. (I'm referring to the listing pages, not necessarily the maps which are already cluttered as it is).

 

I, and many others, use the standard search pages. If we're not supposed to use them, they should remove them. All I ask for is an easy way to know if a cache is a micro or regular by just looking at the page.

 

I'm not gonna get into the whole "it's just a size" - no joke, it is a size difference but in my experience the "geocaching experience" is a lot different - that makes them different "beasts" to me (and apparantly all of the other idiots that ask for this simple request). It comes up all the time, and gets blowed off all the time.

 

I don't want to have to use programs that I don't like using to do something simple.

 

southdeltan

[+bigredmed]

It sure would be helpful if the cache size was displayed in the standard search lisings.

I agree 100%.

 

And RK is right - the do cause issues don't they?

 

---

 

The standard answer is use PQ's and 3rd party software - but geeze - is it so hard to have different icons for traditionals on the regular search pages? I personally don't use watcher/gsak unless I need to do some fairly complicated trip planning (which is VERY rare). It wouldn't require much - just put a big M on the icon for tradionals that are micros and a big R for regulars and a big L for large. (I'm referring to the listing pages, not necessarily the maps which are already cluttered as it is).

 

I, and many others, use the standard search pages. If we're not supposed to use them, they should remove them. All I ask for is an easy way to know if a cache is a micro or regular by just looking at the page.

 

I'm not gonna get into the whole "it's just a size" - no joke, it is a size difference but in my experience the "geocaching experience" is a lot different - that makes them different "beasts" to me (and apparantly all of the other idiots that ask for this simple request). It comes up all the time, and gets blowed off all the time.

 

I don't want to have to use programs that I don't like using to do something simple.

 

southdeltan

Southdeltan shoots and scores.

 

Yes, you can use pocket queries to filter, but like using a blowtorch to start a campfire, its overkill.

 

All that is needed is to add a new icon to the database. I don't care what is added, just add it.

 

The caches are all described in the database that they get registered under in terms of size. Micros are listed as such when you list the cache. Thus this data is captured.

 

The same subroutine that puts a green box next to a trad and and speech bubble next to an event cache could put a little M next to the micros.

 

I get really tired of the reaction that TPTB have here to any suggestion, no matter how small, that they don't like. Reflexically "we don't need any more rules" or "use pocket queries".

[+Team Perks]

And RK is right - the do cause issues don't they?

They don't for me. For every lame micro I've found, I've also found one lame regular cache. That still won't filter out caches that suck.

 

For those who don't want to hunt micros, there are already ways to filter them.

[+southdeltan]

And RK is right - the do cause issues don't they?

They don't for me. For every lame micro I've found, I've also found one lame regular cache. That still won't filter out caches that suck.

 

For those who don't want to hunt micros, there are already ways to filter them.

Sorry, but they're not efficient for what I like to do. I don't want to have to download PQ's, unzip them, open them with a 3rd party program and then use it to filter out something when all that is required is a new icon.

 

How hard is that?

 

What does this have to do with lame or not wanting to hunt them? And even if it did, some people consider ALL micros lame . I don't feel that way, and I am not trying to filter out "lame" caches.

 

And it's obvious it's not an issue for a lot of people, but for many it IS an issue.

 

It'd be so easy if instead of having to go through several steps, data that is already there could be used to put up a simple image on cache search pages so I know what I'm looking at without having to click on the link to the cache page.

 

sd

[+Team Perks]

Sorry, but they're not efficient for what I like to do.  I don't want to have to download PQ's, unzip them, open them with a 3rd party program and then use it to filter out something when all that is required is a new icon.

 

How hard is that?

 

What does this have to do with lame or not wanting to hunt them?  And even if it did, some people consider ALL micros lame .  I don't feel that way, and I  am not trying to filter out  "lame" caches.

 

And it's obvious it's not an issue for a lot of people, but for many it IS an issue.

 

It'd be so easy if instead of having to go through several steps, data that is already there could be used to put up a simple image on cache search pages so I know what I'm looking at without having to click on the link to the cache page.

 

sd

"How hard is that?" Well, to create a query takes me about 30 seconds; downloading, unzipping, and opening in GSAK takes another minute once the query drops into my email. As has already been pointed out, listing cache SIZE as a cache TYPE would require creation of multiple new cache "types" (Mystery/Regular, Mystery/Micro, etc.) on the web site. I just have to question which of these is more time efficient.

 

I'm not at all trying to imply that having a separate category for micros would be a bad idea; if anything, it would do nothing for me. Consequently, while I'm not opposed to it, there is no benefit for me personally to be in FAVOR of Jeremy et al spending their time to rework the website to include them...So, if everyone is making requests that would benefit them, I'll be greedy and demand a LAME filter.

[+southdeltan]

"How hard is that?" Well, to create a query takes me about 30 seconds; downloading, unzipping, and opening in GSAK takes another minute once the query drops into my email. As has already been pointed out, listing cache SIZE as a cache TYPE would require creation of multiple new cache "types" (Mystery/Regular, Mystery/Micro, etc.) on the web site. I just have to question which of these is more time efficient.

 

I've made queries and used those programs. I don't want to have to make a pq every time I want to know if a cache I'm looking at is regular or micro sized. It takes me longer than 30 seconds. It also takes me longer than a minute to download a PQ and GSAK and watcher both require me to open them and take a bit of time for that to happen.

 

It may only take you a minute or two - but it takes me longer. Even if it only took me 30 seconds - having an icon that's easily distinguishable would be almost instantanious. Seconds add up. (and what if your 5 pq's have already been used? this isn't an anti-pq thing, but there are several reasons this would be helpful)

 

The answer to every question similar to this is NOT "just use pq's".

 

I don't understand why people say there'd have to be an icon for every possibility. I don't see people asking for that. I do see LOTS of people asking for an icon for micros.

 

sd

[+southdeltan]

"How hard is that?"

Oh yea - none of that post answered my question. It told me how you use PQ's to do something.

 

I'm no expert but I know enough about programing to know that it wouldn't take a long time for them to create an icon and write the code to display it. The framework's already in place.

 

sd

[+carleenp]

I am not opposed to a separate icon for micros. But since there isn't one at this time this might help:

 

Southdeltan: You do not have to download the PQ and use GSAK or other third party programs. What you can do it set up the PQ search (which really should just take 30 seconds or so) and then click the link to view the search right after it loads. In setting up the PQ you can filter out all sorts of things, including micros. You can use the view page right after to see the caches without downloading the PQ. You can just delete the email w/ the PQ.

 

I think many are not aware of the ability to use that feature. I know I had no clue about it before I went paperless. I had been a premium member for some time and had never bothered with the PQ page because I thought I would need to learn third party programs. I would have used it much sooner if I had realized it could be used as a better search function without downloading anything.

 

Of course it can't filter out quality caches, whether micros or larger sizes, but a separate icon could not do that either. I have no problem with a separate icon though if the site ever cares to implement it.

[+Team Perks]

"How hard is that?"

Oh yea - none of that post answered my question. It told me how you use PQ's to do something.

 

I'm no expert but I know enough about programing to know that it wouldn't take a long time for them to create an icon and write the code to display it. The framework's already in place.

 

sd

I'm not an expert either, hence my inability to argue how easy or not it would be to make any sort of programming change.

 

My post simply explained why it is not an important issue for ME in response to your statement that it would be helpful (i.e., to everyone). But then, I'm on a high-speed connection and can get the information quickly. And given how slow GC.com is when I'm likely to be using it, I actually prefer PQ's. I don't have to deal with a slow website; I can just work offline.

 

Again, let me reiterate that I do not OPPOSE your suggestion. I am sure it would be beneficial to some people. Just not me.

[+Markwell]

I am not opposed to a separate icon for micros. But since there isn't one at this time this might help:

 

Southdeltan: You do not have to download the PQ and use GSAK or other third party programs. What you can do it set up the PQ search (which really should just take 30 seconds or so) and then click the link to view the search right after it loads. In setting up the PQ you can filter out all sorts of things, including micros. You can use the view page right after to see the caches without downloading the PQ. You can just delete the email w/ the PQ.

 

I think many are not aware of the ability to use that feature. I know I had no clue about it before I went paperless. I had been a premium member for some time and had never bothered with the PQ page because I thought I would need to learn third party programs. I would have used it much sooner if I had realized it could be used as a better search function without downloading anything.

 

Of course it can't filter out quality caches, whether micros or larger sizes, but a separate icon could not do that either. I have no problem with a separate icon though if the site ever cares to implement it.

Re-read her post again. It's almost exactly what I was going to type.

 

EXCEPT...

 

You can set a PQ to not have any days to run. Just don't select any days of the week.

 

Then you can preview the results of the pocket query by going back to the list of PQs and hitting the preview. The PQ has never been e-mailed, never been zipped, never has to go through a third party software.

 

Best of all, you can also bookmark the results of the PQ.

 

Example: set a PQ for all unfound non-micro caches starting at your front door's coordinates. Don't click any days to run.

 

Now you've got a clickable link that does EXACTLY what you want: not returning micro caches in a query. On demand, no actual GPX or LOC file has ever changed hands.

[BassoonPilot]

The solutions offered in this thread clearly point out one thing ... a high percentage of geocachers are definitely "gadget people," and prefer convoluted solutions to simple ones.

[+IV_Warrior]

The solutions offered in this thread clearly point out one thing ... a high percentage of geocachers are definitely "gadget people," and prefer convoluted solutions to simple ones.

Or they think the pages are already cluttered enough. Or that there's already enough caches out there that are mislabeled, why give clueless idiots ANOTHER choice to screw up? Then there's the "if it ain't broke" crowd, that sees the fairly simple solution of using a PQ 'preview'.......heck, once you set it up and view it the first time, you can even bookmark that page, and quickly come back to it. For that matter, you could probably set it as your home page.....

[BassoonPilot]

Or they think the pages are already cluttered enough.

That's simple enough to solve ... limit the cache description for all cache categories except "mystery cache" to 250 words. Have the page list only the coordinates, cache type, ratings, and required information. (Hours of operation, fees, suggested parking/access)

 

Or that there's already enough caches out there that are mislabeled

 

That's certainly the truth.

 

why give clueless idiots ANOTHER choice to screw up?

 

Sweet. But isn't that one of the most fun "desk-top" aspects of geocaching? Reading logs and enjoying the myriad ways people screw up?

 

Then there's the "if it ain't broke" crowd

 

Some people might consider "it's broke" if they need to use more than one product or solution in order to retrieve basic information.

Edited August 26, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+The Commissar!]

I have just gone paperless and am enjoying the PQ's and 3rd party off-line solutions for planning my hunts. I would still like to see a micro icon on the search results lists and on the maps too...

 

But...

 

It really won't change the way I cache because I am going to try knock them all off my list sooner or later. And when a new one pops up I will read the cache page and know whats involved, size and otherwise

[+carleenp]

Thanks Markwell! I had forgotten that could also be done!

[+southdeltan]

Now you've got a clickable link that does EXACTLY what you want: not returning micro caches in a query. On demand, no actual GPX or LOC file has ever changed hands.

 

Southdeltan: You do not have to download the PQ and use GSAK or other third party programs. What you can do it set up the PQ search (which really should just take 30 seconds or so) and then click the link to view the search right after it loads. In setting up the PQ you can filter out all sorts of things, including micros. You can use the view page right after to see the caches without downloading the PQ. You can just delete the email w/ the PQ.

 

I think many are not aware of the ability to use that feature. I know I had no clue about it before I went paperless. I had been a premium member for some time and had never bothered with the PQ page because I thought I would need to learn third party programs. I would have used it much sooner if I had realized it could be used as a better search function without downloading anything.

 

I guess I haven't been clear - I do not want to FILTER out micro caches. I'm not trying to avoid them. I just want to KNOW what type (size, if you want to get all technical) a cache is in a GLANCE instead of having to set up a PQ.

 

I'm well aware of the preview feature on pocket queries. It's a longer process than just looking and I'm not trying to filter out stuff.

 

Or they think the pages are already cluttered enough. Or that there's already enough caches out there that are mislabeled, why give clueless idiots ANOTHER choice to screw up?

 

Erm - you ALREADY choose the size of a cache when you list it. The data is ON the cache page. I'm just asking that instead of having to click on a link to each traditional page - use the data already in the DB to display a different icon on the search page.

 

When I do a zipcode search, or click on nearest caches, or anything - it brings up a list with 20 caches.

 

If a cache is a traditional it shows this icon:

 

When I click on the cache page it either says:

 

This is a Micro cache.

 

or

 

This is a Regular cache.

 

The choice has already been made by the geocacher and it's inserted into the DB. It should take but a few lines of code to detect taht and display a slightly different image (perhaps with M for micro, R for regular).

 

I don't understand what's so hard about that. I never said give them a seperate type (I won't get into that, heh) - just indicate what they are better so I don't have to do unnecessary steps to find out what they are.

 

southdeltan

[+carleenp]

Sorry SD, I assumed you wanted to filter since that seemed to be what the OP in this topic was addressing.

 

Anyway for anyone who wants to filter things out, the PQs work quite well.

[+southdeltan]

Sorry SD, I assumed you wanted to filter since that seemed to be what the OP in this topic was addressing.

 

Anyway for anyone who wants to filter things out, the PQs work quite well.

No problem - I think that most of the time people automatically think that when they see that.

 

I could use it to filter OUT regulars just as well I suppose - but that's not necessarily the intent. Of course, even if somebody did want to - it'd be really easy to just call that data and put in a different icon.

 

sd

[+Team Perks]

The choice has already been made by the geocacher and it's inserted into the DB. It should take but a few lines of code to detect taht and display a slightly different image (perhaps with M for micro, R for regular).

 

I don't understand what's so hard about that. I never said give them a seperate type (I won't get into that, heh) - just indicate what they are better so I don't have to do unnecessary steps to find out what they are.

 

southdeltan

And what that clarification made, I will endorse your suggestion.

 

I guess after hearing all the complaining from micro-haters, I thought you were going for the filter idea as well. You're right, with the information already being in there, it would seem to be a simple change.

[+IV_Warrior]

Or they think the pages are already cluttered enough.

That's simple enough to solve ... limit the cache description for all cache categories except "mystery cache" to 250 words. Have the page list only the coordinates, cache type, ratings, and required information. (Hours of operation, fees, suggested parking/access)

I meant the search pages, not the cache pages themselves.

 

Then there's the "if it ain't broke" crowd

 

Some people might consider "it's broke" if they need to use more than one product or solution in order to retrieve basic information.

 

They don't need to use more than one thing. They can do it all from Pocket Querries

[+Muirwoody]

Troll alert.

I see this sometimes and never have figured out what "troll" means. Help?

[BassoonPilot]

They don't need to use more than one thing. They can do it all from Pocket Querries

I would not argue that PQs are not "The Holy Grail" of membership benefits.

[koz]

what we really should have is a virtual micro!

[+Charles Street Gang]

My only reason for liking the idea of identifying micros is so I can better choose the ones that have 'prizes' for my daughter.

[+CompuCash]

It sure would be helpful if the cache size was displayed in the standard search lisings.

 

I agree - I would like to see type and size listed on the cache page.

 

----

 

Having said that I'd like to add something to the fray here -

 

I would like to see a new size designation. There is a big gap between Regular and Micro. I'd like to see a new size designation called mini. Anything larger than a film can and smaller than the 'std' amo box.

 

For instance - I don't think I have seen a micro that anyting but a log in it. What else can you put in a film can save a few coins.

 

A "Traditional" micro would seem to imply that there are items for trade, which we all know is likely not the case.

 

Now a Traditional mini would likely have many trade items in it. I have placed one small sandwitch size tupper cache as a key chain theme and another small cache (4x3x3) plastic box with many small new techy items in it. Turns out to be a pretty good little cache. These are small caches with a pen and many trade items - but I have to call them a micro. Seems not quite correct to me.

 

Certainly these items could be discussed in the description but from what I can tell by reading these here forums there are a great deal of people who do not read the web page and only download what can be gotten into their PDA's. There are a lot of people who just don't read them and a lot who just glance at the headings. Havng both the type and size listed would help a lot of people. Once I read and print the cache, it would be nice to flip through them and arrange them by type and size as needed.

 

[+Mopar]

All that is needed is to add a new icon to the database. I don't care what is added, just add it.

 

The caches are all described in the database that they get registered under in terms of size. Micros are listed as such when you list the cache. Thus this data is captured.

 

The same subroutine that puts a green box next to a trad and and speech bubble next to an event cache could put a little M next to the micros.

 

I get really tired of the reaction that TPTB have here to any suggestion, no matter how small, that they don't like. Reflexically "we don't need any more rules" or "use pocket queries".

Yes, the info is in the database, under "Size". The icons you mention are "type".

As far as type goes, a micro is still a traditional type. The icons only display the TYPE.

Traditional Cache

This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page is the exact location for the cache.

A micro has a logbook, it MAY have trade items, and it's at the posted coordinates. What part doesn't fit the traditional cache type?

 

If you wanted to make micros a type of their own (something I disagree with, but that's REALLY what would need to be done to get what you want), all the current micro's would be listed wrong. Every one would need to be manually switched.

After all that was done, you would still have a ton of confusion. How would you know what the REAL type is? What you would really need would be, as Markwell pointed out, a ton of new icons. You would need micro traditional, micro multi, micro mystery, standard traditional, standard multi, standard mystery, large traditional, large multi, large mystery, etc. WHAT A MESS!

[BassoonPilot]

... How would you know what the REAL type is? ... WHAT A MESS!

Right. Exactly what we have now.

Edited August 27, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+briansnat]

I would like to see a new size designation. There is a big gap between Regular and Micro. I'd like to see a new size designation called mini. Anything larger than a film can and smaller than the 'std' amo box.

 

I broached idea this over 2 years ago, but after re-thinking it, it's just not feasable. There are 100,000 plus caches out there that have the old designations. There is no way you'll get owners to go back and update their cache pages with the new size and if you introduce a new size (or icon) at this point it will just create a lot more confusion than we already have.

[+LaPaglia]

micromanage

 

mi·cro·man·age

tr.v. mi·cro·man·aged, mi·cro·man·ag·ing, mi·cro·man·ag·es

 

To direct or control in a detailed, often meddlesome manner.

 

 

Let it go. there will never be a format that makes everyone happy. What we currently have fits the needs of the majority. Lets give it a rest and go have some fun. Just be cause you can make a suggestion doenst mean that you have to.

[+fly46]

Sorry, but they're not efficient for what I like to do. I don't want to have to download PQ's, unzip them, open them with a 3rd party program and then use it to filter out something when all that is required is a new icon.

 

How hard is that?

So what you're saying is that instead of taking a few extra seconds to do a PQ (if you need large quantities of caches filtered) or just plain ol' CLICKING ON THE CACHE AND OPENING ITS PAGE TO CHECK, Jeremy and the other powers that be should take the time to go and reprogram a portion of this entire massive website?

 

So that *you* could save time.

 

Let me know if I'm off base with this.

[+southdeltan]

Sorry, but they're not efficient for what I like to do.  I don't want to have to download PQ's, unzip them, open them with a 3rd party program and then use it to filter out something when all that is required is a new icon.

 

How hard is that?

So what you're saying is that instead of taking a few extra seconds to do a PQ (if you need large quantities of caches filtered) or just plain ol' CLICKING ON THE CACHE AND OPENING ITS PAGE TO CHECK, Jeremy and the other powers that be should take the time to go and reprogram a portion of this entire massive website?

 

So that *you* could save time.

 

Let me know if I'm off base with this.

Yes, you are off base. I'm not trying to filter anything. I'm on dialup and a small gif image that displayed the size AND type of a cache wouldn't add nearly as much bandwith as having to open up each cache page. And making a PQ takes more than a few seconds for me. If anything, what I'm suggesting would take load off of the servers - less webloads and less PQ's.

 

It also would not require some massive code change. A few lines of code would be all that was needed. The data is already in the DB.

 

And it wouldn't just benifit *ME* because almost every week somebody brings this up. I can't imagine how many people that don't use the forums feel the same way. Most of the people that suggest something get beaten into submission with the "it's a size not a type" - I never said otherwise....

 

I have no problems with micro caches. I'm also not gonna get into the whole micros are a size not a type arguement (to me the experience is different, not bad, just different - and I get tired of people trying to make me feel stupid by telling me my opinion doesn't matter, this matter keeps coming up so it must be a concern for more than a few people). I would just easily like to know what I'm looking at on the page.

 

I just think, no... I know it would be easy enough to make a few new icons to display the data that has been collected already. They already collect type AND size when you list a cache. It's in there - it'd make a helluva lot of sense to add that to the icons. (I don't know what language is used, but basiccaly instead of having it do "if traditional display this image" have a line or lines that say "if traditional/regular display this image" - that would proliferate to everything that's called up and require only a few lines of code).

 

I mean, If I'm supposed to have to look at each page - all they need to do is generate a list of the cache names - no ratings, no distance, no types - just a link to the page...

 

As someone stated, the way it is obviously is a problem for a lot of people and the solution I'm suggesting would be easy to implement and wouldn't cause the people that don't like it any problems. I'm not suggesting a new type - just use the data that's already there more efficiently.

 

southdeltan

 

Actually to sum up my direct reply: 1. It's not a massive code change. 2. It's benefit a lot more people than me.

[+briansnat]

Some time ago I suggested that the size be added to the search results page along with difficulty and terrain. Instead of the page looking like this:

 

(D/T)

_____

(1/2.5)

 

It would look like this for regular sized caches:

(D/T/S)

______

(1/2.5/R)

 

or this for micros:

(D/T/S)

_______

(1/2.5/M)

 

This way there is no need for another icon, no need for another cache type and users can weed out micros by just looking at the search page. I thought it was the most brilliant idea in the history of geocaching, since the invention of the ammo box, but TPTB greeted it with total indifference .

Edited August 27, 2004 by briansnat

[+Markwell]

As I was reading SDs post I said to myself, "Self: to solve that problem, the results page should indicate the size of the cache."

 

And then Brian posted with - yet again - the exact thing I was going to suggest.

 

Expanding the idea:

I've also suggested in the past that it might be nice to have the coordinates (or even nearest confluence) displayed on the results. Texas is a big state, Illinois is not HUGE, but it takes 6 hours to drive north to south. If I do a search on Illinois caches and they're displayed by date placed, since I live around 41.6 and -88.2, wouldn't it be nice to know AT A GLANCE, which ones are nearby?

 

All that being said - I almost NEVER search for caches by the websearch anymore.

[+southdeltan]

As I was reading SDs post I said to myself, "Self: to solve that problem, the results page should indicate the size of the cache."

 

And then Brian posted with - yet again - the exact thing I was going to suggest.

I agree that would work just as well as a new icon (although I'm still not sure what would be wrong with a new icon... not a type...).

 

Maybe TPTB will reconsider adding that.

 

southdeltan

[+Triac]

I want a pony!

I wanna pony up to a bar and have someone buy me beers all night (until I pass out anyways)