New Size Between "micro" And "regular"

[CoyoteRed]

Jeremy has mentioned in another post that there will be another size to fit between "micro" and "regular."

 

The working name right now is "mini." However, as you can see, that name starts with the same letter as "micro" therefor it would need translating if we break down the sizes to initials like M for "micro," R for "regular," and so on.

 

So, Jeremy says we'd better decide now what we want to call it before everything is written in stone.

 

My vote would be for "small" because it has a unique initial and seems to fit naturally: micro, small, regular, large.

 

Thoughts?

[kayaker22589]

Maybe "Macro Micro"?

[+Divine]

The working name right now is "mini."  However, as you can see, that name starts with the same letter as "micro" therefor it would need translating if we break down the sizes to initials like M for "micro," R for "regular," and so on.

Simply S for small would cover that problem.

Edited September 10, 2004 by Divine

[+nfa]

I think....."SMALL"?

 

It implies that the cache is smaller than a "Regular" sized cache, bigger than a "Micro" sized cache, and has a unique initial.

 

nfa

[+Robespierre]

I hate to agree with a horned demon, but "small" would cover it decently.

 

Also see:

irregular

premicro

usual

prudent

bomb

measured

low-carb

[+nittany dave]

Small sounds good to me.

 

Other wise guy answers...

B - baby, bantam, bitty

C - cramped

D - diminutive, dwarf

H - humble

I - inadequate, inconsequential

L - limited, little

P - paltry, petite, picayune, piddling, pint-sized, pocket-sized, puny, pygmy

R - runty

S - scanty, scrubby, short, shrimp, slight, small-scale, stunted

T - teensy, teeny, toy, trifling, trivial

U - undersized, unpretentious

W - wee

[lowracer]

<small>small</small>

[+briansnat]

Small, or mini work just fine. I thought this was a good idea a long time ago, but I don't see how we can get owners to go back and update their pages, so it will only cause more confusion than it addresses.

[+bigredmed]

Agree with small.

 

Alternative could be "Intermediate", though this would be less precise.

 

A second alternative could be "Mid-sized", but this gets back to the M problem and is also less precise.

 

Good call with "small".

[+nittany dave]

Small, or mini work just fine. I thought this was a good idea a long time ago, but I don't see how we can get owners to go back and update their pages, so it will only cause more confusion than it addresses.

You're right about the difficulty that will be faced getting owners to update their existing caches. Still, starting now will help to better classify future caches. Gotta start somewhere.

[Dukie 'n' Dad]

How about:

 

NQAMAPITAAAMBSAP

 

Not Quite As Much A Pain In The a** As A Micro, But Still A Pain.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

How about cheap?

 

Im teasing.

 

Compact?

[+Renegade Knight]

Small works for me.

[+CompuCash]

I like mini and is what I have been using in my cache pages. I don't see a big need for a single letter desicnation. Small works for me in the case that two m's don't work.

Edited September 10, 2004 by CompuCash

[+DavisFamily]

I like small because at first glance it is very obvious where it fits in the size range. To me it's unclear which would be smaller, a mini or a micro. The same thing with some of the other suggestions such as irregular or... rats, I forget what the other one was.

[+Sparrowhawk]

That's a good idea.

[+Robespierre]

r-runty, didn't sound too bad, either.

 

NQAMAPITAAAMBSAP

[+Allen_L]

Let's copy $tarbucks and call it "Tall"

[+mornin'glory]

to be pc how about regular impaired? regular challenged? micro enhanched?

[Tahosa and Sons]

TSTBW - Too Small to bother with.

JER - Just Enough Room and almost part of Jeremy

BTADM - Bigger Than a dadgum Micro

BSTI - Bring Small Trade Items

 

Actually Small would actually be a handy size. Now I could do a series cache, from smallest to a very big one.

[+Team Perks]

Let's copy $tarbucks and call it "Tall"

"What type of cache is this?"

"Um...the cache page says it's a 'Venti.'"

 

My vote goes for "Small."

 

Now all I need to do is figure out what counts as a "Small" versus "Micro" and "Regular" versus "Small," instead of just "Regular" versus "Micro."

[+Centex Trekker]

Small sounds good to me unless you like half pint, personal size, or little.

[+CompuCash]

I think micro covers the description of 35mm film can or smaller

 

mini then covers between micro and regular which is already defined as being up ther around the size of an ammo can.

 

mini or small as I said before.

 

any of the sandwitch size and other lunchable containers would fall into the small/mini catagory. Not sure why there should be a probelm figuring out what size designation to use.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

"S" is for Smurf

[+TotemLake]

Small is a simple, good, and accurate description.

[+Doc-Dean]

Agree with others. Small sounds good.

 

Why not add mini-micro or nano while we're at it.

I've seen some that are better classified as quarks!

[+Team Perks]

Agree with others. Small sounds good.

 

Why not add mini-micro or nano while we're at it.

I've seen some that are better classified as quarks!

Introducing the Yoctocache!

 

Bring your own pencil and an electron microscope.

[+PNWWizard]

Oh, it's just the y chromosome that doesn't want to call it small...

[+littleamerica]

The proposals I've seen are all very linear; micro/small/regular/large is just way too linear. I'd like to propose something along the lines of the following classification, which immediately yields an alphabetical code I know everyone will agree is nice:

 

A - Almost

B - can be Broken in pieces

C - goes well with Candles

D - glows in the Dark

E - belongs to the Emperor

F - holds Fast

G - can be hidden in the Ground

H - one-Half the expected size

I - can be verified Independently

J - used to contain Jelly

K - safe for children

L - distinguised by its Lustre

M - Mostly; possibly Marine

N - not visible at Night

O - Orange or possibly Other

P - easily distinguishable from a Primate

Q - not easily classified

R - upRight

S - lying on its Side

T - lid should be Tight

U - unused

V - Vanished

W - usually found With something else

X - made of at least two distinct pieces

Y - made of exactly three distinct pieces

Z - involving the passage of time

 

I hope this helps.

[Captain Chaoss]

Cool that there will be a new designation; I as well think small is the best name.

Hope we will see an icon for it and micro (PLEASE) !!!

 

Wow, this opens up a whole new line of possible threads as well:

 

Enough with small caches already !

 

Enough whining about small caches already !

 

Cool small cache containers

 

Whats your favorite small cache.......

 

[CoyoteRed]

Hope we will see an icon for it and micro (PLEASE) !!!

There already has been a post of what may be the new icons designating size. From my understanding it will be seperate from the type icons.

[Fakk 2]

K - "Kiddie Size" it please

[+shawhh]

small will be fine. -harry

[adampierson]

Micro caches - Altoid tin and smaller

 

Small Caches - Anything bigger than an Altoid's tin.

[Jeremy]

Sounds like "small" takes it. Thanks folks.

[+JMBella]

<movie trivia>"Small. S-M-AAALL"</movie trivia>

[Shoobie & the Sand Crabs]

Small would be the best

Idea.

[+Beta Test]

Can we add pico for the smallest caches. You know those little magnetic ones?

[+Boo & Kitty]

Sounds like "small" takes it. Thanks folks.

All this talk reminds me of a story I once read where Winnie the Pooh, Piglet and Rabbit set out to find "Small". I didn't realize at the time that they were GeoCaching!

 

Chapter 3 ...in which a search is organdized...

[+LordSaw]

Anybody checked out the search results pages lately?

 

Cache Well

[+Snoogans]

Jan

[+Sputnik 57]

I'm not sure if "small" for a cache is officially defined yet. I've found a pill bottle a little bigger than a film canister that I would still consider a micro. Altoids tins are micros, IMHO. I would offer up "Fist-Sized " as the threshold. I know that isn't an exact size, and some caches might go either way, but it gives you a pretty good image.

 

Waddaya think?

[+JMBella]

I'm not sure if "small" for a cache is officially defined yet.  I've found a pill bottle a little bigger than a film canister that I would still consider a micro.  Altoids tins are micros, IMHO.  I would offer up "Fist-Sized " as the threshold.  I know that isn't an exact size, and some caches might go either way, but it gives you a pretty good image.

 

Waddaya think?

Depending on the size of your fist, that is basically the size of a decon box.

 

I see the search results already have the little chart on them that include all the cache sizes including the new "small" size. I don't however see an option for "small" yet on the report a cache page. My guess is you're working on it. Will the option be available in the edit cache page? I have quite a few that would qualify as "small".

Edited September 11, 2004 by JMBella

[+Divine]

Micro caches - Altoid tin and smaller

 

Small Caches - Anything bigger than an Altoid's tin.

It is somewhat problematic to use the words Altoid tin when describing the size. Firstly, it's a commercial brand if I got it right. Now, I understand that it's in general use being a word for small metal containers just like kleenex is for tissues or band-aids are for plaster, and I don't have generally anything against that. Just wanted to point that out.

 

Secondly, I think these forums is the first place where I've ever seen the word Altoid. I don't know how worldwide they sell Altoid mints, perhaps they do even here, but I haven't seen then anywhere. It won't probably suit for a word describing size in a web site having as much international users as gc.com. (I do have an Altoid tin as a cache container, and second one waiting for placement in my drawer, next to some other small metal cans, I got them later on from an American friend. )

 

In my opinion, size descriptions in a site like this should be liquid or volume measures, preferably metric with conversion to imperial and US measures. Using known trademarks or common containers (like ammo boxes) as descriptive sizes has problems, since knowing trademarks varies and common is necessarily not so common everywhere. Once we(?) decide the cut-offs of different size cache containers in, say liters, it's quite easy to convert the cut-off sizes to other known measures and have them printed on the hide-a-cache -form. From then on people can easily choose the right size in their cache descriptions, and if the container is a borderline case, they can mention that separately in the description, like they often already do.

 

On the other hand (no pun intended ), I kinda liked fist describing (small) size. Although people have lots of different size fists, the size of an adult fist varies only so much.

[+hedberg]

I always thought that the regular sized description "rubbermaid" was a wrongly spelled "rubbermade". Until I realized that it was a brand, a while ago.

 

So it is better that we, as Divine suggested, uses the size of the box instead.

For example here in Sweden do people use icecream boxes, 0.5L, 1L and 2L, and some uses film canister, or Rubbermaid (Curver) boxes like the 0.4L, 0.8L and 1.2L

It is difficult sometimes to choose the right size, because right now do we have:

Micro - film canister, 0.001 L something

Regular - Like 3-4L (ammo box)

Large - Like 30-40L

 

Anyone see the problem to choose the right one if you have something between those?

 

I think also another problem is, that if we decide in Sweden that all 0.4L are micros, then someone else comes from an another country and don't want to go search for micros. They miss these caches, that are bigger than film canister, but smaller than 3-4L boxes.

Or if you choose Large for a 2L box (quite common here), when someone is looking for a 5 gallon bucket instead... Quite a big difference!

 

So I think the best thing is to use sizes in Liters.

[thorin]

What about all my Exa, Peta, Terra, Nano, Pico Caches do they get their own unique size descriptor too?

 

Thorin

[Mesu]

The sizes should be defined in volume units. The names (e.g., regular) seem to be understood in different ways in different countries. Brand names are not necessarily known in some countries.

[+PekkaR]

Suggestion of cache sizes:

• Micro: < 2,5 deciliters / < 1 cup / < 8 fluid ounces (US)
  
• Small: 2,5 deciliters - 1 liter / 1 - 4 cups / 8 - 16 fluid ounces (US)
  
• Regular: 1 - 4 liters / 4 cups - 1 gallon, liquid (US)
  
• Large: > 4 liters / > 1 gallon, liquid (US)
  

[BassoonPilot]

Simply S for small would cover that problem.

I agree. S also stands for Signal, and since most of the "small" size caches I see in my area are decon containers, into which a frog could easily fit ...

[+Gaddiel]

Yep. SMALL works for me...