Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NUTS] nanos ARE micros

Expand Messages
  • badge_butterfly
    I m not bashing micros...that s a dead horse I won t beat. But if you hide a nano, call it a micro on the cache details (it IS a micro). Don t leave it
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm not bashing micros...that's a dead horse I won't beat.
      But if you hide a nano, call it a micro on the cache details (it IS a micro). Don't leave it uncategorized in the description so those of us who don't look for micros can ignore it.
      Thank you!!
      Ed



      --- In nuts_@yahoogroups.com, Chaz I <utchaz@...> wrote:
      >
      > I'll second that...!!!
      > People put Nano's in Speceville too; plenty of room all over for much larger
      > caches but nooo.
      > I thought about it a good two minutes and realized what was causing it
      > throughout the whole game though.
      > Too lazy to pack a decent cache or spend the time finding a hiding spot that was
      > anything less creative than a Nano on a park bench.
      >
      > Chaz
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: "thrak@..." <thrak@...>
      > To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com
      > Cc: Ed & Julie Nelson <nelson143@...>
      > Sent: Tue, August 9, 2011 4:57:32 PM
      > Subject: Re: [NUTS] nanos ARE micros
      >
      >  
      > It seems to have become "the fashion" to not list the cache size. I don't like
      > it but there's not much one can do about it. I figure the point of the cache is
      > for people to find it but I seem to be "old fashioned" in that regard. I also
      > still like ammo cans whereas the current trend is for caches that can't even
      > hold a small travel bug. It's trends of this sort that caused a number of the
      > "seasoned cachers" (read old farts who used to be very active geocachers) to
      > slack off to an alarming degree.
      >
      > On 8/8/2011 9:57 PM, Ed & Julie Nelson wrote:
      >  
      > >Just a question for the group:
      > >Why have most people stop listing nanos under the "micro" size?
      > >Groundspeak adamantly states they will not make a new size category for nanos,
      > >since they are covered under the micro description. Nanos are micros.
      > >I filter out micros, but when nanos are left as "Size: ? other" (the size is not
      > >chosen, or intentionally left as 'other') they don't get filtered.
      > >Is there a reason not to list them as micros on the cache page?
      > >Ed
      > > 
      >
    • Anthony Guzzi
      ... Just because Groundspeak says that nanos are micros does not make it so, and most people I think would agree with that sentiment.
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 10, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On 8/9/2011 8:11 PM, badge_butterfly wrote:
        > I'm not bashing micros...that's a dead horse I won't beat.
        > But if you hide a nano, call it a micro on the cache details (it IS a
        > micro). Don't leave it uncategorized in the description so those of us
        > who don't look for micros can ignore it.
        > Thank you!!
        > Ed
        >


        Just because Groundspeak says that nanos are micros does not make it so,
        and most people I think would agree with that sentiment.
      • Courtney Calkins
        Hello, As a hider, the problem I often run into is that the entire cache that I hide is often much larger than a nano or a micro. I build caches that are
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 10, 2011
        • 0 Attachment

          Hello,

           

          As a hider, the problem I often run into is that the “entire cache” that I hide is often much larger than a nano or a micro.  I build caches that are fairly large, but many times there is only room for a log. For instance I just had a hide that was 4-5 inches long but it cannot hold anything but the log…. (size??)  I told Bobolu the size of the cache and it actually threw him off.  I can think of one cache I hid and it was 18 inches long and 5-6 inches wide, but could only hold a log, so I left the size blank.  I don’t hide “typical” caches, so I don’t know how to accurately describe the cache.  When I am not sure, I leave the SIZE blank.

           

          So I’m not trying to distract or trick people, but many times I  don’t know what the “fair” description would be of my caches would be.

           

          Seeking clarity,

           

          .Quad  (aka Courtney)

           

           

          Thanks,

          Courtney CC Calkins, LMFT

          (530)893-4245

           

          CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail transmission, and any documents or messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, then you are (1) notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, saving, reading or use of this information is strictly prohibited, (2) requested to discard and delete this e-mail and any attachments, and (3) requested to immediately notify us by e-mail that you mistakenly received this message Courtney@...  fax (530) 879-3712 or telephone (530) 893-4245.  Thank you.

           

        • thrak
          That s because you re a WEIRDO! ... I enjoy your caches Courtney. There is, however, a current propensity for LOTS of folks to list their caches with an
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 10, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            That's because you're a WEIRDO! :-D

            I enjoy your caches Courtney. There is, however, a current propensity for LOTS of folks to list their caches with an unknown size when it really isn't the type of case you describe. I can see having a problem settling on a size for some of your hides.

            On 8/10/2011 1:22 PM, Courtney Calkins wrote:  

            Hello,

             

            As a hider, the problem I often run into is that the “entire cache” that I hide is often much larger than a nano or a micro.  I build caches that are fairly large, but many times there is only room for a log. For instance I just had a hide that was 4-5 inches long but it cannot hold anything but the log…. (size??)  I told Bobolu the size of the cache and it actually threw him off.  I can think of one cache I hid and it was 18 inches long and 5-6 inches wide, but could only hold a log, so I left the size blank.  I don’t hide “typical” caches, so I don’t know how to accurately describe the cache.  When I am not sure, I leave the SIZE blank.

             

            So I’m not trying to distract or trick people, but many times I  don’t know what the “fair” description would be of my caches would be.

             

            Seeking clarity,

             

            .Quad  (aka Courtney)

             

             

            Thanks,

            Courtney CC Calkins, LMFT

            (530)893-4245

             

            CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail transmission, and any documents or messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, then you are (1) notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, saving, reading or use of this information is strictly prohibited, (2) requested to discard and delete this e-mail and any attachments, and (3) requested to immediately notify us by e-mail that you mistakenly received this message Courtney@...  fax (530) 879-3712 or telephone (530) 893-4245.  Thank you.

             

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.