Question I just thought of

So the post about blood made me think about the results from the c-scope I had in January (that resulted in my diagnosis).  Since I had no knowledge of UC at the time, I didn't know what questions to ask afterward and such.  However, I do remember my GI saying I had a ton of tiny ulcers, but no big ones.  Do you think that's a good thing?  Is it better to not have big ulcers, or does it really not matter the size?  Just wondering if that's why I didn't have a whole lot of bleeding? 

It also depends on how far up the ulcers go and if they spontaneously bleed. My daughter's were deep, wide and numerous, and they had to stop the first colonoscopy at 40 cm or so. Her doc said the deep ones would take much longer to heal and were easily irritated during the healing process-as would be logical as food or roughage passes by when there is just a thin layer of "coating" as it improves. Guess it's better to have small ones, but can't vouch for what quantity is better. :)