Jump to content

bigdog421

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bigdog421

  1. One thing that I just tried seems to have resolved the issue. I toggled the show hidden messages (which loaded way more than I needed) which reenabled the scroll feature. I untoggled it to re-hide the truly hidden messages and now have access to everything. Didn't see that as an option prior to posting, but if anyone runs into this issue in the future, that seemed to work for me.
  2. Over the past several weeks, I have been attempting to catch up on messages. Up until this weekend, I had no issues navigating the message center in Chrome. Now, only my most recent 7 messages will display as pictured (removed message text from screenshot) and the scroll will not load. This is occurring in Chrome on a desktop computer, Chrome on my android phone, and Microsoft Edge on my desktop computer. I know the other, older messages still exists as through the app as I have access to all of them and can scroll through them. The app though does not enable me to hide conversations I have reviewed and no longer need to see, so that is not a viable work around for me.
  3. If it's pointless, why do you continue? Is this some form of Internet based masochism? You mean hissy fits like this one? Boo hoo! Everybody's not playing the way I want to play No tears. Only laughter. to EvilHorror...lol But on a serious note, the forum is meant to be a discussion. not a "I'm right, you're wrong....wrong, wrong, wrong" fest (the main reason I never get on unless a friend has posted something or someone has posted something specifically about me/a cache of mine (specifically - http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...23&st=250)) Either way, I think it is in a cache owner's right to delete a log if the CO knows the final was not found. The typical way of checking is the logbook. There are always exceptions (wet log, etc.) but it is ultimately up to the cache owner. I would personally email the person in question before deleting the log, but that again is the CO's decision.
  4. I like that attribute idea. As a cache owner of caches hidden in such places, I try to avoid placing them where I know such a nest exists. That being said...nature may run it's course around the cache. If there is such a problem, definitely posting a warning is good temporarily. The owner should ultimately, if they want the cache to stick around, get some wasp spray. I just had a cache that a colony developed into and before I had a chance to do so, another finder was prepared and did the dirty deed. Not necessarily a cause for removal, but DEFINITELY a cause for concern.
  5. Friends, guests, and esteemed acquaintances, I think we can all agree that we all disagree quite well on most things. Personally, I take offense to things much too quickly, and much too often (as seen by my flip-flopping attitude in my postings on this thread). I try to be civil and kind, respectful and understanding. I enjoy hearing these opposing views and see how I can become a better cacher in the global village of geocaching. I've been trying to think of a way to wrap this up into something meaningful, refreshing, new, exciting, dazzling, exquisite. But I think I have determined to settle for this I have never liked forums because I always try to win, to be the best. Others do this as well (boy don't we ALL know that), but in my case, I'd rather be the better person than be the winner of a matter of opinion. I can leave from here, knowing that I have made choices that were wrong, have rectified them, and have come to terms with who I am and how I should not be imposing on others. Have you learned something? Have you taken anything out of this discussion? I hope you all have taken much more than whether this cache or that cache is or is not against the rules. Is this cache an ALR...or are we just friends? Humor is great, but not in a way that is an attack on the characters of others. We've all done it in our lives...but why don't we learn to change? Why not start now, while the getting's good and very attainable? Why not forgive and forget? Let's get on with life, live, and geocache for another tomorrow....for tomorrow really is not too late.
  6. There are quite literally hundreds of comments posted here every day that I don't agree. I happen to be interested in this subject. I am also curious about where that particular user got the quoted information. It's called sarcasm.
  7. As long as the geocache is replaced for the next cacher to find, the manner in which they find and log it has absolutely no impact on others. Each cacher is free to decide for themselves what counts as a find, and what value the find has. Clearly, you're placing a value on smileys that Groundspeak doesn't. That's your choice to make, but it's not Groundspeak's responsibility to cater to your personal caching ethic. Can you please link to the text that you're quoting about affirmative action and level playing fields? I've never seen any communication from Groundspeak that indicated they were attempting such a thing. I'd be interested to read that. Is it really necessary for you to argue against EVERY opinion that you do not share with another person?
  8. While I know I am in the other thread that prompted this one, please don't take these questions as directed at you although you may see where the logic could apply from the other perspective. Consider the case of a guideline violation. If a cacher comes across a cache that was recently changed is it unreasonable to assume the CO deliberately disregarded it since they sign a statement that the guidelines were read? Is it not also a reasonable assumption, based on the first question, that the CO will not react favorably to not from the cacher? How am I suppose to know which CO's are reasonable and which will start a flame war? the knife would cut both ways. Those posting the NA may end up on the short end of the stick from the reviewer. While calling it a RAN log may help, the accepted norm has been to post a NA to have a reviewer look into caches as well. Even reviewers accept this. Other than being named wrong, the log itself needs to be worded properly to reduce angst. I still contend that this is not a mark of dishonor as it is being taken by some. That third party referee is I can see from where you are coming. The fact is, communication can always be established and have a chance, but it has to be given. That log, to me, does not open communication. It shuts it down. You can never know if your attempt at communication will be accepted...but you can ALSO never know unless you try. Renaming it would not be helpful...needs archived is warranted in its current form. If anything, another log type should be implemented for this sort of an issue.
  9. I'm sorry, but Ni! has already been reserved. Is your intent to reference the mighty Knights who until recently said *reserved word* but now say "Ekke Ekke Ekke Ekke Ptang Zoo Boing Zow Zing!"
  10. And many people are turned off by cache owners who make up their own rules that violate the guidelines. Yes, I can see that, but the cache in question holds absolutely no PERSONAL value to you. That cache, as an owner, holds a very LARGE value to myself. I see it is a disrespect, you obviously don't. Yes, notes are great. They do give a background...but you can use something called a note to make a record. One needs archived log WITHOUT any others will not get a reviewers attention. Keystone is good about responding to a needs archived log. If it hasn't happened in 24 hours, he found the log to be 1) bogus 2) unwarranted or 3) not worth his time, something that could be worked out PERSONALLY...obviously if it did not get worked out, he would act.
  11. I realize this. In my area, a needs archive, regardless of what was before it, is a sign that a cache is not worth doing as it is probably gone...I realize if they read it, they would see, but that doesn't always happen. I just agree to disagree with you on that note. Like I said, many people are turned off by that. My decision would have occured naturally had someone contacted me with their concerns. In fact, the whole thing came into effect on the cache pages because of a private comment. I deleted someone's log because they were not able to sign the log but saw the container. They could have done anything in their power to get the cache down and back up, but chose not to do so. This was obviously something I had to delete, and I sent a private note to explain my issue with the found it log. He agreed, but made the case about "Then how do you feel about group finds?" Recently, many in the area have done so with my tree climbs, and this gave me the final push to action. Yes, it was a violation and I admit that. Reviewers do not need to be involved all the time, like I said, the more we can work out ourselves, the better off we can all be.
  12. * back on soapbox* Really quick I SWEAR I meant to write this in the novel I just wrote above! What we should all take from this is to treat cachers and cache owners with the respect they deserve. Reviewers don't always need to be involved. It IS possible for issues to be worked out and into Groundspeak compliance without their aid and effort. *jumping off box again*
  13. After much internal and external discussions with others, I have come to a conclusion. I have already stated that log deletion is out of the question, and should be. The way I have stated things on the cache pages (yes, there are others that have this verbiage) is forceful, demanding, and downright out of the scope of such a fun, inviting activity. I will be changing the statements not because it is the rules, not because this cache may or may not be an ALR, not because I am being forced, not because I am backing down. Instead, I am doing so because I see that my attempt to impose my personal ethic on the caching community is wrong. In the future, I hope we all use the Needs Archived log as a tool for extreme cases. Check out the thread I started on the topic: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=253321 (sorry, I'm not cool enough to know how to code this stuff to make it pretty) My main point with that is as follows. I found a quote on Groundspeak about the needs archived log, and then included my interpretation: "Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location. Do not use it if the cache needs repairs, or you didn't find it, or the location made you uncomfortable. Please consider first contacting the owner of the geocache with your concerns. Use the profile link next to the cache owner's name at the top of the cache page to send an email, as well as logging to the cache page about your visit." Needs archived is for if the cache needs to be archived due to lack of maintenance or owner disregarding an issue. A reviewer does not need to be involved in archiving a cache. It is the cache owner's right and choice when and if to do it. If there is an issue where the owner is ignoring a safety issue, not willing to get permission though he/she obviously has none, etc. THAT is when the reviewer needs to be involved an notified. Without establishing any communication first with the cache owner, you are disrespecting their rights as an owner, essentially going above his/her head. I don't think a NRA or SBA is really necessary. Needs Archived is enough because it should be used with care. If a cache owner is obviously not going to reply to an email (no log ins/finds in ages), yes it can be used as the first and only step. It is because the reviewer NEEDS to be involved. If they created a NRA or SBA, it would involve the reviewer far to often, more than necessary. Reviews aren't just reviewers...they have a life outside geocaching too, just like all of us blink.gif I know weird right? The more we can work out for ourselves as geocachers and cache owners, the better off we can all be. --- I think if we all took this under consideration, the community would be better off than had we fought. Narcissa, I thank you for bringing up this issue. I hope that in the future you will at least consider what posting a needs archived could mean to someone else. I know someone personally who was so turned off by it, that he stopped geocaching. A needs archived log is NOT just another log (I mean, it even asks if you are sure before you publish it). If it is reasonable to talk with the owner first, please do so. I know I would have been much more receptive (MUCH sooner) than I was after the needs archived posting. I hope that if we learn something from this experience is that we should all think about how we personally would feel if we wrote something, published a certain log, without first getting the whole story from the source. *Steps off soapbox" "The cache owner has spoken!"
  14. it is the same thing if and only if all that reviewers do is archive caches. currently, SBA effectively means the same thing as NRA (needs reviewer attention) because that's just the mechanism how caches get archived. but if the log type actually was changed to say NRA instead of SBA, then people would start using it for other reasons too, and not only if they actually think the listing should be archived. that's where the difference comes from. Can you perhaps give some examples of scenarios in which you would choose to use "Needs Archived" and others where you're sending an email to a reviewer because of some perceived issue? Otherwise, I still feel you're focused on the perceived "non-PC" verbiage of the log type and using another mechanism to achieve the same result. "Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location. Do not use it if the cache needs repairs, or you didn't find it, or the location made you uncomfortable. Please consider first contacting the owner of the geocache with your concerns. Use the profile link next to the cache owner's name at the top of the cache page to send an email, as well as logging to the cache page about your visit." Needs archived is for if the cache needs to be archived due to lack of maintenance or owner disregarding an issue. A reviewer does not need to be involved in archiving a cache. It is the cache owner's right and choice when and if to do it. If there is an issue where the owner is ignoring a safety issue, not willing to get permission though he/she obviously has none, etc. THAT is when the reviewer needs to be involved an notified. Without establishing any communication first with the cache owner, you are disrespecting their rights as an owner, essentially going above his/her head. I don't think a NRA or SBA is really necessary. Needs Archived is enough because it should be used with care. If a cache owner is obviously not going to reply to an email (no log ins/finds in ages), yes it can be used as the first and only step. It is because the reviewer NEEDS to be involved. If they created a NRA or SBA, it would involve the reviewer far to often, more than necessary. Reviews aren't just reviewers...they have a life outside geocaching too, just like all of us I know weird right? The more we can work out for ourselves as geocachers and cache owners, the better off we can all be.
  15. believe me....I've seen a few interpretations But I do agree with your statement. I'm not sure how it is possible either.
  16. I cannot answer your question without getting into a heavy discussion with those of differing opinions. That's what the forums are all about. My opinion.... let's see....when HAVE I used the SBA log......? When the park ranger yelled at me and threatened to write me a ticket ..... I logged a SBA. When the poison oak grew so much that it completely covered the cache site .....I logged a SBA. and....when the cache hider made me mad .... I logged a SBA. It should be used when you need the reviewer/approver/volunteer/geo-police to give the cache some attention. lol SO true. my apologies
  17. After a few events in recent days, I was just wondering what other's thought about the nature of a needs archived log. Please post your thoughts, and please don't get to bickering trying to find who is right or wrong, as no true right answer exists. To me, it means that all other options to get in contact with the cache owner have been unsuccessful. Whether it is lack of maintenance, ALR, etc., the first step is to establish communication via a note or an e-mail to the cahce owner to see what's up. In the case of lack of maintenance, a maintenence log is warrented. Heck, he/she might even agree with you and do something about the problem! If that fails to get the owner's attention, a needs archived log is justified. You can prove that the cache owner has not responded to your concerns, and this log provides a way to get the local reviewer's attention. It should NEVER be used as a first step, as it only causes instant battle lines, and the best outcome will not be reached by all parties involved.
  18. There are some cachers out there who might do it just to get in his face, especially after seeing what he's written on the cache page. That would be obnoxious, but unless the log contained other problems (foul language, spoilers) there's nothing he can do about it. I agree with you, in theory. The CO should not be deleting those logs. However, we all know that he can delete them. The real question is will The Lilly Pad reinstate the logs in such a situation? I had hoped that the discussion was over and we would be waiting for a reviewer to decide. If you have read my most recent notes, I am not going to delete logs. I conceded on that point and accepted that that was too harsh and wrong.
  19. Again - you make assumptions. Truly unfair to do to bigdog who is trying hard to work this out. You are receiving responses from those around the area who believe differently than you. If you took the time to read my "irrelevant" post you might understand that these are NOT necessarily his friends, this is how the caching community around here feels about what you are saying and doing. Not that they are right, but you'd do well to not make assumptions like that again. It's not fair. Thank you KBLAST. I cannot control what others say. What my friend said was uncalled for but we all have free will.
  20. So "NO GROUP FINDS ALLOWED!" and "YOU MUST CLIMB THE TREE TO ACCESS THE CACHE AND REPLACE IT PROPERLY!!!" in bold and all caps doesn't imply log deletion? Interesting. Your friends are filling up the cache page again. Classy. In the post ALR world, why can't we all assume anything on the cache page is optional? Take it at that value and the cache page is fine.
  21. I am not going to delete logs. I deleted my mention of that. It was never in the description of the cache.
  22. This is completely irrelevant. The cache owner cannot set additional rules for cache logging. The terrain of the cache is irrelevant, local norms are irrelevant. This cache is an ALR, and it's against the guidelines the owner agreed to when he published the cache. It's not irrelevant, that's the reasoning I used when I made the maintenance logs. I understand, now, that I need to be more accommodating to how others play the game. It is no longer an ALR because no mention of log deletion exists. The cache page, as you said, can have optional requirements. I think we are capable of assuming this is true for all caches in the post-ALR world and all should be treated accordingly. It does not need to be explicit.
  23. I have not attacked your character at all. 1) Yes, cache owners not only CAN, but are charged with the duty of deleting bogus logs. 2) While I might agree having the cache lowered down might destroy the integrity of the cache, you still cannot require someone to climb the tree to sign the log. 3) It IS the cache owner's responsibility to remove bogus logs, but the guidelines do not address the integrity of the cache. This has been covered ad nauseum since the change in the guidelines last Spring. Believe it or not, I get where you are coming from. I understand why you would want to place a high terrain cache. I understand why it would grind your grits for someone to sign the logbook while having both feet firmly planted on the ground. But that does not change the fact that since the guidelines were changed that you cannot threaten to delete logs if someone doesn't retrieve the cache in the precise manner that you dictate. The character bashing comment was not directed at anyone in particular. Sorry if it sounded that way. There have been off base comments, myself included.
  24. I was about to do so. I get both sides of the argument and after thinking over it today, I am in the process of editing my maintenance logs. I will not get rid of the statement on the cache page itself.
  25. The similarities between forum posts by the cache owner's friends, the personal messages I've received and the (now deleted) notes directed at me on the cache page make it difficult to determine if there are sock puppets involved or a group of people sitting together at a computer or what. Just a note to everybody in Ohio who is upset to learn that this cache has an ALR, writing to people privately to shout at them about it is probably a bad move. Listen, the note on the cache page by the guy with zero finds was another cacher who had that listing on a watch list and acted without my knowledge. I controlled the situation by deleting it once he told me about it because with 200 messages a day from geocaching.com, you tend to miss a few. In regard to my notes on the cache page, they were a defense of my position as based on the rules. I was aggravated that such a drastic step was taken by you, and I apologize for those comments. As for the similarities, threats, etc. I am sorry that they have occurred. I am not the one doing it, and there is no conspiracy of a group in one room at a computer. I only know 2 of the commenters on this forum. And I unfortunately know the cache page commenter. Other than that, I cannot vouch for anyone. JNLE4 posted once, and KBLAST has been vocal. That's what I know
×
×
  • Create New...