JeremyR

They've probably introduced some caching (in the computing sense ) to save resources. It's a good idea IMO - is it really necessary for the statbars to be accurate to the second? So long as they update within a few hours, it's not that much of a problem, is it? I'd rather resources went towards handling main site demand (particularly on 10/10/2010 ) rather than keeping statbars second-accurate.

Indeed - flash memory is tough stuff. My stepson put his USB memory stick (different shape, same tech) with all his school work on it in the washing machine the other week. I was absolutely stunned to find it survived not only the water but the enzymes in the washing powder and the beating of a full spin cycle to no ill effects, all data intact. I'm not sure whether or the experience reinforced my nagging about keeping backups or undermined it because the blummin' things are evidently invincible So, in a vain attempt to bring this post on-topic, the if the OP gets the Oregon back, whether the device will work remains to be seen but if there's a microSD card in there, it should be fine!

I'm sure that 'lawsuit mitigation' is the official reason. I'm sure that 'bureaucrat self-justification' is the real reason.

I have no intention of disclosing exactly which cache it is but there's one in the Winter Hill area of Lancashire that matches the OP's description...

No idea if it was the case for the OP but if your own computer's clock is set outside the validity period of the certificate, that will cause this problem. For example, if you set your computer's clock way into the future, say 2020, you'll get this error message on just about every single secure site you visit. gc.com's certificate appears to be valid through Jun 15th 2012 and was last renewed in early June this year so barring any other gremlins, it wasn't actually expired at any point last night...

Guess it's probably a bit late now but find a dollar store - they normally have USB cables for... well you can probably guess the price . They ain't great quality obviously but for a buck, they'll do the job

*bump* The response to the petition is in and........ .........it's exactly what I'm sure most of us were expecting Link It's almost a form letter. If you look closely, you can just about see the mail-merge fields

Was indeed broken earlier but seems to be working again now

This explains why some programmes never make it to the iPlayer. Basically it's all to do with licensing and rights clearance. [eta] This page gives more and suggests that actually, it's some other hold up and it should be there eventually. The show's iPlayer page does have the 'coming soon' tag...

Oh lordy, I've been drawn into a darkside thread I am not sure I agree with this. This idea that "the easier it is to acquire the cache, the more likely the resulting hide will be shabby", I believe, is flawed logic. The quality of a hide is a direct function of the personality and experiences of a hider. It is, of course, generally accepted by most cachers that new members should find a fair few caches before considering hiding one of their own. We already have enough cases of people with low single-digit finds submitting caches that are poorly thought out and we shouldn't encourage more by pinning a requirement (sorry, recommendation) to a smiley. That's not a criticism of new cachers, it's common sense - you need to find some to understand how this game works, how there are rules we all follow and requirements we aim to meet. For example, in the UK there are several guidelines in addition to the Groundspeak guidelines, violation of which will see your cache knocked back at review, temped or archived. Cache placements in dry stone walls, for example. Point is that you need to take time to learn about the game before you dive into the hiding side of things. Caches that pressure people to place a cache to validate their smiley (and which use weasel words like "requested" or "recommended" to get around the ALR rule) are a bad idea simply because they discourage people from taking time to carefully plan a good cache location, seek/ensure proper permission and place a quality hide. This applies to people with 10,000 finds but applies even more to people who are new to the game. There will be exceptions to the rule, great caches from seed caches, even many but there is absolutely no reason why those caches couldn't have been placed anyway, regardless of their 'parentage'. But that's not my biggest objection to seed caches. The single most important reason I don't think seed caches are appropriate is that, to use a British-ism, pressuring other people to hide a cache in any way, shape or form is just not cricket. People will say that 'it's just for fun' or that 'it's just a request, they don't have to do it' but that's nonsense because there's peer pressure - the finder won't want to be the one to break the chain and will feel under pressure to place a cache. People will also say that 'they don't have to do the seed cache in the first place.' This is also invalid because people shouldn't have to consider having obligations after finding the cache when deciding whether they'd like to visit it or not. The only considerations when choosing a cache to find should be "do I want to visit this area?" and "does this look like a hide I'd enjoy?" When a cache comes with obligations, that's an agenda in my eyes, something that's been against guidelines since the year dot. [edited for d'oh! typo]

But again, that doesn't set a guideline per se. There's no explicit mention that seed caches are verboten in the actual guidelines (aside from the ALR bit, and whether seed caches are an ALR seems to be the subject of debate). When we submit caches, we tick a box that says we agree to the guidelines. The knowledge base and forum posts from Groundspeak higher-ups are obviously important but if they're to become binding rules (sorry, guidelines ) then they need to be mentioned in the actual guidelines, otherwise, you've just got a recipe for cachers getting annoyed with the reviewers when their caches are knocked back for violating 'invisible rules' and for angsty, popcorn-filled forum threads.

Can we expect a change to the guidelines to explicitly spell out that seed caches are not OK in Groundspeak's eyes? I refer particularly to this bit of MissJenn's post: "My strongly held opinion is that cache owners should not encourage finders to hide a new cache, as this often results in poorly planned new cache placements. Cache pages requiring or strongly encouraging the placement of new caches should not be published." The emphasis is mine but is this Groundspeak policy or personal opinion? If so, when can we expect to see it specifically mentioned under 'guidelines that apply to all cache types' that seed caches are now verboten? FWIW, I agree that seed caches are not a good thing.

The point is that predictable codes at the front of the subject helps make what happens to the email after it's delivered easier to set up. For example, I have a filter that highlights any GC.com email with a subject starting with '[LOG]' into a folder for perusing later when I'm bored/procrastinating. Within that, any that start '[LOG] Owner' are highlighted in blue so that they stand out from the other notification emails as the ones I want to read first.

GM scripts can sometimes conflict with one another but you can normally rectify the situation by changing the order in which they're run. Open the 'Manage Scripts' dialog box from the Greasemonkey menu and switch the two scripts so they're the other way around (click and drag the script's name in the list on the left), refresh the page and see if that solves the issue. It should unless they're mutually incompatible (which is unlikely).

Try this GM script: GC.com GC Number Restorer Restores the waypoint code to how it was but leaves the drop-down arrow for the coord.info box intact. Picture says a thousand words:

A far narrower (read: better) AdBlock Plus filter to remove the feedback button is this: geocaching.com##a#fdbk_tab The previous filter mentioned blocks way way way more than just the feedback button*, this filter just removes the button and nothing more (* All images from Get Satisfaction's AWS hosting space, likely used on all sorts of other sites across the internet would be blocked. This would muck up feedback.geocaching.com for starters) [clarity edit]

Too tempting grammar_error.user.js I think most of the options mentioned above plus a couple more are included

Upgrading to 1.1 would take work and doesn't involve the iPhone. And anway, presumably the 1.0.1 refers to the version of the Groundspeak extensions to GPX rather than the underlying GPX format itself...

Not give them any public attention. Like all bullies, they thrive on it. This thread needs to die...

Alternatively, just edit the notification and untick the "Found It" option. If you just want to be notified of new caches, just leave "Publish Listing" and perhaps "Enable Listing" ticked. Save the notification and you shouldn't get nearly so many

If you go to watch football, does the stadium sell its own brand of cola, or Coke? It sells Coke, because Coke is good at marketing itself as a good thing. There, I fixed that for you

I think you'll find most people who take a proactive approach to protecting their privacy online will have the domains of the services you mentioned blocked already (along with a couple of others). I know I have! Edited for grammar FAIL

Your wish is my command: GC.com Facebook Don't Like Installing this script will make the Facebook 'Like' buttons disappear from cache pages on your computer only. It requires Firefox and the Greasemonkey add-on or another browser that understands user scripts (like Chrome for example).

the "move to collection" action isn't a log type nor an action selectable on the TB's profile page. Au contraire, I just did exactly that (entered a log of type 'Move to my collection') with um.... five different geocoins. Like this: What I'm saying is that this particular method of adding to your collection doesn't seem to be available if you own the coin but didn't originally. Or some other circumstance In any case, I can move any TB I own to my collection by entering this type of log except the one I adopted.

I would quite like an option to remove the 'Like' option for my caches... I thought Groundspeak was always against simplistic cache ratings? 'Like' is about as simple a cache rating as it gets. I'd 'like' (geddit?!) to think the logs on my caches are better suited to demonstrating how much people enjoy (or don't enjoy ) my hides... Surely the 'Like' button is a disincentive to write a decent log on decent caches? How long before we start seing 'TFTC+Like' logs? Intead of "I really liked this, thanks for making the effort......... etc" ?