giddeanx

There's no point validating all the other souvenirs because it's a waste of processor time. If I delete a Find log against a cache in Kansas all the system has to do is check whether I have a single other Find against a cache in Kansas to see if I still qualify for the souvenir. So as soon as it finds a single qualifying cache it can stop looking because it knows I still qualify. So rolling with this example (I'll switch from Kansas to Pennsylvania since I have found caches there), if I delete my last Find log in Pennsylvania what the system needs to know is "do I still have a find in Pennsylvania". So it starts with my first find and looks at them. After about 400 caches it will hit my first Find in Pennsylvania, at which point it can stop searching. It doesn't need to look at the remaining 1800-odd finds because it has already confirmed that the answer to the question is that I do still have at least one find in PA. There's no need to look any further because the answer to the question won't change. So in this example looking to revalidate every souvenir would take nearly six times as much processing just to look through the logs, when the only souvenir that is in question relates to the log that was deleted. I wouldn't have thought so but don't have the stats. Delete or change a log from Found.

I do enjoy the 70's space movie soundtrack it plays while printing.

Which is still a lot more processing that just flipping a deleted flag in a single record.

The system knows that the cache qualified you for a souvenir, because it awarded a souvenir for it. So if a log that would qualify for a souvenir is changed, all it needs to do is check your other logs to see if any of them qualify for the souvenir in question. If I logged a cache in Oregon and then deleted the log (or changed it to DNF) the system doesn't need to revalidate all my souvenirs. It just checks to see if I found any other caches in Oregon, and if I didn't then it deletes the Oregon souvenir. How does the system know that a later cache logged didn't also qualify for the souvenir? Your method would have the souvenir disappear despite you having other logs that also qualify for it. Also I am not sure if the log and the souvenir are attached in the database. If they were that would be great and you could only look for the changed souvenir if not you are stuck re-qualifying all of them.

I am sure it could, but I am not sure the weight of such a task. You would need a procedure that would go through every find the user had and see if any of them qualified them for a souvenir. You would then have to run a procedure every time a log was deleted or changed from Found It. There are people with quite a few finds and going through each one on a delete could be costly to performance. At this point it seems to only do that check once on posting and then it just flips the souvenir flag or adds the souvenir id, user id, and date to a reference table. It shouldn't be that hard to have a database trigger on deletions or updates. If a log was deleted or the log type was changed, flag the user for souvenir regeneration. The system can already identify which souvenir(s) a particular log would have earned, so go through those souvenirs and check the user still qualifies for them. I am not saying its not possible, but it is much more costly than the current process for minimal benefit. As things stand the souvenirs mean next to nothing. If they are based on actual caching that's one thing but as it stands anyone can armchair log anything to get the souvenirs and even if the log is deleted they still collect the souvenirs. It's a bit pointless having the souvenirs if the system is so easy to cheat for anyone so inclined. Souvenir - a thing that is kept as a reminder of a person, place, or event. If someone goes to ebay and buys a I visited Niagra Falls tee shirt, that doesn't make the memories attached to the shirt you bought, while in Niagra Falls, any less valuable.

I am sure it could, but I am not sure the weight of such a task. You would need a procedure that would go through every find the user had and see if any of them qualified them for a souvenir. You would then have to run a procedure every time a log was deleted or changed from Found It. There are people with quite a few finds and going through each one on a delete could be costly to performance. At this point it seems to only do that check once on posting and then it just flips the souvenir flag or adds the souvenir id, user id, and date to a reference table. It shouldn't be that hard to have a database trigger on deletions or updates. If a log was deleted or the log type was changed, flag the user for souvenir regeneration. The system can already identify which souvenir(s) a particular log would have earned, so go through those souvenirs and check the user still qualifies for them. I am not saying its not possible, but it is much more costly than the current process for minimal benefit. I don't see how it would be more costly. And if the original coder put that in, I suppose it wouldn't cost a penny. Certainly if you delete your own find log, it decreases your find count by one. This is not from Geocaching.com, but an insiders look at another website. $rsGeneralStat =sql("SELECT count(*) count FROM `cache_logs` WHERE cache_logs.deleted=0 AND (type=1 OR type=2 OR type=7) AND cache_id=&1 ",$cache_id); English translation: If cache_logs.deleted=1, it doesn't count in your find count. From a processing standpoint not money. Instead of just deleting a log you would have the overhead of checking all existing finds to see if they qualify for a souvenir. That little bit of code only is concerned with finds and that is relatively simple as you are only looking for logs that are not deleted and have a status of found and its only pulling from a single table. Where souvenirs are concerned there would be one of those(in some form)for each souvenir each with a cross reference to the cache table to get information such as location or type. But souvenirs are not calculated on the fly and are most likely populated in a separate table so it's a quick access when someone looks at the souvenir page. So each of these would involve a precheck to see if a record already existed in the souvenir table and then an insert if the find met the criteria.

I am sure it could, but I am not sure the weight of such a task. You would need a procedure that would go through every find the user had and see if any of them qualified them for a souvenir. You would then have to run a procedure every time a log was deleted or changed from Found It. There are people with quite a few finds and going through each one on a delete could be costly to performance. At this point it seems to only do that check once on posting and then it just flips the souvenir flag or adds the souvenir id, user id, and date to a reference table. It shouldn't be that hard to have a database trigger on deletions or updates. If a log was deleted or the log type was changed, flag the user for souvenir regeneration. The system can already identify which souvenir(s) a particular log would have earned, so go through those souvenirs and check the user still qualifies for them. I am not saying its not possible, but it is much more costly than the current process for minimal benefit.

Wow I wasn't aware caches could be so close to schools. I was going to say with the three schools surrounding the road it would be hard to get a cache in but it looks like one starts in the school parking lot.

You win a prize for being the first one to actually read my original post. I agree, bright aqua blue would work. I wonder if the blue would blend in with lakes and stuff.

I am sure it could, but I am not sure the weight of such a task. You would need a procedure that would go through every find the user had and see if any of them qualified them for a souvenir. You would then have to run a procedure every time a log was deleted or changed from Found It. There are people with quite a few finds and going through each one on a delete could be costly to performance. At this point it seems to only do that check once on posting and then it just flips the souvenir flag or adds the souvenir id, user id, and date to a reference table.

I do prefer the story from August 11th

Coulda been a million reasons! Did you see the time? Yes, that makes it 2 million reasons including substance abuse.

Woah! Wait a second here. I'm elite?!? My mother would be so proud.

Reminds me of all the imaginary, and real, spiders that haunted my last DNF.

I thought the problem that people had was them logging finds they didn't find, short logs and other mischief. Actually the main complaint is not having a way to try to correct the issues. However you are complaining about when people post Do Not Finds when they don't find the cache. I am not really getting the problem there maybe some sort of disconnect here. Due to my untreated ADD and my noobishness I post a lot of DNF's. They are not the same as saying its not there and never do I assume that it is gone. Now if they were posting NM all the time I think I might complain about wolf calls. Are you getting a flood of DNFs? DNF's with a needs maintenance because its not there. DNF with area is nothing but weeds should be archived. Logs saying exactly where the cache is located. Third post from corner, etc etc. with a note saying coords are off by 10ft with a needs maintenace log saying coords should be updated. All sorts of nice logs that you can't respond to until you go to the cache site and double check. Needs maintenance because there was no pen in cache so couldn't sign the log. Cache was a micro. Have deleted several logs and have never deleted a log before until now. Don't like doing that but felt it necessary to maybe wake them up. Has taken the "fun" out of having caches placed for me. Won't be putting out any more new ones unless they are premium caches. Hate doing that too as not all cachers need or want the premium membership. Hate to cut their fun out but... feel that's its necessary now. Actually I am going back to this. If you are blaming the Needs Maintenance logs on the intro app you are banging on the wrong drum. The intro app in its current form doesn't let you post Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived logs. They are just newbie cachers and they need to learn the game and what to expect and what is expected. Not everyone comes in a seasoned vet.

I found one just like that the only thing that survived was the little baggie with the log. The rest of the cache was Tupperware dust.

I guess you have some, less that official, options: CAF - Call a friend YAF - Yell at a friend SSAF - Smoke signal a friend SAF - Semaphore a friend/Signal a friend OR FIOY/FIOM - Figure it out yourself/Figured it out myself

For some enlightenment I downloaded the Intro App onto my iPhone. It starts with the Geocaching Logo with a link to the video. You are not forced to watch the video but the link is very obvious. At the bottom of the same page are two buttons so you can connect with Facebook or connect with Geocaching. I went ahead and clicked connect with Geocaching and made an account for my daughter giving an email I am not currently using. The next screen is a caution page stating that Geocaching can be dangerous... Geocache at your own risk. You have to click I understand to move on. And then poof I am looking at the map of the local area. I checked the email I used for the test. In it was a welcome email and an email requesting that I verify my account. So no, no guidelines. However a friendly tutorial video is provided but isn't forced. They do try to get you to verify your email but isn't required before you go searching. The only thing you are forced to read is the warning that Geocaching can be dangerous. - So the app makes sure Groundspeak's covered on any liability issues, but could care less about the rest of us? Without our caches there'd be no app... Well they do mention the CO when you are logging your find. There is no default message now. If the "that's one more find from me" text has been removed from ios app, that's the first I've heard of it. And I had heard it was only present in the ios app, and NOT the Android app. Nice they give a "pro tip" to not leave spoilers, but at that exact moment, 99% of the time, what they enter into that "space to share their story" will consist of two words or less. I was testing the iOS app and the "that's one more find from me" is no longer present.

For some enlightenment I downloaded the Intro App onto my iPhone. It starts with the Geocaching Logo with a link to the video. You are not forced to watch the video but the link is very obvious. At the bottom of the same page are two buttons so you can connect with Facebook or connect with Geocaching. I went ahead and clicked connect with Geocaching and made an account for my daughter giving an email I am not currently using. The next screen is a caution page stating that Geocaching can be dangerous... Geocache at your own risk. You have to click I understand to move on. And then poof I am looking at the map of the local area. I checked the email I used for the test. In it was a welcome email and an email requesting that I verify my account. So no, no guidelines. However a friendly tutorial video is provided but isn't forced. They do try to get you to verify your email but isn't required before you go searching. The only thing you are forced to read is the warning that Geocaching can be dangerous. - So the app makes sure Groundspeak's covered on any liability issues, but could care less about the rest of us? Without our caches there'd be no app... Well they do mention the CO when you are logging your find. There is no default message now. Actually I have to say the interface seems better than the paid app. The interface is very clean. The description of the cache is right out front and you don't have to hit a button to see it. Also it is more difficult to accidentally make a Found It log. They also have quite a bit of helpful information underneath Hint on the cache page. They have a link to the video as well as the video. Then they go through 4 steps of finding a cache. All in all it seems to me that this type of information is much more accessible than on the paid app.

For some enlightenment I downloaded the Intro App onto my iPhone. It starts with the Geocaching Logo with a link to the video. You are not forced to watch the video but the link is very obvious. At the bottom of the same page are two buttons so you can connect with Facebook or connect with Geocaching. I went ahead and clicked connect with Geocaching and made an account for my daughter giving an email I am not currently using. The next screen is a caution page stating that Geocaching can be dangerous... Geocache at your own risk. You have to click I understand to move on. And then poof I am looking at the map of the local area. I checked the email I used for the test. In it was a welcome email and an email requesting that I verify my account. So no, no guidelines. However a friendly tutorial video is provided but isn't forced. They do try to get you to verify your email but isn't required before you go searching. The only thing you are forced to read is the warning that Geocaching can be dangerous.

Um isn't that a happy liver? I will agree with the Ukelele. I will also agree with your husband that 10 is the absolute minimum of Timmy's Timbits one can consume. Oh I found my information for an Earth Cache that I had done back in June. I was proud of myself because I actually logged it for June instead of August to get the souvenir.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic. Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately! Again, different strokes. Getting on and off a bicycle every 160 metres is not fun for me. All I want is a better way to filter out these power trails so I can see the caches that are worthwhile for me. As it is, they generally get lost in the rest of the trail unless I spend a lot of time with third-party software. Skip some then you don't have to find every cache. Instead you do one out of every 5, then the next time you come to the trail you will still have caches to grab.

Found it = Found it twice. Meh, this was probably just equipment failure not really a intentional deception or a Found It = Didn't Find It. Let me guess...you're their attorney. Agreed that it wasn't "intentional deception." It's more like n00bish negligence -- and a no-no in any case. Still not a Found It = Didn't Find It No its a Found It + Found It = Found It

Found it = Found it twice. Meh, this was probably just equipment failure not really a intentional deception or a Found It = Didn't Find It.