jmoores

Actually email delivery takes quite a bit of a larger hit on a server than simply storing the files and then handing them out over HTTP when they're requested. The issue isn't so much bandwidth (even though email delivery requires 33% more bandwidth due to the necessary encoding) but mostly disk I/O. You don't simply send out emails and then forget about them, they need to be queued, scheduled, requeued in case the destination server is down or has other problems, you need to handle bounces, generate error emails, etc etc etc. There's a lot of overhead involved. Email systems can be a pain to maintain and run. While I would like that, I can totally understand that they'd like to get rid of the email deliveries (as explained above). What I don't understand is not providing an alternative to them. Thanks for the reply... I'm not sure that I entirely understand... If GC already maintains mail servers, then offering an email option over 500 caches probably wouldn't increase the need to expand the number of servers (perhaps some more disk space to hold the larger attachments but disk is probably the cheapest part of any server), and especially if GC would make zipping all PQ >500 attachments manditory. I do agree that mail servers are a pain to maintain (having maintained email, fax, FTP servers in my 30+ year career in data processing)... but just adding the capability to email the over 500 PROBABLY wouldn't be significant increase in the number of emails being sent? Obvious that probably is an assumption on my part... based upon how I typically use PQs. I'm not sure that I can think of an alternative to downloading or emailing? FTP would be about the same as downloading and probably far less user friendly. Is there another option?

It's not a big deal, as was said earlier in this thread, to go to GC and download the query, but I don't understand the logic for dividing between <500 and >500. If the PQ is mailed as an attachment or downloaded, I don't see how it would make a difference to CG. The query gets extracted either way, it has to be stored either way, and the only (transitory) resource usage is in the server(s) that actually sends out the email. I know that there are some people who are still using a low speed/dial up connection but downloading vs email doesn't seem to matter because either way they would have to used the same bandwidth getting the PQ file. Unless I'm missing something here, it might be more "user friendly" to add a switch to the PQ definition page to email or to download (like there is a switch to zip the file or not). Thoughts anyone?

Me too. I was running GSAK late last night, and Windows/Norton shut down Internet Explorer both inside and outside of GSAK, saying that malicious software tried to execute in protected space.... Not saying that it came from the GSAK, but that was the only website I was connected to (well... I was technically connected to Google Maps too). I hope GSAK.net isn't down with a virius problem. Let's all hope that it's planned "maintenance".

Probably bandwidth. Logs can be 4000 characters, times 10 logs, times 500 caches is a whole lot of bandwidth. It would probably bring the email server to its knees. Jim That's what I meant about putting "appropriate limits". In the PQ process, a limit could be programmed to stop at a given file size. I could suggest what the file size limit should be, but I would have to have some stats to judge what the server load is and what normal PQ size is. I'm sure the programming powers that be could come up with a reasonable limit. BTW, your example is a worst case scenerio... so it's not a good argument. What you need to be realistic is the average # of characters per log and the average number of logs and the average number of caches requested per PQ? You could do a standard deviation calculation to come up with the "appropriate limits" that would cut off the PQ when it reached that size.... perhaps 500% of the standard, depending upon the server load? It could be done, and if you want more logs for all your hidden caches than the limit allows, then you could schedule the 1st half to run on Mondays and the 2nd half to run on Thursdays and base the selection on bookmarked lists... ie PQ First is the first 100 caches and PQ Second would be the remaining 100 caches. I really don't have an idea of what the development cost would be to set a max file size, but I would guess it would be reasonable. Jim

I know that this is a bit "off topic" in that most of the posts speak to maintaining owned caches, but as a relatively new person to geocaching but with an information systems background, I am trying to automate my search selections etc. Specifically, I have a PQ that I use to find all the caches with in a given number of miles of my house. When I used the print function for an individual cache before got GSAK (I'm trying to go paperless), I had the option to print with no logs, 5 logs or 10 logs.. "Simple [No Logs] [5 Logs] [10 Logs]". I've wondered why the programming powers couldn't just add a similar function to the Pocket Query selection criteria. My guess is that 10 logs would encompass 99.9% of all logs if used on owned queries weekly. It would also allow me to construct a PQ for my DNFs that would allow me to download more logs to help me get a few hints on my not founds. A "governer" could be put into the PQ process to put an absolute limit to gross number of records to be downloaded at one time to prevent truly huge downloads. Bottom line - some flexibility in allowing more logs to be downloaded with appropriate limits might address the concerns of all the posts so far... Just a geocaching newbie's $.02 worth (that has worked in information systems development for almost 40 years). Jim My greatest fun in life, now that I've retired, is taking my granddaughters geocaching...

Just a quick note or two... My brother found out he was allergic to PI when he was 11, and had to use some leaves to... ummm clean himself up after digging and using a cat hole. He walk bowlegged for at least 2 months, and had steriod shots for the whole two months. I've had moderate allergies for my whole life. I've done the 50 pin prick tests on the back several times. I lost allergies to specific items when I went through puberty, and gained new ones. I've known women who have had similar experiences with pregnancies. I asked my allergy specialist and he said that went ever the body goes through a major "hormone" experience, that can change your body chemistry enough to gain or lose sensativity to specific things. I had pencillin shots several times as a kid, but almost died the first pencillin shot after puberty. As with most things, it's never a simple answer....

I've been doing about 1/2 to 3/4 of my geocaching with my granddaughters, and believe me one person's junk is anothers treasure. One of my granddaughters LOVES McD toys. Another loves any coin regardless of type/source. Another granddaughter loves anything shiny (they are all under 7 years old). I've left (in my granddaughters trades) small picture frames that fit the small school pics, toy cowboys/indians, dice and polished rocks. Most of the stuff that I leave my granddaughters think isn't worth anything... I do try to always trade up but worth is in the eyes of the beholder... especially when you're under 7 years old. Jim

I tried downloading the file and when I opened the file in MS Word 2003, all I saw was special characters. What version of word was it created in?

I'm a newbie as well... I've looked for 8 caches and found 5. However, of the 5 I've found I found 2 of them on a second try. The three that I've not found, I've looked for 2 of them twice and I just can't find them. All the caches were <2 in difficulty. Summarizing my experience (such as it is): 1) I've found the cache as much as 40' from the coordinates (2 of that I've found were ~ 40'). I agree with the person who said look in a circle of 50' from where your GPSr says it should be. 2) Micro caches are usually under rated in difficulty... Perhaps all micro's should be rated at least a 3, especially if you're over 55 (the eyes go first). 3) Logs that say "quick" or "dash" are optimistic... 4) Micro caches have taken me at least 15 to 30 mins to find each time. I'm hoping that as I train my "eye" and become acustomed to standard hiding methods, that will get shorter. 5) Lastly, I live in a suburb and 90%+ of the local caches are micro or small... the largest that I've found is was a film can. If anyone can post their standard checklist of hiding places types to look first, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate it. My list so far is 1) Look in shrubs and bushes at the base inside the first set of branches that come off the main trunk. 2) Check behind anything metal for a magnet cache (or really any place out of sight on metal items). 3) Check at eye level for hanging caches in trees and shrubs/bushes. 4) Lastly look for anything that might be out of place (I found one cache in a hole in a stump covered with a rock... the rock on the stump is what caught my eye). As I said, if anyone else has a "checklist" of places to look, I would surely appreciate the hints... Jim

test