Gan Dalf
-
Posts
619 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Gan Dalf
-
-
So where do you go to agree to the terms and conditions? I don't think I am having the same problem. My PQ's are all there and viewable. I was ablt to run My Finds yesterday just fine but this morning I set a PQ to run and now, 7 hours later it still has not. The last time I ran this particular PQ was 4 days ago so that is not an issue. Is there some other criteria that sets when a PQ gets run? Usually it takes less than 5 minutes.
-
Hey gang,
Redmond-area cachers PJBK are moving back to Texas, and they are hoping to get their three caches adopted before they leave, so they don't have to be archived. Please contact PJBK directly if you'd like to adopt one.
Thanks!
Has this been resolved? I would be willing to adopt whats that buzzing as I have found it and got a kick out of it when I did.
Feel free to contact me through my profile.
-
Sorry, replied to wrong posting
-
I assume that you are referring to the barcode images? Mine are broken as well. They have been for at least a few days.
I have no idea what a barcode image is. I'm talking about links, clickable links on my profile page that are generated via a macro I use on GSAK. they were working a few minutes before I noticed it and I posted the problem a few minutes after that. The links were replaced by the full text of the url so instead of a link for a cacher who is in my top 20 most finds or a GC# for a cache that I had an FTF on the url was there and it was unclickable.
But it doesn't matter anyway, the problem is fixed so nevermind...
-
oooo.... back to back to back posts, major fopah,
The links seem to be working now. Thanks to whoever fixed it (or did it fix itself?)
Still waiting on my pocket querry however...
-
Sorry for the back to back posts,
I just went and looked at a couple profiles from others who run the same macro I do to generate their stats and their links are all busted too. I also looked at profiles for those who generate their stats using the itsnotabouthtenumbers stats generation tool and also a profile for someone using the logicweave stats genration tool and all of their stat links are borken too.
-
The links in my profile generated by GSAK are broken. At first blush it looks liek they have been stripped of the <a href= tag but I viewed the source and it all looks OK. I tried re-running the macro and re pasting the source into my profile but it still does not work.
Sorry no other browser or OS to check but here is my info:
IE 7.0
Windows XP, Service Pack 3
GSAK Version 7.2.3.35 running FindStatGen3.gsk macro
On a side note, I set a PQ to run about an hour ago and it has not run yet. Usually it takes less than 5 minutes for my querries to run and show up in my e-mail. The query is one that I have run many many times before with no problems.
Thanks
-
Saw this thread and had to reply. A few months back I found a bug that had been missing for 5 years as well. I was so excited that I actually wrote to the owner who had not been active for a few years either and asked if I could adopt it. They actually replied back and said that they were planning on starting to cache again and would like to hold on to it (although they are still not active) so I released back out into th ether. It gave me hope that the bugs that I have released that have gone missing in the short amount of time that I have been caching will show up again some time.
-
-
This weekend we searched out a cache close to home with the intent to do a coin trade. The cache we picked out had listed two coins and a TB in its inventory. I checked out the trackables logs and found that one of the coins missions was special to me and I had a coin that I brought up from Nevada to Oregon that I thought would be a great trade for it. The logs indicated that all three items were still in the cache; in fact one of them had been placed in it just the day before. We found the cache with no problem but all three trackables were gone. I watched the logs for the next couple of days and no activity! Also no other logged visits to the cache! This is not the first time this has happened but this time was a little irritating. I am not sure what this is behind this problem, it may be that some people are just too ill responsible to log their trackable finds or it may be deliberate. whatever the case I simply had to vent a little and this seamed like a good place for it. Cache on!
You don't say if you checked the log inside the cache to see if anyone had signed it but not gone online to log but assuming you did and found that no one had signed the log since the last online logger did I would bet that this is the work of thieves, either muggles or otherwise.
If you just didn't think to check the cache log then it is quite possible that the person who took them simply has not logged online yet. I ran into a slightly different but similar situation recently. There is a well known cacher in our area who is a Travel Bug and Coin Hound. He is very responsible about picking up trackables, logging them and moving them quickly. Recently I was at a cache where I found a coin I did not expect. When I went to log this coin I found that it was still in the (online) possesion of this particular TB hound. So I wrote to him thinking maybe he had passed the coin on in a trade (which he also does frequently) and that the person who he traded with just never grabbed it from him and placed it in the cache without logging it. Turns out that he had been to the cache I found it at a couple of days before and just hadn't logged it yet. It took him another 4 or 5 days to get caught up with his logs in order to get the coin in there. He asked me to wait to log the find until he had a chance to log the coin into the cache properly so that it got credit for the cache. I honored his request.
My point is that sometimes people especially people who log A LOT of caches and bugs just get behind on their logging and don't get to it for a few days or even longer. Give it a bit more time and in the mean time put the coins and bugs in your watchlist in case thehy pop up somewhere else.
-
If I go to search for the cache and actually physically spend time looking and everything else at GZ, I post a DNF or found log. Easy enough.
If I start to hike toward a cache and was still 500 feet or more from it or something and had to turn around because of something else? I wouldn't DNF it because I didn't search for it. That's no different than driving 5 miles toward a cache 6 miles away and getting a call and having to turn around and then DNFng it. However, I might post a note if it merits (ie: the other day I went for a cache we had DNFd before and it was filled with muggles, I posted a note saying we were going for it again and we couldn't go there because of the overflow of people).
This matches my line of thinking. I did this just the other day at a cache where there were too many muggles around to do a serious search. Went back the next day and found it. I have also posted notes instead of DNF's when I saw or knew where a cache was located and could not retrieve it. In reality, I did find it, I just couldn't put my hands on the container. Conversly, I would never log a cache as found unless I was able to open it up and sign the log or mark the contianer in such a way that shows that I was there.
-
Personal best so far was 15 during a Delorme Challenge run from Spokane, WA to Wenatchee, WA. I started driving at about 8 in the morning and reached Wenatchee by 1:00. For most of the caches I didn't need to walk more then 100 yards from where I parked the car to where I found the cache. I could see how in a cache dense area one could easily find over 100 caches in a day. 200+? Maybe, if you were very organized, 300+? thats starting to stretch my believabililty meter. Over 500? I personally don't see this as being possible.
-
I would treat the religous things you encounter in caches in the same way you do when someone on a street corner presents you with a similar item, pamphlet or artifact.
-
I log all my DNFs . . . it isn't a sign of failure, it is a record of my experience at that location.
For all intents and purposes, a DNF can be written up as an adventure with the subsequent Find as the successful follow up.
TL, you make a very good point and I agree with you that it would be better to say, "I ran into an inpenetrable wall of thorns 350ft away from the cache." then to say nothing at all. I just wish that everyone felt that way and would write their experiences down instead of saying, "Couldn't find it, will be back another time." or when they do find it, "Nice hide! TFTC!"
-
If I truly search for a cache and just can't find it then yes, I post a DNF. But if I can't get to the area becasue I approach it from the wrong direction or if I can't really look for it for whatever reason, then no, I don't post a DNF.
I'm in the same boat as FobesMan. I'll log a DNF anytime I do any actual searching for the cache itself, but if I can't make it close enough to even begin the real searching for whatever reason, than I wouldn't call it a DNF since it wasn't a real go at finding it.
Yes, why concern the owner over a DNF when you never really looked for it in the first place but please do post a DNF if you look and can't find. That lets the owners and others know that something might be wrong.
I think the forums might be the wrong sample for this survey however. Inherantly, people who like to write stories/logs/whatever are more likely to be in the forums and those same people are more likely to post a DNF because they like to share their experiences. Those that don't log DNF's are more likely not to even be in the forums in the first place and so they will never even see this question. All of this is of course, IMHO.
-
As with many other answers to such questions.... it depends.
If I truly search for a cache and just can't find it then yes, I post a DNF. But if I can't get to the area becasue I approach it from the wrong direction or if I can't really look for it for whatever reason, then no, I don't post a DNF.
I think it is important to post a DNF in case the reason for not being able to find it is that it has gone missing. Another importnat reason is that so others can learn from your search and find it themselves. You as the DNF'er can then use this as motivation to go back and re-double your search.
-
I recently placed a cache at a location that was less than 30ft from a cache that had been archived. The other cache was archived before I even started caching so I didn't know not to place a cache there. After I placed my cache a bunch of the NUTS in the area started talking about the other cache that was there and that it was still there despite posts to the contrary. I met another cacher at my site a few days later and he showed me the other cache. It was a bison so I unscrewed the lid, pulled the log, signed it and placed it back in it's container and later logged the find online. I don't see anything wrong with placing a cache as soon as an old one gets archived. I have been waiting to place a number of caches in areas where others have been disabled by a reviewer for more than three months. As soon as the reviewere archives them I intend to place cacehs there. The owners are obviously not willing to mantain them so why shouldn't I get to place one there. It will give people who have found the other caceh an excuse to go back and see the area again.
To your other point, I am quickly becoming an advocate of requiring a minimum number of finds (please don't rail on me, it's my opinion and it's not going to change) for people to place a cache of their own. If I see a problem with the terrain rating of a cache or if the coords are off or if there is some other problem with the site I will put it in my log and often times I will follow that up with an e-mail explaining my statements. I have been the victim of others who have posted spoiler statements in there logs complaining about the hide and so I try to avoid that in my log posts and follow it up with an e-mail saying why I said what I did.
-
As the finders in question are noobs, it seems more likely to me that their find is a mixup of some kind and not intentional 'cheating.' It seems quite likely that they simply logged the wrong cache. I've had this happen on my own caches before, and a polite email exchange sorted out the situation.
Yes, you're probably right. Others have said it before but it never clicked until I read your post. The CO has another cache with a very similar name. I knew this before but hadn't thought of it. The other cache is not a puzzle and is a fairly easy find. I'm now guessing that the newbies probably logged this cache by mistake when they saw the name.
Thanks to you and others for pointing this out, even if it took me a bit to get it.
-
In the OP you asked for our opinion. So far you have argued with everyone whose opinion differed from yours.
Looks to me like you want validation, not our opinion.
I certainly didn't argue with YOU! I simply asked you if it would be bad if I wanted to right all wrongs. Well... would it? You chose not to answer that question and post an argumentative comment instead. OK, well... I respond argumentatively to argumentative comments.
Validation would only be necessary if I had already e-mailed the owner and/or newbies in question. I said before that I had not, still haven't, so no need for validation.
Truth is that I agreed with you on some of your points and you agreed with me on some so we have a common ground. I asked the question to begin with to see if my feelings were justified and if given the same situation would others act on it. Pervailing opinion is that most would not but some thought it would be OK to drop the CO a line, Others wonder why do I even let it bother me. THAT is actually the most valid point of all.
Turns out that a couple of responders are probably right and so I am glad that I did not react to my initial feelings but posted the question here. It gave me some time to think about it and proabably do what is right. Thanks for all of your help.
-
The pertinent thing here is:
Cache MaintenanceThe cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.
The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.
It is the cache owner's responsibility. Not mine. Not yours.
A note to the cache owner might be in order, but I would not appreciate it.
I've already replied to the point about the guidlines so I am not going to reply to that again however as to what you would appreciate, we differ on this. If this was my cache, I would very much appreciate it if someone brought it to my attention.
As to other points brought up:
Finding a mystery cache without solving the puzzle is called 'brute forcing' not 'cheating'. Sign log - Get Smiley. I annoyed the heck out of the Second To Find on one of those.
Arm chair logging does affect the rest of us. One virtual that I greatly enjoyed was archived because of the arm-chair logging. It has since been un-archived. Hopefully the owner has resolved the problem.
This isn't brute forcing a cache. Brute forcing means you actually found it, albeit without solving the puzzle but you found it. You say "Sign log - Get Smiley". Key point... no signature on log, no Smiley. I get annoyed by brute force finds as well, primarily becasue I can't do it, but I would never write to someone and tell them that... Take that for what it's worth.
-
Now I am compelled to either write to the owner of the cache and/or the posters of these logs and let them know what I have found.
Compelled to? Really? Do you feel compelled to right all wrongs?
No, not all wrongs, But would it be a bad thing if I did?
I mistyped this, what I meant was, I feel compelled...
But I think you got that.
-
Problem seems to have resolved itself.
-
Allowing oneself to be troubled over something like that is a bit like finishing a difficult crossword puzzle without help, and then feeling cheated upon discovering that someone else solved the same puzzle while peeking at the solution.
The analogy that this is most like is asking someone else how to solve the puzzle and then going and finding it yourself after they give you the solution. At least the person in your example filled in the spaces. These people didn't even do that, they just said they did. At least that is what is apparent from their lack of signing the log.
-
How can anyone, in their right mind, compare an elderly lady in need of help to a false log on a geocache????
Duh
I agree, that was extreme but Thank you ReadyorNot for coming to my defense.
I would liken the situation similar to this. I was in a poular local summer bike ride weekend before last. It is a 200 mile ride that I completed in one day. Riders have the option of doing it in 2 days but I wanted to try for one. There were times during the last 60 miles of the ride that I wanted to quit, ut my bike on top of the car that my wife was shadowing me in, drive to a few miles from the finish line and cross the finish line on my bike. It's not a race that soemone wins and would have hurt no one for me to do something like that. In fact it would have saved me considerable pain and suffering. But I kept riding the whole way. Why? Because not doing so and crossing the finish line as though I had would have been cheating. I would have had to live with the fact that I claimed to accomplish somehting that I did not.
I find that people that cheat at things like this should be exposed becsue it is likely that they cheat at other things that may casue harm to others and they need to be taught a lesson. But perhaps I let it get to me too much and I should just let karma cach up with them. That's why I postd the question in the first place.
and besides, I don't know how to get rid of it...)
Background Image on Cache Page in Blackberry Browser
in Website
Posted
I have the exact same problem. It seems to be an issue with the blackberry itself. I have resorted to using the selection tool to highlight the text to make the contrast show up better so I can read it. Another option is there is a utility that you can buy (30 day free trial then it's $15 I think) called Cache Berry. It loads GPX files from pocket querries you create on GC.com. It's pretty cool, I've gone totoally paperless since getting this utility. You have to be a premium mamber in order to use the pocket querry function.
Hope this helps.