webscouter.

As a Lackey, he's probably not eligible. That's why I had the big smile at the end of the nomination.

As an aside, something to remember when coding cache pages. HTML can really mess with users that have paperless GPS units. Many times I cannot see any part of the page or I get all the code when viewing on my gps. This can be especially frustrating on Earthcaches and Virtuals where I need to get information from the site to log a find. So even though it may look beautiful on your computer, please think about the user in the field and leave off unnecessary html formatting.

Some of the stats are on a different server. It can occasionally take some time for the two servers to synch with each other. Be patient young grasshopper.

I nominate Jon S.

There are 138 film cans on the trail. With the stated maintenance plan you can just pick up all the film cans and log a find on them. The next cacher can replace all 138 cans and claim a find on them. Leave all the film cans at the end or first cache location so the next cacher has enough cans. This will also reduce your time to find for each cache since you don't have to open them.

The different numbers are on two different servers. It takes one a few minutes to update the numbers. During really heavy traffic days I have seen it take fifteen minutes

Another thing to consider is perhaps the CO sent a private email to the reviewer that you haven't seen. Maybe they have a personal matter that they don't want to post in public (divorce, sickness, legal issues) and the reviewer isn't going to tell you about it.

I thought the Titanic came in in April? Well it never really came in did it?

Since you asked it sounds like you are being unreasonable to me. The reviewers are volunteers. I think you would be pretty hard pressed to find any cachers that would prefer that a reviewer archives caches instead of publishing new ones. Given the choice I want my reviewer to put the priority on publishing new caches. Telling a reviewer that her actions are ridiculous will certainly not endure you to her. Fortunately most reviewers don't take personal feelings into account when reviewing caches.

I like it as well.

Of course it could be that folks are just logging that they found it.

Nope, the log would be deleted if I was the owner

Are you using the create list from bookmark function? It sounds like you are creating a query based on one of the caches as a center point.

Version has an update for the other caching site so you can use the camera to verify finds.

Thanks from me as well.

I like the Challenges. It will take a while for them to calm down but in the end I think it will be a nice addition for Geocaching.

You need to add another log of found it for the cache. The two log types are separate from each other. This is because you can log a needs maintenance on a cache that you have already found but you don't want it to show up as found again.

Are you loading PQ through GSAK or some other waypoint management software? It is possible that GSAK is changing the cache identifier so it shows as two seperate caches. For instance if you are stripping the GC off the GUID then you would have a waypoint with GC30 and 30 as two seperate caches while they are really the same cache. I don't know if this is your issue, just a thought.

A number of years ago, a CD produced by Microsoft and distributed to hundreds if not thousands of people at one of their conference had a virus on it. Was that perhaps the Vista virus?

My granddaughter was 11 days when she found her first cache. http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/cdf8c946-e797-4b07-be3c-89f77a66a358.jpg

You can also pick up the TB from missing and put it into the cache if you wish.

99999999977 That being said I can see the "deleted" post in all it's glory and an apology for deleting it.

Cool location

Munzee will never be a tie in until they support all different smartphones.

You might contact the CO of http://coord.info/GC2E027 He has a cache that is time dependent.