Jump to content

Willie Wandering

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Willie Wandering

  1. Sorry to keep bumping this to the top... final update, promise. Someone has pointed out that it's possible to change the 'date placed', and that by setting it a day after the 'other' cache, with the system as is, it is possible to 'force' one on to the top. May not be ethical... it may not work... but it's a thought. Cheers
  2. We'd do it, sounds like our favourite kind. I wouldn't worry too much about people working it out from their armchair and just driving to the final. Some people are lazy, many have good reason like captnemo, the main thing is that a good planned walk is an option for those that like that kind of cache and all finds count. I love the detail of maybe getting the light-rail back, some great walks just don't have a circular option. Good luck with it.
  3. Okay I have an update, a reply from Groundspeak support in which they say: Overlaps will and do happen and it doesn't seem right to me that an established cache doesn't take precedence. A later setter may choose to accept that their icon will be underneath another, but this way the original setter gets no choice. Well, there you go.
  4. Without getting involved in what's a quality cache or not, I'm not sure any of your assumptions are right. The 90% - 10% ratio for a start, but particularly the section I've highlighted. Most people seem to rate caches that offer something different or special rather than 'accessible'... don't they?
  5. Are these really any different from remote non-puzzle caches that go months (or even years) between finds? In one case the obstacle is the location and terrain. In the other the obstacle is the puzzle. But I don't think the measure of a geocache is the number of people who find it, or the frequency with which it is found. Very good point, I hadn't thought about it like that. I should have really, as one of our caches is a puzzle but it seems to be the walk that puts most people off. And I agree with the point about frequency, the bulk of our finds are on less frequented caches. I guess I had in mind a few particular puzzles where it seems the CO takes a certain pride in 'outwitting' everyone... 3 star difficulty and a couple of finds in 3 or 4 years. Of course that could be sour grapes because I had to throw in the towel. Apparently it save time 2 right quick n not worry bout punctuation... Of course that doesn't take into account the extra time it takes others to read it. Edit to correct typo
  6. Working out how to solve a puzzle is the only purpose of a puzzle. For example there are set ways to solve a rubix cube, you might solve it by trail and error or you might, through practice, know how. If part of a rubix cube was instructions on how to get all the colours in a certain place it wouldn't be a puzzle, it would be a messed up cube with instruction on how to 'fix' it. There is nothing wrong with hints and instructions, but they shouldn't be a starting point. Imagine a crossword where every cyrptic clue had an explaination. I agree. I enjoy the 'frustration' of solving a puzzle from the comfort of my armchair more than the frustration of scrabbling around under hedges looking for boxes. Some puzzle are really frustrating, but have a greater degree of satisfaction once you crack them. What I don't understand are puzzles that have only one or two finds in the first few months and then nothing for several years; these might be okay as hard puzzles, but they are useless as geocaches. Although I'm always happy to give as much or little help on our puzzles as needed, I really don't like asking for hints; once I reach that point it's through frustration and the satisfaction is lost. Hence another thing I don't understand: puzzles where virtually every log mentions that they had a hint from the owner or a previous finder; if that's the case just put the hint on the page... at least I can have a peek and pretend I didn't
  7. If I'm honest I'm a little bit miffed it's happened, but it's not a big enough problem to make an issue of. It's more of a question about how the maps work than anything. I'd have thought older caches would take precedence. I disagree. I prefer to use the map, whether I'm looking for local caches or for visiting new areas. And I do enjoy puzzle caches. So if I was going to this area, I'd miss that puzzle. That does concern me, I doubt we'd see it either as we search the maps in a similar way and I know others do. On the other hand I'm sure we've had finders who have come to do the series who might not have travelled to do a puzzle, so it's not all bad. Apologies for snipping your post. What you describe is even worse once you log one of the caches as found because you're unlikely to ever have reason to look beneath a smiley. We overlooked an earthcache for about a year, because it was beneath a multi we'd found already. That definitely seems wrong – assuming it's still the case, it could have changed. I didn't notice the next and previous feature, that makes perfect sense. I've been coming at the icons from different angles to try and catch them by surprise , so that the 'other' cache comes up when you click. I've actually just tried it again and our cache is still beneath but comes up first when you click, I don't think it did before. Of course if you're scanning the maps, looking for puzzles, you wouldn't click on every cache to see if another is hidden beneath. It'll never be perfect but with older caches always on top, it would be up to a 'new setter' to decide if they are happy to later place an icon under an existing one. Yes and no; I could re-work the puzzle and move the coordinates, but I'd really rather not. Being brutal about it our cache was there first and it's been set for a reason, in a specific location and in a particular way. I'm very happy with it the way it is. It strikes me as a little thoughtless to put a cache on top of someone else’s icon (a series doesn't have to have a cache every 100m, does it?). Being rational, I'm also certain it wasn't done with any malicious intent and I can completely understand wanting to place a cache there as it's a lovely spot as well has a 'specific location'... which is why I incorporated it into our cache. No, but that's a very interesting question. I doubt that any of the regular members here would know for sure. Perhaps contact@Groundspeak could answer your question? Good idea. I'll send them an email and report back. Thanks
  8. In a word, yes. There is already a slight variation, but unless zoomed right in the icons still cover each other. Moving the coordinates far enough to completely avoid this would mean a change to the puzzle is needed. Apparently not; as I say a few people have noted that they have missed our cache because the icon was obscured. We like all cache types, search via maps and have ourselves missed caches for the same reason. This instance is further complicated by the fact that the series is set / numbered in a direction that just happens to go the opposite to the direction for our stages. It's not that important, I just wondered if there was a simple solution. Thanks for the replies.
  9. Does anybody know how the software for GS maps 'ranks' icons in situations of overlap? We have a puzzle where the icon (listed coordinates) needs to be fixed to a particular location. Some time later a regular cache, as part of a series was placed at the same location – quite understandably as it's a lovely spot. Our puzzle icon is now obscured on the maps and we've had a few notes from people saying they've overlooked it. Rather than changing the puzzle and moving the icon, I was wondering if there was another way to move our icon back on top – not out of spite, I just think with the numbered regular below it would be more apparent that there is an overlap. Our icon started out on top but later switched, despite being placed first and a 50% rating, so I assume the main 'ranking' factor is number of finds. Ant ideas?
  10. Problem solved: Apparently our premium membership has expired / didn't renew.
  11. Personal cache notes -- the yellow box feature where you could add text – seem to have have disappeared, at least for us. Has the feature been removed, or is anyone else having the same issue? I'm running Firefox on Ubuntu 11.10
  12. Yet another reason to not use Internet Explorer... If the site is not friendly towards it, I bet people will migrate away... Incidentally, this is the same reason that most Spyware/Malware attacks are written specifically for IE... So because IE is so poor we are forced into a universally poor solution? The 'consistent experience' you've achieved is an ugly, practically unworkable one on most monitors. I only own 6 caches, but I'm not sure I can be bothered to rework the pages, one will certainly have to be disabled as the puzzle no longer works.
  13. They did OK, no shame, fair play to them. I'm always impressed by people who put themselves on TV quizzes, it must be terrifying. I don't think the other team did do that much better, certainly not superhuman, they all made a right mess of the first round. Geocachers did better on the wall, but made some little mistakes on the missing vowels... I started a puzzle cache based on Only Connect a while back... but came to the same conclusion.
  14. I’m glad he enjoyed his day... excuse my profanities again: I had a (deleted by moderator) day! I have spent more time than I can spare trying to deal with one person bombarding me with emails, fretting over negative logs on my new cache, been reported to moderators twice, had my character publicly questioned, felt obliged to defend and explain myself, a sleepless night and still had it thrown back with added accusations that I am now lying... all topped off with a thinly veiled threat. Who’s right or who is wrong is immaterial. Even if there was a need to lodge complaints with moderators, there was absolutely no sound reason to involve other cachers. I have dealt best I can with what has been said publicly... I have no idea what has been said about me privately. I am fairly confident my character stands up. As I have said, I don’t have the time to be involved with the local community... smstext has... there will always been that question in the back of my mind that some ‘mud’ may have stuck. There will certainly always remain a bad vibe locally, over a trifle that should have remained private. I don’t say this for pity or effect. I am not the type to use, or be swayed by, arguments that turn into popularity contest. I only say this to make the point that I have found the whole incident quite horrible and unnecessary. Ha! I certainly wasn’t expecting a worldwide audience... and having said I’m not interested in popularity contest, it sure has been nice to receive so many nice emails. Finally, finally... I really am done with this now. Sorry about the multiple post and also mixing different peoples quote... a pay off between space and clarity. Thanks you all for a fair hearing (I can’t believe anyone is really interested) and happy caching.
  15. Baring in mind we now know I took the precaution of saving your logs, rightly predicting you would eventually resort to some historical revisionism, are you absolutely certain you now want to publicly call me a liar as well? That is exactly what you are getting into, again, still. I'll dance with you one more time. I did send you an email that ended “Is there anything I can do appease you and put this to rest? I’m happy to give you the answer to the puzzle, but I’d like to give others a chance to solve it without help first. Would that help?” That was some time after you reported me (about the cache not being where you thought it should be, not sure when you reported me for my profanity), but clearly before someone had found it, and indeed you now already have the answer as of yesterday... Something doesn’t add up. I’ve already posted, above, your log after I said you were wrong and said you needed coordinates from the puzzle. I considered that a tip – to get going with. Would you like me to post here the very next email you sent? If you recall you still insisted I was wrong, that the cache was ‘probably not there’ or ‘has gone missing’. It was the same email in which you complained about a torn waterproofs etc... The email just before you reported me for the cache not being where you thought it should be. Lucky he/she was content to let you beat them to the cache. What a slacker! See my point above and your last log quoted in my first post. Otherwise, excuse me if I decline to take advice from someone who clearly does not know when to stop digging their own grave. Ad hominem does nothing to further you case. I’ll take that as a resounding “no” to my offered apology and pint.
  16. I don’t have the time I would like to get out finding caches and even less time to be more active within the community side. I have set two caches, as time allows, to pay back the community for the enjoyment we have had finding. One of the reasons I enjoy doing puzzles, and the main reason I decided to set puzzles, was because it provides a level of interaction with other cachers that I have time to deal with and I’m more than happy to do. If it was at all normal, within hours of a cache being published, to be bombarded with emails and DNF logs insisting I don’t know where I hid my cache, I would not even bother setting a cache, let alone providing a checker. But thanks for the suggestion anyhow. I did know who I was dealing with and besides, I have already said I sent that email in frustration. I am only human. That said, if you’ll forgive me making a pedantic point... the same could be said reversed. I could have been 14 with ADD or suffer from the literary equivalent of Tourettes (is there such a thing?). The difference is I have / do take full responsibility for my actions and did not go complaining to other cachers, admin or raise it on the public forums that someone was behaving like a 14 year old with ADD. I know smstext claims he didn’t want to name me as the abusive individual, but it was, nevertheless, plain enough for no less than three people to contact me to inform me my character was being questioned on the forums – it had not actually occurred to me he would have raised it here -- incidentally, first claiming he is only asking for advice then in the next post stating he already contacted a moderator and they had already told him what to do. I had exactly this in mind in when I later apologised privately (as I have done here publicly) for the tone and content of that email. In effect I did ignore, as most of the emails stacked up while I was getting on with my life, I think this only made him more irate. As soon as I had the chance I stated he was in the wrong place and needed coordinates from the puzzle, rather than just search for a tree near a presumed view. He didn’t believe me and lodged a complaint to a moderator, who thankfully convinced him he was wrong. However, my main concern was that in less than 12 hours of the cache being published (in fact before I even knew it was published) he had logged two DNF’s claiming he (and others (in an Appeal to Authority)) were in the right place and the cache was not there. I was concerned no one else would bother even looking... I’m repeating myself; I’ve laid this out already, above. As I said before: I am yet to see any evidence that anyone else has been in the least bit perturbed by either the puzzle or not finding the cache.
  17. Bittsen. That is essentially what I said. Check the logs I posted above. At the time of my first log he had not supplied me with any coords to check. When he did (and insisted it was GZ) I then confirmed he had the wrong coords. It was just after this he filed a report that the cache was not in the right place. This is in danger of stirring a hornets nest again. I have offered an olive branch and it's not fair on smstext to continue the argument without him having time to considered that offering. Thank you all for hearing my side. I will refrain from further comment, for now at least.
  18. I am always more than happy to help anyone and have done so on numerous occasions. I don't appreciate being bombarded with emails and told I don't know where I hid my cache.
  19. W_makit Again, with respect. You are assuming I am sitting around with nothing better to do than geocaching business. If I did I would be out finding them rather than dealing with one person whipping himself into a fit to be FTF. By the time I had a chance to check my email and cache page things were already escalating. Yes I could have dealt with it better (it's only mrs willie that thinks I'm perfect), but the point is he filed a complaint against me (thankfully dealt with even handedly) when he had not -- I repeat not -- shown any evidence that he had even attempted to find any coordinates. Not to mention the insinuation that I had wasted his time and ruined his clothing. Yes I could have dealt with it better, or even just published the coordinates on the page. And he could have let the cache go (and instead given me a hand with the jobs that keep me from getting out of the house)
  20. Thank you. I'm glad you liked the puzzle and that you worked it out so easily. I'm sure had smstext spent less time emailing me about failed searches and torn clothing, he too could have worked it out. Mr B, the sorry and the pint has been offered from this end. Not yet accepted.
  21. w_makit With respect the frustration was with smstext refusing to except that he was in the wrong location, after I corrected him. And, as I omitted to mention before, also after a complaint against me to a moderator complaining the cache was not at the location in the view -- it is not stated that it is. Had smstext shown any evidence that he had attempted to work out the puzzle -- after I informed him it was not just a case of going to where the picture was taken-- then I would have helped. He simply insisted that I was wrong. Even after FTF and allowing others to have a fair go at it, I would have happily helped, I still would and have offered such help To be clear, the section I added emphasis to was after I explained he needed to find some coordinates. My potty mouth occurred after and was in response to several more emails. Finally, I am yet to see any evidence that anyone else has been in the least bit perturbed by either the puzzle or not finding the cache. The only correspondence on the subject have been appreciative.
  22. Very true. I could, after someone had alerted me to the thread, have left a one sided portrayal to go unchallenged. That is probably what I will end up doing.
  23. I would rather not air dirty laundry in public, but now it's been forced upon me... I'm happy to advertise my name -- It's me -- and the cache, GC21D6W. It does have coordinates. If it did not, it would not have been published under the guidelines: GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions. Within 12 hours of it being published I received about a dozen emails, two DNF and a log note from smstext. As soon as I was aware he was looking in the wrong place I corrected him and gave him a 'tip' that he first needed to find the coordinates before the cache. He refused to believe me, and got increasingly irate. Among other things implying it was my fault he tore his waterproofs. His next log and the gist of further emails read: Emphasis mine. These logs have since been deleted by smstext. Finally having had enough of what I saw as obsessive behaviour, I emailed: I have since apologised for the use (to accentuate my feelings) of a word he found offensive. But still it goes on. Many others would vouch that it is not, in fact, my personality. I concur with others comments here... Move on. It's just a cache. Don't pet the sweaty things -- which I particularly liked. Thank you for your time.
×
×
  • Create New...