the hermit crabs

How does it prevent theft? It's pretty easy for someone to read your cache page without showing up in your Audit log.

It doesn't look big enough to hold even a small keychain-sized TB, so I'd call it a micro.

I almost posted a link to this same cache as soon as I read the first post. Good thing I read the responses first

I completely agree with this request, with one addition: don't just change the max per page from 50 to 500; also change the default value from 20 to 500. Changing just the max will not help for those times when it stubbornly sticks to the default (20) even if we try to get it to show the max (50). Please please please make this change... Picture a weeping hermit crab on her knees, begging and pleading. Have mercy.

I haven't yet upgraded to 2.8/2.8, but I have been having this problem ever since installing 2.7/2.6.

The third cache that we ever found was designed as a drive-up: "Suburban Assault #1(Beautiful Angel)" . From the cache description: "The fun thing about this is that it can be grabbed by the passenger of your auto on the way in. After signing the log, the driver can replace it on the way out. This concept has been borrowed from RUPREX in California."

You could create a DNF bookmark list, and make it "shared" but not "public". (This way, others can see it, but it doesn't get included directly on the pages of each of your DNF'd caches.) You could then post the link to the DNF list on your profile page., which is what we do. Here's our DNF bookmark list.

Why? No, seriously. I really want to know.

I guess you could have a PM friend adopt it, un-check the PM-only box, and the you adopt it back?

I never ever understand why people use the word "need" in this context. Is there ever a need for any cache, anywhere? No. Caching is a fun pastime. "Need" is irrelevant, and shouldn't be part of the reviewing/publishing decision process -- it's too much like the completely subjective "Wow factor" of virtuals. Once they start prohibiting any cache for which there is no "need", then no more caches will be published, ever.

I burst out laughing at your attempt to open the ammo can in the second one And we also just played a quick round of poohsticks when we crossed a bridge while caching two days ago (with a Pooh travel bug). Maybe it's a more widespread geocaching side-activity than I had thought! Nice introductory videos.

I only checked the parent of one of our hides; its "dad" is someone whose last visit was the same day he signed up, 2 years ago. No hides or finds logged. I haven't checked the others yet, but it will be fun to track all those deadbeats down :-) I also looked for the "children" of two caching friends; both of the child caches have been archived. So sad. Now I feel lucky to have an active "child" out there! edit: I did just post a note on your cache.

Fun puzzle! My baby cache is in Texas, as it turns out: Falcons in flight. I'll have to visit if if I'm ever in that area... I hope it's not going to demand child support! Which gives me an idea... maybe if I can find all the deadbeat dads of my twenty or so hidden caches... cha-ching!

Vinny, I have to ask, have you surreptitiously infected my computer with a keystroke-tracker? Every time I use the "ignore thread" greasemonkey option, you create a new one branching from it! First we had the Blatant False Logging Finds, to which my reaction was "oh, no, not this again" followed by a prompt click of the Ignore button. This was followed by your Chronic Serial False Loggers topic, which your first post noted was spun off from the first topic. Back to the Ignore button a second time... and now here is this third one! And even in the title/subtitle you taunt me by saying it's an offshoot of ignored thread #2. I could almost see the "...and there's nothing you can do about it!" tacked on to the end of the subtitle, accompanied by an evil snicker. Time to run a spyware check...

This happens to me about twice a year. I have determined that it is a firewall issue; it updates itself daily and every once in while decides that my hand-picked settings are putting me in dire peril and ramps some of them up to the super-duper-can't-do-anything protection level. I go back in and set them back the way I want, and the continuous-logoff problem goes away.

We've always been traders. After more than four years, the trading never gets old -- it's just part of the fun of caching. We've got bins and bins of things we have traded for over the years; I like rummaging through them and recalling where they came from, or seeing if any would make good travel bugs. For me, one of the best parts of trading is when I go home at the end of the day and empty my pockets out, and there's a frog, a marble, a polished rock, and some object that I can't identify but is cool and shiny. That kind of thing keeps you young

Well, I notice it, you can be sure. When I'm planning my caching day, I check all the logs of my potential targets to see if you have found them yet. If not, I assume that it's not worth my time, so it doesn't go onto my list.

You basically can't include any special characters in the TB name, or any html in the TB goal or description, when you are first activating the TB. Your best bet is to just put some plain text like "tbd" in all three of those fields during activation, and then edit the page to set it to the name and text that you really want. Why? I don't know. I just know that it's been like this for years, and that's how it has to be done if you don't want weird things happening.

You can do this by creating a pocket query of the bookmark list, and then doing the map-preview of the query to see them all.

What's the "firmware thing"? Is that Magellan only, or could it be done on a Garmin (vista C or HCx)? Nope; after about a year we gave it away.

No, they aren't.

We probably went a little overboard. Each of our units has: -- a sticker on the back with name & phone number; -- a startup screen with name, phone number, and email address; -- a waypoint called " HOME" with our street address and phone number. This waypoint name starts with a space, so it is always first in an alphabetical listing of waypoints.

I'm always kind of mystified by this topic: "Which page, the map page or the compass page?' with passionate advocates on both sides. Why just pick one? You can have the best of both worlds on one screen by setting one of the map-page data fields to "Pointer". That way you get to see the arrow and the map at the same time. I wouldn't cache any other way...

Back when I had a job which required the use of my brain, I was often involved in some complicated projects that required a lot of in-depth discussions about issues or problems that were complex, ambiguous or subtle. The discussions often took place in group emails among anywhere from 5 to 12 people. Unfortunately some of the people involved in these projects had the attention span of a gnat, and would not / could not read anything more complicated than a simple two-sentence black/white yes/no email. Some of us ended up composing our contributions to the discussions in two parts: the Short Version and the Long Version. The short version had some critical details left out; it was basically a pat on the head for the dimwitted members of the group saying "Here, this is all you have to read, don't worry about the long paragraphs and the scary sentences with 'howevers' and semicolons below." The only useful piece was the long version, in which the more responsible members of the group took pains to try to hash out as many of the complex details as we could. This method worked out for everybody. We have seen several references to some sort of list of directives that Groundspeak has given to its reviewers. These directives, while not visible to cache hiders, include unpublished guidelines that can prevent an otherwise valid-seeming cache from being published. So ... would it be possible to leave the current "short version" guidelines just as they are, as a futile token to those who aren't going to read them anyway, and to also publish (on a separate page) a list of those Groundspeak reviewers' directives for those of us who do care and who will read them? This would seem to satisfy those who say that the guidelines are already long enough as they are and who don't want to see them cluttered up with additions. And it would also satisfy those of us who are not afraid of reading extra paragraphs and who would like to know what the real guidelines are, regardless of how long or complicated they might be. Or is there some reason that these directives must remain hidden?

Yep. We still get lots of DNFs -- you'd think we'd have the hang of this by now, but no We do log them all. We had a couple in one day last week, and you can tell by reading them which one was fun anyway, and which one wasn't. When we have a bunch in a row, we find that we go to the next one with a very defeatist attitude and give up much sooner than we normally would. So if we have, say, four in one day, we generally decide that we don't have our caching mojo that day, and usually call it quits and go do something else instead.