kone

I have a problem that I created a cache in an area near my home that does not appear to have any caches nearby but it got rejected because some Wherigo cache has it's final cache location nearby. I don't have the hardware required to do a Wherigo cache so how can I find the final position of the cache to see where I can move my cache so it doesn't conflict? The Wherigo cache starting point is quite some distance from my cache and I think it's kind of unfair that such caches can affect areas not even near it with no way of knowing. (in the meantime, the cache went on opencaching.com)

I agree with getting a better container. I personally went out and purchased *NEW* freezable/heatable rubbermaid containers for my caches and filled them with *NEW* items from a local "buck-or-two" store. I don't particularly like the caches that are in small cracked margarine containers, but even then, I won't complain as I think the more caches, the better.

I am a newbie with an incredibly low 8 finds! BUT, I have already hidden 4 caches! Which I have been told are good hides by others.... I am the type that doesn't really find it incredibly exciting to find these things, rather hiding them is what gets me excited.

A good way to find caches in highly weeded areas is to bring along a bottle of turpentine. Sprinkle that all over the offending area and it does wonders on eliminating the weeds, grasses and anything else living. But, as I suspect this may not be geo-conscious.

Holy smokes, PrimeSuspect, that's a really COMPLETE list!

oooo... oooo.. another.... MOC - Members Only Cache

Laugh if you must... mark my words, it will come to pass.

I'm a newbie, a bit of lurker, but I do like to boldly voice my opinions and am used to getting flamed... just a part of net culture to learn to take abuse.

Well, that mircosoft link was supposed be an obvious humourous misdirection... should of added in the I guess. Regardless, my honest prediction is that Microsoft Server will not be around in 10 years from now. It will all be replaced with Linux / FreeBSD or some other open source systems. In other words, I think Mircosoft will completely die in the server market. And if I'm bold, I might also say the desktop market.

Typing HAP alone in the keyword search seems to work for some reason.

OS flamewar is fun... and as all knowledgable sys admin's know, Linux is the way to go when you want server performance. And having to program in VB .net, OH THE PAIN! A site with a HUGE number of hits, google.com, runs Linux. IBM mainframes are starting to run Linux. Oh, and don't forget what microsoft.com is running... http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=mircosoft.com /extremely biased toward linux

Common acronymns currently missing from this sites glossary: TB - shortform for Travel Bug TFTC - Thanks For The Cache Are there others?

Probably no point in logging a quick walk-by... as it provides no real useful information for the next seeker or the cache owner. If I am ever interrupted before I can do a cache search (ie/ get to the parking spot, realize my GPS batteries are dead) and I have to abandon it, I don't log it at all.

As a rule, I will only go back for DNF's after I see that at least one other person finds it after my DNF. To either confirm that it really is there or that it has gone missing.

Gee, and here i've been thinking the correct protocol when dealing with other cachers is "kill or be killed". (just kidding)

jeremy, the limit on the cache results is a good idea but please don't get rid of the ability to use the % symbol, as it provides a useful wildcard (for those in the know).

Basically, the query is saying match everything, don't bother parsing the results, so it probably is fast. For those that don't know how I came up with that search string, the % symbol acts like a wildcard in a SQL statement when the "LIKE" parameters is used, as it obviously is with the keyword query. The underscore is another wildcard which is used for spanning, like if we want a to z, we would use a_z. So, with the minimum allowed search query only being 4 characters, %_%_% is 5 characters and still a wildcard that matches ALL. PS - yes, just realized that plain %%%%% works to

Maybe you can do it with PQ's, possibly just need to create you own customized form to send to the same "action" page... and with a bit of playing around with form parameters someone may be able to figure it out. You never know... depends on how buggy the coding is.

Ah yes, good solution (works fine with my firefox also). Now why didn't I think of that?

search for the keyword %_%_% and you will get over 115,000 results back! I believe that is all the caches! Is this a bug or a feature?

ah ha! I found something that works! Enter "%401%" and it finds 401 caches as I'd want it to. The % symbol is the SQL equivalent of a wildcard, so it matches words that are LIKE 401 and at the same time defeats the minimum 3 character rule. At least I think this is what's happening... watch the huge number of results you get if you search for %th% (1103 pages worth, ha ha). EDIT: just tried another search %e%e% and got 61,674 results! anyone think of a better sql query to get even more results? EDIT: another.... try %_%_% to get 115,199 results! Is that like every cache?!

4 characters? If that is the case, then shouldn't the result page say something like "minimum 4 characters" instead of "no results found"? Hmm.... oh well, I guess there is no way I can search for caches with "401" in the title, as that would probably be the only consistent portion of these caches.

I think it would be cool if there where a "last 10 viewed caches" link which listed the last 10 caches you've clicked on (not found, just read about). I know there is a "watch" list, but I don't necessarily want to watch all the caches I visit, I would just like a history so if I need to see a cache again I don't have to try and remember what the search parameters where for it. Useless feature?

I am trying to find caches along highway 401 in Ontario, Canada (the main, large highway here). If I type "401" into the keyword field in the search, I get no results. BUT, I know there is at least one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...a2-d4ce708f312b So, why does searching for "401" not bring up any results for me?

Yes, good job maintaining the site... I feel for you... as I see it is done in VB.net (yech!). Saw some .net errors coming up on the page today which I haven't seen before. Anyways, if it were me (and it isn't and I know I should shutup), I would make the site using PHP and postgresql running on linux server with apache.