Jump to content

thebruce0

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    8963
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thebruce0

  1. Age old argument about browser compatibility (one I've had to wrestle with professionally since the 20th century). Two sides to the coin: On one hand, HQ is using a technique that Safari does not support; on the other hand, Safari is not supporting a technique that all browsers should support. Who's at fault? Ultimately if HQ felt it was worth the R&D they would find a way to code a method that does work with Safari, regardless of who's fault the problem is. So, the answer is still, for now - use Chrome or Firefox and it'll be fine. eta: that is to say, there's "no excuse" for not having it work with Safari, it's plenty capable to do the task. So there's likely a mitigating reason as to why HQ has still chosen not to invest in making it work in Safari.
  2. And more often these days around here I see logs with people mentioning when coordinates are way off, but never providing their coordinates. That does help! If I find a cache and it's at least 10-15m off, I often add coordinates if it's really not all that clear (as opposed to, like, a cache in a lone tree in a field but the coordinates are 20m off - no bid deal). I really miss the option add coordinates to a log.
  3. I think the response to this wasn't that the cache itself required archival, but moreso that it's owned by an inactive owner. You may come with a repair, but the next cacher may not and the geocache experience will have degraded - that in itself may be unavoidable, but in a case like this it's unavoidable because the owner is not responding. And the owner should be. It's not a perfect system, but archival isn't just a granular act on 'bad' geocaches; the 'greater good' is have the game board filled with geocaches owned by active geocache owners who maintain their geocaches, for greater chance of increasing the general experience of geocaching.
  4. Yeah that's the workflow I'd expect; I was thinking more about gift cards a person needs to redeem. But if the option is there to renew someone else's membership at their current rate, then that solves that question
  5. Perhaps the auto-renew is set to the legacy rate, and gift cards are linked to a sku that assumes a 'new' membership (and rate) even though the purchase is being applied to an existing membership? ETA: Makes me wonder - is it possible to buy someone with the legacy rate a 1 year extension at their legacy rate, and not the 'new' rate? Seems like a slightly different workflow; someone would only be able to buy a $40US renewal gift to apply to someone with the legacy $30 rate, if I'm understanding this correctly...
  6. Obviously DNF or NM is a judgment call in the context of the cache. a 4D with 4 DNFs likely won't warrant a NM. But a 1.5D with 10 DNFs is more likely to prompt someone to post a NM/OAR without having found the cache. The action makes more sense in the latter case than the former.
  7. Agreed, except for "in good faith" as that's extremely subjective. One person's good faith is another person's unsolved puzzle or shared coordinates or leap frog or team caching or couch caching or or or...... This is why HQ made the guideline that a find is valid if the name under which the geocacher is geocaching is written on the log sheet - not that it's written in their own hand or any other extenuating circumstance; their first stance is to avoid the he-said/she-said, and first recommend to cachers in disagreement to resolve it themselves, or to take the higher ground and decide when to just step back. Again in this case, judging the motivation of the finders of said cache(s) is beyond the guidelines. At most it's up to HQ, not us, to render a verdict outside of what we know per guidelines, and that's that their names are on the log sheet (purportedly) and so they are valid find logs, and "good faith" motivation for signing the logs isn't relevant.
  8. Let's calm it down here. Strictly speaking, unless there is more to the story about the finders than what we know here, then yes it can be defended that the reviewer overstepped by deleting the FINDERS logs if their signatures are in the logbook - if they found the geocache, their find log stands, and it matters not one iota what country they're based in. Regardless of anyone's opinion of their motivation for signing the log book; statistics are not a competition and statistics don't affect anyone but their own users. There is precedent for logs being reinstated for merely ink-on-log, on good and bad cache listings, whatever the means it happened. However we all know that 'no precedent' rule applies to reviewer actions. So, ultimately, a higher authority will need to judge - seeing more of the story than we do - whether the reviewer's actions were appropriate or not. We can scream and shout in here all we want but these arguments are based on what-ifs and theories. Until there's more details about the full story here (and there may never be), this will continue to be merely a shouting match.
  9. Oh just look at the oodles of forum threads already discussing/debating this... it's deep
  10. Yeah it happens when you guote a sub-quote, attributing the top author, not the sub-author. Annoying
  11. Deleting find logs though? If they found the container, signed the sheet, and logged the find, that is - by HQ's own definition - sufficient to lock in the find for the cache, regardless of the nature of the cache or opinions. So, either there's more here than merely archiving a cheeky cache and deleting valid find logs (such as perhaps someone else signed the names on the logs for everyone who logged it found?), or the reviewer went too far in deleting the logs. I've never seen a reviewer delete legitimate find logs merely because they didn't like the reason for which the cache was published (even if the cache deserved archival). Reviewers recommend COs not to delete logs of people who legitimately found a throwdown... HQ will reinstate logs of people who've had them deleted despite signing the logsheet... this action here seems to go against everything HQ promotes. So, there must be something else at play that invalidated all the find logs, or the reviewer went too far.
  12. I have no question about whether the cache could be archived, as that's a reason the reviewer would know. To me the big question is why all the find logs were deleted. Unless there was something nefarious or coordinated going on with the finders, if they're a bunch of essentially unconnected and unrelated geocachers whose names are in the logbook (supposedly), then that seems wrong; can't think of a (publicly known) reasoning why that might happen... but the reviewer's under no obligation to explain why either.
  13. Think of the number next to the smiles as "Smilies", not physical geocache 'finds' as implied by, well, "finds". The smiley count consists of multiple things, as Hugh mentions above. I stopped calling them finds some time back because of this confusion...
  14. Ok I see what you mean. In other words, like "That doesn't seem too difficult", or "too much to ask". Agreed
  15. What doesn't irk me? A human moderator sharing an irk like the rest of us humans.
  16. Irrelevant. Subjective 'wow' factor. The listing has instructions. Regardless of 'remarkability', if the reviewer allowed it to be published then those are the requirements to fulfill to log it as found, if sufficient for the CO.
  17. True enough! What about the median density? haha probably no different. Ontario is just HUGE with vast forests and lakes, so even the vast swaths of compressed powertrails and series to its south are nothing by comparison. Nunavut's probably got the least average density though... Interesting stats!
  18. Ontario the biggest province c/o all the power trails - road/hike/paddle - and challenges...
  19. Everyone should just do as they please, and if all the COs don't like it they can all feel free to archive all their caches. ... oh wait...
  20. Exactly my process as well. And I go by 1 week, then mark it on my calendar when to come back and deal with the log if necessary
  21. Therefore keystone, a moderator, shouldn't be expected to respond to the other thread.
  22. "optional" as in "not required" eta: physically signing the logbook = required (to log online) logging the find online = optional (not required)
  23. I think the point of the OP was missed and the focus was shifted to an element that, while not permitted now, is not the reason for the dispute nor seemed to have caused any issue nor is relevant to the issue at hand. One log was 4 years old, verified, and valid [reportedly]. The other log was not [reportedly], and not due to the method required per above. The 4 year old log was deleted after it was determined that the new log was not valid and deleted, thus can easily be seen as retaliatory. I don't think that both logs should stand, if the information we know is accurate.
  24. It takes creativity and an understanding of what compels a person to desire doing things in order, beat to beat. Compelling narratives aren't bad, it's if they're badly implemented. From what I've seen, people are more upset about badly implemented linear ALs than they are about 'narrative' style ALs; they seem to be more forgiving about so-so linear ALs, and just don't want to unnecessarily/needlessly feel like they had to do something linearly. eta: Another way to put it - those more likely to complain about linear ALs on principle tend to be the ones who just want to sign the log and not do caches, like multis, the way the owner intended (which requires more work). (emphasis intended)
  25. That could be hard to nail down unless you define "Challenge Cache". There were ALRs long before 'challenge caches' were a thing. Could be quite a task to locate the first cache that was published that required a finder to do something before signing the log... but interested in finding out if that's solved
×
×
  • Create New...