mini cacher

Ever heard of a picture say more than 1000 words? However my caches are everything else then "simple" so is the cache-description: Before html-Tidy it was quite ok and now this description shows what is left possibilities to create a description. Seems to me all you really dislike is that you lost the liberty to change almost the entire page style and are now limited to work inside your cache description. I actually like the second page more than the first. I, too, thought the second one was better. I had looked at those pages the other day and actually thought the Struppi one was the broken one. But I'm not aware of the author's intent with such a layout... nor do I speak German. To each his own.

Nobody said you HAVE to use HTML in your page at all. You can put together a perfectly fine page complete with all the info without a speck of HTML. That would be why there is the check box informing the "system" that you are using HTML... and that check box is off by default. However, if you intend to use HMTL, is it too much for the system to ask that you do it properly? It is widely viewed by HTML coders that applications such as Frontpage produce sub-standard markup. The fact that one uses such a program does not made them an idiot... but they should be prepared to deal with the outcome of useing any sub-standard markup that it produces. The biggest problem is this statement, "I ... don't have the time or desire to learn it."

I fail to see how you can blame the "paperless" cachers for gc.com deciding to implement a tool that will clean up bad html. Malformed html, when inserted into what is other wise a very stable page, can create a very unstable page for browsers... regardless if it is for paperless chaching or just everyday website viewing. I welcome the TIDY approach. Good work. Working out the issue with XHTML... well that'd be good too, just to keep up with things.

Yes, it would really help once the TB tags start showing up without the copy tag included (as mentioned in another thread). I keep a list of my TBs names, ID number and tracking numbers anyway. But this would not be needed if the info was already available ont he web site. Nice idea.

yes SPAM filters work hard enough trying to keep up with actual SPAM... The email in question is not really SPAM and could be avoided with a change in the system.

While on vacation out of state last month, I went after three caches that all had WJTBs listed in them... ones that had been placed in by the cache owner just days before. But all three were gone... with no log. They still are not logged. Missing TBs are bad enough... but these are special and really really ought to be logged. But I guess if you never intend to move them, you're not likely to log it and have it sitting in your inventory. HEY YOU HORDERS! GET SOME GUTS AND AT LEAST LOG THE BUG SO WE KNOW IT IS GONE AND BEING COLLECTED... WE PROMISE WE WON"T SEND YOU NASTY EMAILS ONCE WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE!

How recent is "recent". I noticed it maybe a month ago when I was working on some things. I think has something to do with the "interesting" way you navigate from page to page. The "__VIEWSTATE" value seems to hold a lot of info about what's going on. But it really shouldn't be before the opening HTML tag. As for the OP, sound never really bothered me. My speakers are usually turned down until I want to hear something. But I can understand wanting to strip out and clean up the user entered HTML. It is actually surprising that HTML is allowed at all. Such a powerful tool in the hands of a novice can have very bad results. (Typo)

I did not think the OP was asking for the option either... it sounded like they just wanted it changed. Hemlock on the other hand suggested that it could in fact be an option to satisfy everyone. I don't want the emails either... but if there is an option to get them... I'd support that as well.

I guess I'll have to take the time to read that before I delete it the next time I submit a cache. I've always assumed it was as useful as the email telling me that I just posted a note to my own cache I know I just did... I don't need to be reminded.

Technicaly speaking, you only need a GPSr. However, if you would like to use maps to get you closer to where you are going, then use the GPSr for the last bit, there is nothing wrong with that either. Personally, I don't usually carry any maps. But I can think of a few times when a map would have helped me avoid driving around in residential areas looking for the right road to get over a canal or around a large "complex". Some times the pointer can lead you in the "right" direction but it does not know the road dead ends 1 mile before it should.

Insta-Notify. Its a Premium Member feature so you should be able to get to it.

well, of course... but I didn't think that was an option to add options to the profile.

Please don't, as this owner notification mail is 1. very useful for team accounts (you get informed if someone else in the group posts a log); 2. very useful to check if someone sniffed your gc.com account password. 1. probably a minority and could just as well be handled by your team communicating on its own. 2. not very useful to check if someone sniffed your gc.com account password... if they changed your email address first. I would agree with not getting the email informing me that I just made a log entry. wasn't this topic closed already???

Nice!

When viewing a bookmark list, we get the option to check some boxes and then download a LOC file. Is it not possible to also have the option of getting a GPX file? Thanks

Has it been mentioned yet that the "Distance in Miles" entry is not being listened to? Just minutes ago I recieved an Insta-Notify emial for a cache that is listed as 12.9 miles away... but my subscription is set to 10. Forgive me if it has already been reported, but it seems kind of important not to mention. Other than that, the service is looking pretty good.

If the hider enters anything in the "note to reviewer" field on the submission form, a new log *does* get created. I'm baffled as to why a few people are so vocally against this new "published" log. I would think there are more important things to worry about. hmmm but that note is never seen by the viewer... it gets deleted (hidden) when it is no longer needed. So that is a great example of what *could* be done. And, yes, there are more important things to worry about... where should we be making that list? Until then, this thread is about this topic. And I think we have a few people with opinions (one way or the other) about this topic. While I still see it as "not pretty" I can see from the technical aspect that eventually this type of log will be the standard way of doing things. And, while we might not like it, we ought to get used to it because the TPTB have additional plans not yet comunicated to us. I can accept that. I've said my piece and can live with the answers handed down from high... but I still don't like it.

my appologies for misreading your comment "We do receive feedback from a smaller audience before implementing a feature. We do not, however, announce all features to the forums for feedback." Its just that we already had the info on the status of a cache already available. From my point of view, this new log type adds absolutely no more info that wasn't already (or couldn't have been) made available some other way. Let's take it one step further and add a "Hidden" log that gets automatically inserted at the time the cache enters the system. It's no more or less redundant than the "Published" log

Well said! Current implimentation: Reviewer marks cache as "approved" -> approval triggers "Published" log -> "Published" log triggers notification of new cache Is there a technical issue that prevents cutting out the middle step like this: Reviewer marks cache as "approved" -> approval triggers notification of new cache Regardless of the announcment or not... the feature exists and that opens it up for comment. If you do not wish to receive user comment on the site and the features therein, then that should be stated clearly somewehre. If you do wish to receive user comments, then users should not be expecting a swift kick to the eggs for offering such comment. I think it is great that there is the new notification feature. It should prove to be quite useful. I only have a problem with the seemingly useless "Published" log when on the surface it looks like it could have been accomplished without the "wart" (as it has been refered to). At the risk of boring some people, I would think a more technical answer is in order here. Obviously this need not reveal any super-secret voodoo that makes up the backbone of the system.

I don't like to repeat myself so I'll just quote myself. I've yet to see this answered but people continue to claim the "Published" note is needed to trigger the new notification system. If that is true then it does look like it was hastily implemented. It does not appear that the system(s) are working together the way they should. Also, it should not be there because it does not need to be there. Unless another reason is given as to why it needs to be there. Also, it offers no more useful info than was already available to the cahce owner on the cache page. They could have very easily made that info available to everyone on the cache page with out a note.

Everyone keeps saying why its no big deal its there... but no one is saying why it needs to be there in the first place. We've already been told that it doesn't even happen right away. The system puts it in shortly after approval. So something must trigger THAT to happen. Why can't that just trigger the things that the "Published" note triggers without actually putting the note there? I am just not getting. Quit telling us not to worry about it and try telling us why we need to love it and won't be able to live without it.... um... please. thank you.

I didn't know we only had a quota of a certain number of logs per cache...? Huh. In that case, I'd better start rationing now! Hear ye: All logs under three paragraphs in length shall henceforth be deleted from my caches! Who said anything about a quota. But the log still shows up in gpx files until there are more than five legit logs... but then it doesn't even show on the cache page by default. so.. seems like a waste when the same info was already available if they had just turned it on rather than adding a new special log entry. And go ahead and delete logs from your caches... you still won't be able to delete the "Published" one.

I take this position on the subject. I think it is a waste of a log entry. Two reasons for it have been presented, here and elsewhere, but I think they are not that valid. Reason 1: They are needed for the new notification system work. Why is that? Why does it have to be triggered by a log entry rather than some sort of admin backend that I'll assume the reviewer use? Why can't it be triggered by what ever they did before to mark a cache as approved? Some thing had to happen in the background when the cache was approved... why not ship off the notification at the same time? Reason 2: Now everyone knows who approved it. Hmmm... why not just make that info that was already visible to cache owners on their cache pages available to everyone? there was already a small "Approved by" text at the bottom of the caches you own. A simple change in the web page logic should have been able to just put it there regardless of who was viewing the page. Now, I still think it is a waste of a log entry. But that is just my opinion.

It would be nice for us mortals to be able to see the "queue" so that we aren't accused of pestering the approvers when our cache goes unnoticed for a week (or more). I understand that this is all voluntary and that everyone is busy, but just sitting there waiting, too scared to ask "how's it going with the cache queue?" for fear of being marked as impatient, is no way to live. And if the queue really is that long, why isn't GC.com pulling in another reviewer for that area? Maybe cache pages need an "Approved:" date to go along with the "Hidden:" date so people don't wonder why it went two weeks without a find. Now I'll go sit and wait to see if my cache in the queue ever makes it to the top.