mini cacher

It might have something to do with how a lot of ISPs/Hosts are tightening up security to combat SPAM. My guess is that since the emails are coming from a GC server, the email might need to have a "Sender" address that is a GC domain... as to not send a red flag. However, there is nothing to say that you always have to have a "Reply To" address match the sender... otherwise there would be no need for that field at all. So one could assume the very existence the "Reply to" field means it can be different. So GC sends the email from their server, with a valid "sender" address and puts the users email as the reply address. No red flags. But just my guess.

well... you are encrypting the log... so no special brackets should be required to encrypt it. Oh you want something in your encrypted log to not be encrypted? then enclose it in brackets. however, one could view it the other way... you want to log so no special brackets are needed. oh you want something within your log to be encrypted? then enclose it in brackets. Either way it could be, one could argue that it is backwards... it all depends on how you view a log that is both encrypted and plain-text.

That is good to know. Also good to know is which part of the guidelines prohibits this type of cache. thanks.

the ad is only misleading if they don't actually give you the free item when you fulfill the requirements.

the whole TB logging is totally backwards anyway. You are required to make a comment when you pick up the bug... at a time when you probably have very little to say about it anyway as yo u just got. And then you can't make a comment when you drop it off (normally) at a time when you are likely to have a story to tell about the TB's time with you. If you do want to make a comment about it, you have to then go back and edit the drop log to do it. Backwards!

uhh... I'm not sure what to say if I don't like it... I would hate to violate the OPs rules...

I don't like the color-code idea because it actually masks the (useless?) information that you are trying to highlight. Instead, I would be open to showing two numbers: mini cacher ("finds"/"caches"). If they are the same, then so be it. If "finds" is greater than "caches" then you can quickly see HOW much greater it is. And then make your own judgment of the cachers experience or what ever you think you can glean from the two numbers. Mind you, I don't think this info is going to be that useful for too many... but what ever. Just having the system change the color makes it seem like the system is trying isolate those who's numbers don't match... putting it in the "negative" bucket of info. Having the system just put both numbers takes the onus off the system and puts it onto the reader by just providing the two numbers as fact... with no prejudgment attached. again... not that I would find that info too useful. I also don't find the hostility in this thread useful..

You could look at it that way.... or look at it as if you were able to do something that others couldn't do on their own... that sounds a lot like an accomplishment to me.

... and even with some good arguments for something... it's still probably not going to happen... speaking historically of course... You're right. The trend seems to be towards not showing information of this type. It's more likely that the watchlist number would go away, rather than the ignore number being displayed. I find it humorous that some say not to display it because the many reasons why people ignore a cache makes it a useless number... while others say not to display it because apparently "information of this type" has some sort of magical power that needs to be bottled up to protect the world.

... and even with some good arguments for something... it's still probably not going to happen... speaking historically of course...

you can debate the usefulness of the "ignore" and/or "watch" features all you want. You can argue about all the different reason why a person should/would/could use those features. You can argue about all the ways GSAK can do things that site doesn't need to. We all know that everybody uses the site and the information and features in different ways. But the one thing that nobody wants to address is why you can see one number and not the other. The rest is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

both have reasonable interest to reasonable people.. yet only the one is decided worthy of public display... it is odd. I guess the world is too fragile for a "negative" image like "X people are ignoring this cache"

I don't think it's a "little quirk". The cache is both archived and disabled. If it is unarchived, it still NEEDS to be disabled (typically) until the cache owner edits the page, or does whatever needs doing. If that turns out to be nothing, once it's unarchived, the cache owner can just hit the enable link. the quirk is that you really don't need both those messages since being "archived" pretty much means that it is also "disabled". Having both messages, IMO, is odd. If the cache gets unarchived, but is still "disabled" then the message would change accordingly. On top of that, the second message says "temporarily unavailable" which seems a bit odd when you think that "archived" usually means a bit more than "temporarily". But it really is not that big of a deal.

doesn't everything? more specifically it would have to do with the logic in the programming. one should be able to notice the two independent states and only display the message for the most relevant. but on the grand scheme of things, stupid little quirks like this are not as important. they only point out either the odd thought process that must go on behind the scenes or a lack of attention to detail... I hope it is the former...

I don't know about anyone else, but I would gladly pay a bit to have the magic done in the back end by someone at Groundspeak. I understand that some software upgrade made it not possible for US to do it... but for someone with direct access to the data, nothing is impossible. A full username port should be possible, even if for a small fee. Three years ago it sounded like a good idea to pick a name based on the Mini I drove. but I sold that car several months ago... I'd kind of like to have a new name that I might give a bit more thought to this time around... I almost didn't update my PM just in case I decided to do the port by hand... but that is more work than the benefit... specially since it there would be some lost info. So I'll just keep the name for now. I'd pay to have a full username port. oh well.

So I guess the real question here is why does the page give a mixed bag of random and inaccurate messages. What is so wrong with "This cache has been delisted" or something like that?

well, I actually got a find notification today. imagine that.

lol... classic Irish comment right there.. I love it. You crack me up sometimes.... you knuckle head!

It would appear to me that non-logged in "guests" get the one block of ads under the fifth cache on the search results page...while logged in non-PMs get one block of ads after each of the first three caches listed. To me that seems exessive.

yes.. but are you jermy? how is your hygene?

never noticed before. funny also is that if you put the decrypt=y in the URL query string, it loads as it should. But then clicking the Encrypt link resets the whole thing with a new page load rather than the usual inline encrypt/decrypt. very odd... but not that big of a deal. Things like that only make we wonder what else some has overlooked in the details.

another find on June 26th and another email notification I did not get.

can't see them either... but I'm sure if i did i wouldn't like them. But that is a moot point since i don't see them. the one ad at the top of the forum hat i do see... well its probably the best and most common spot to put an ad on a forum and I hardly notice it. If it helps keep the cost down then I have no problems with it. I also think the word freeloader is a tad harsh... but not that bad. If Groundspeak really wanted to, they could just make the whole site PM only. When you think about it, that makes the most business sense. losing a boat load of non paying "customers" does nothing to the bottom line... but does wonders for the bandwidth and servers. they would have solved their money problem by not needing to upgrade at all. and that might make a flood of new PMs. win-win. be glad for what you get for free and then understand that nothing is truly "free". you can pay with $3 a month or you can pay with several fractions of a second for your eye to scan right past the ad while you scroll down an extra inch each page. at least this site doesn't look the digital vomit that is other caching sites.

Another find today on one of my caches and another email notification I did not get.

I'm sure if we had more then a couple resources and only 2 or 3 things that worked on this site we would live in a perfect world.even in an imperfect world, a "lack of resources" and a "full feature set" are not good reasons to skip a proper QA. Any time I'm asked to hurry things I simply ask "do you want it now... or do you want it right?"