mini cacher

I'm not sure when the form was available but it was posted on out local forum on July 3rd and mine was in the mail at the next mail collection... I'd have thought that "early". From this I'll conclude that something was lost in transit. The other question was if there was any way to determine in which direction it got lost. Was my form lost or was the Jeep lost. Either way, the USPS sucks eggs. Thanks for the answer any how...

At what point is it safe to assume that either my "order" or my Jeep was lost by the thoughtful and detail-oriented folks at the USPS? I sent my form in around July 5th. I've got nothing to show for it. Is there any way to confirm if the order made it? At least then I'd have narrowed down the loss point.

Well, they thought it important enough and easy enough to put it elsewhere... so it must not be that big of a deal. what email are you talking about? I wasn't even talking about email. I'm talking about the different lists of caches that are all over the web site. edit to add one general comment... not specificly directed at this site... I'm tired of people using "a slow system" as an excuse to not make improvements. I don't know about the rest of the world, but around here hardware and memory practically grow on trees. There is no excuse for a web based business in the year 2006 to have a crap system. There just isn't!

I like the idea of seeing the distance on any listing that has caches (bookmarks, searches, profiles, etc). As long as I'm logged in, the "system" knows where my home coords are and should be able to calculate each time.

I only have the problem Yellow Ants posted. I'm also using FF 1.5.0.6

most of the info you'll find about user scripts will be in the context of Greasemonkey. Try searching for "user scripts". But a user script is just javascript that gets "injected" into a page... usually altering some aspect of the page. GreaseMonkey does it for FireFox and TurnAbout does it for IE. Obviously if the script uses code that is not compatible with a browser then its not going to run in that browser. But just like any built in javascript, if its written to run in both browsers, then it'll work in both browsers as a user script. I don't run IE at home so I don't know if any of the popular GreaseMonkey scripts for GC.com will work with TurnAbout, but I know its possible to write one script that works in both because I use/wrote several for work where I use both FF and IE. The best thing to do is just give it a try and if it doesn't work, appeal to the script creator to see if they are interested in modifying it to work in both browsers or employ someone who is.

I've mentioned this before but if a "user script" is made to be cross-browser compatible it should work seemlessly with both GreaseMonkey/FireFox and TurnAbout/IE. Its all up to the script creator.

Besides some download links (which really have no need to a new tab), the only links I've found that use javascript are the ones involved in pagination of results pages. There maybe others but I didn't find any in my brief search.

The thing is that they have total control over the javascript that they put on page but have no control over what others would try to put. So they know that stuff they put in is "safe" but they can't say that about use added javascript. Simple javascript can be used to do bad things in a shared environment such as this. As an example, it would be possible to put a bit of javascript on a cache page that would harvest people's GC.com cookies... which can be used to log in as them. I didn't even know that it was allowed until people started mentioning it was gone recently. I'm glad to hear that it was removed. But I won't disagree that some of the javascript used in the site appears to just make things more complicated than it needs to be. But I didn't build the site and I don't know the reason behind doing the things that were done.

LOL... good one. But I wasn't really addressing any particular cache page... but the feature itself. Perhaps the person(s) that coded the feature could clue us in to their thought process when they decided to even put that option in. I'm not convinced it need be there... but I'm also not convinced it need not be there. (not that I need to be convinced either) I'm actually just more curious at why it is an option... what was the intended use?

I've just glanced at the AWP interface but that was the first thing that struck me as odd. I'm not sure why you would really want option 2 but it does seem a bit odd. Either you want to hide the AWP or not... why the half hidden? I'm not exactly sure the reason for it. Isn't the hidden AWPs for the ones the user has to figure out or obtain as part of doing the cache? Which would be why they don't get included in a GPX file because... uh... that would defeat the purpose of having them hidden. So why have a half hidden AWP to let you know there is a set of final coords? Don't all caches have a set of final coords? I don't think I need to be reminded of that... even if they are hidden.

Perhaps a little nudge at Prime Suspect can get that code into the form a GreaseMonkey script. I've written a few but he seems to be the master GM scripter around here.

well... the "4 box" entry method is in a lot more places than just submitting a new cache. Its in the PQ creation page and "Hide and Seek a Cache " page. Searching for caches is something that people do a lot more than submitting caches, so I suspect it wastes a bit more than 2 minutes of their lifetime. I'm not saying that the issue needs to pull every Groundspeak programming resource to get it solved... but it is a great annoyance to many people. I would be one of them.

I just went to my profile page and it told me to validate using the code in the email I got. uh... I never got such an email. So I had to request one, which arrived seconds later. I'm validated now. Don't know what the glitch is.. just glad its not that hard to get past.

Ok.. I've tried all those things. I even made a new PQ from the route and it ran too. No email. I I then went and had a regular PQ that had never been run before enabled and sure enough... that one is sitting in my inbox right now. Is there something I'm missing? Or is the "Make a PQ from a route" feature a bit borked right now?

1) Nope. 2) Nope. Nada. 3) N/A. Thunderbird and it knows anything from GC is NOT junk. 4) Yes. No. 5) N/A but it will only have 56 caches in it so it wouldn't be too huge. Thanks.

Ok, so I finally gave the "Cache along a Route" a try. I made a route, created a PQ and scheduled it to run yesterday (july 14). It never ran yesterday. I see this morning that it ran at 7/15/2006 12:00:43 AM but it is no where to be found in my inbox. The timing seems strange with the date and all. Just sucks that I run maybe 1 PQ a month and that doesn't always work....

a bit off topic but to compliment my FireFox/Greasemonkey combo, I also use TurnAbout for IE. TurnAbout basically allows you to do the same thing for IE that GS does for FireFox. If written properly, the same user script will work with GreaseMonkey and TurnAbout... but with any javascript, if you want it to work in both browsers, you have to make sure it works in both browsers.

The wording is ok but I think I could do with out the huge blue arrow. Though I use the GS script previosly mentioned, I wold always vote for stuff like this being built in.

I guess the general geocaching community has a vast knowledge of Quantum Physics, Pirate Lore, WWI codecs and Poki-Mon... at least a lot more than this cacher... because there are a good number of puzzles I couldn't solve only using the info on the cache listing. Now I feel stupid. You are overlooking the plain wording of the quoted guideline. It does *not* say "only using the info on the cache listing." It says "solvable from the information provided on the cache listing." Those are two very different statements. well... I would not say they are *very* different but they are different and I didn't intend to twist the words. To me "solvable from the information provided on the cache listing" means that given the information on the cache listing, the puzzle is solvable. so its not too different than what I said before. But, if you wish to spend time discussing *that* bit of my attempt at humor rather than the actual issue of the ambiguity, I'll decline. I'll retract my previous statement.... I don't feel stupid. if that IS the case, then it seems like it is even more likely that the info is to go missing. Even well established public sites clean house or re-org from time to time. If the info to compliment the cache listing was in complete control of the cache hider (ie, on their own site... even free ISP space), that information is less likely to come up missing. I certainly don't have the answer but I would be surprised if that is what they meant.

I guess the general geocaching community has a vast knowledge of Quantum Physics, Pirate Lore, WWI codecs and Poki-Mon... at least a lot more than this cacher... because there are a good number of puzzles I couldn't solve only using the info on the cache listing. Now I feel stupid.

plus, if you change ISPs, you can always update the cache page to reflect the new location...

The greasemonkey script is great because it does fill a void for some people. But, it does require you to show all logs so it can count them. On cache pages where there are a lot of logs, its can be a waste of time (and another server hit) just to see the break down. It could not be that hard to have the original page show this ifno if when displaying the page, GC just got that info from the database where all this info is stored. It might take an additioal query but that has to be better than an additional server hit. Great work on all the GM scripts, Prime Suspect!

that would be nice