Team Monkeyboy

Dude... that's AWESOME! Exactly what I needed. Thanks!!

I can't possibly be the first to have this issue, but I can't find a related topic when I search the forums: I have notification alerts set up to email my gmail account, which in turn uses filters to forward the emails to my smartphone as SMS texts (using my phone number along with the "@phonecompany.com" extension provided by my carrier). However, they are so polluted with HTML code that they are absolutely impossible to read. Here's an example: * { -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; } body { Margin: 0; padding: 0; min-width: 100%; background-color: #ffffff; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; } table { border-spacing: 0; color: #4a4a4a; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; } img { border: 0; } a { color: #2B7277; } li { padding-bottom: .75em; } hr { background-color: #9B9B9B; border: none; height: 2px; margin: 40px 0; } .wrapper { width: 100%; table-layout: fixed; -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; -ms-text-size-adjust: 100%; } .webkit { max-width: 600px; } .outer { Margin: 0 auto; width: 100%; max-width: 600px; } .full-width-image img { width: 100%; max-width: 600px; height: auto; } .inner { padding: 10px; } p { Margin: 0; padding-bottom: 10px; } .one-column p { color: #4a4a4a; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22px; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; } .contents { width: 100%; } .three-column { text-align: center; font-size: 0; padding-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 10px; } .three-column .column { width: 100%; max-width: 140px; display: inline-block; } .three-column .column td { width: 200px; max-width: 100%; } /* For iOS and other clients' auto-generated links */ .override a { color: #ffffff !important; } .override span { color: #ffffff; border-color: #ffffff; } a[x-apple-data-detectors] { color: inherit !important; text-decoration: underline !important; font-size: inherit !important; font-family: inherit !important; font-weight: inherit !important; line-height: inherit !important; }  ORC-3762.32 (GC94567) has a new log: Logged by: rileyLog Type: Found itDate: 04/26/2017Location: Ohio, United StatesType: Traditional Cache Log: Tinnyyy This email was sent by Geocaching HQ. 837 N. 34th Street, Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98103 USA © 2017 Groundspeak, Inc. DBA Geocaching. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy      Once upon a time, YEARS ago, there were options for some emails to be delivered text only. I realize that sending emails in plain text prevents any behind-the-scenes tracking and data manipulation to take place on the emails that are sent out, so the chances of getting an option to send plain text emails are slim to none, but has anyone figured out a way of getting the notification emails to be readable in a text app? Or maybe a relay service that will strip HTML out of an email and forward it to another address?

Go back and review the history of the company... it began with a free database. They began charging out of a need to cover the costs of the web site. Apparently that evolved into revenue becoming a main focus, despite the fact that they would cease to exist without an established userbase providing the free hides to populate that database. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it certainly wasn't the original focus of the company.

Yikes, it's a useful tool that some are afraid to use. NM, then NA. Hope it shows up! There's been plenty of discussion around adding Needs Maintenance (and the other misc log types). We're looking into ways to make them available without confusing newbie users with a plethora of log types. Then keep every thing as it was, a small easy basic intro app, with low funktions and limited caches for newbies, and the PROPER app for the rest of us....... Absolutely! Especially since the old app we paid for (which no longer functions properly and is no longer supported) had that functionality. I can't recall ever seeing an app "improved" by removing functionality and options for the sole purpose of making it "easier" for someone unfamiliar with the app to use it. It's like stripping out all the formatting options in Microsoft Word and making it work like Notepad because "it'll be less confusing to new users".

That is the BEST description of the current state of geocaching I've ever heard - brilliant!

I've tried it in Chrome, Firefox and Internet Explorer. The "browser not supported" is intermittent, but I can't see any new replies to my conversation threads. The user's name that sent the reply is BOLD in the column on the left (indicating a new unread message), but when I click on it, it only shows the existing message thread with that user without the new reply at the bottom. I have no way of bringing up a new message. Luckily, the message feature emails me notifications of new messages with a synopsis of the message itself, so I can at least see what the message is. I just can't retrieve it in a web browser.

I can't tell from the context of your message, but I truly hope that was sarcasm. If not, then we're playing two entirely different games.

I'm complaining about the entire process they're trying to implement of "automating" the policing of caches. That would include this new bot, the mandates from GC to crack down on "problematic" caches, the tools the reviewers use to spot those alleged "problem" caches, ect... I'm not asking them to read my mind - I'm asking them to mind their own business, which DOES NOT include harassing CO's simply because cachers can't find their hides (in most cases, hides that were placed with the sole purpose of being difficult to find) I get that there are irresponsible cache owners that place their caches, only to promptly forget about them and never visit them again. There are cachers that quit the game and leave their old geotrash to clutter the landscape. There are cachers that have placed so many caches and stretched themselves so thin that they couldn't possibly keep up on their cache maintenance even if it were their full-time job. But there are other ways to address those issues - EFFECTIVE WAYS - that don't involve caches or CO's that have no business being involved. Maybe take the terrain, history, difficulty, previous logs, etc... into consideration as well. Not something that could easily be automated.

It's in the latest release notes... http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=334834 but I see you've already found it.

I see the need for keeping things current, but what it's doing in our area is frustrating cache owners to the point where they are just opting out entirely. You're going to alienate people when you implement a "standardized" approach to something so subjective. Personally, there's only so many times I'm going to check on a 3 difficulty cache just because a handful of cachers with 1 or 2 finds apiece have logged DNF's before I finally decide to pull the plug. That time is quickly approaching. As an example; I'm a responsible cache owner, a cache has been in place, unmolested, since 2009, and I *DO* check on it as regularly as I feel the need to. I don't always log an owner maintenance. Why, then, should a reviewer (or an automated bot) feel the need to "remind" me that several people have found the cache difficult to find? Or worse yet, disable the cache and prevent ANYONE from finding it until I prove to them (someone, I might add, in a different county with no first-hand knowledge of the cache whatsoever) that yes; the cache is indeed in place and ready to be found? Yes - I can easily check on the cache and post a follow-up. Or I could easily log a bogus "owner maintenance" and clear the "needs maintenance" attribute (which they've also been nice enough to prevent direct cache owner access to in the list of attributes). Which is easier? And how exactly did this solve the perceived "problem"?

I just read in the release notes about the new automated notifications to be sent regarding caches that may need "attention" (I actually commented there, but decided this was a more appropriate venue). I much prefer this passive method of notification over the heavy-handed approach taken recently by our local reviewer of simply disabling caches when they reach 3 DNF's, regardless of the D/T rating. It was explained to me that this is the suggested course of action from those in charge. They don't have time to deal with issues as taxing as "Challenge Caches" due to the limited time resources, but they're now expected to serve as cache police in determining which hides require immediate owner attention? I believe there's already mechanisms in place for such a determination... they're referred to as "Needs Maintenance" and "Needs Archived" logs, created by people actually in the vicinity of the caches. Perhaps the idea is to archive as many old caches as possible to make room for newer hides, as that appears to be the intent. And I'll be happy to oblige if things continue down the current path.

The vague wording of this implementation and inconsistency of the guideline regarding how often (and why) the notices are sent is bound to cause confusion, frustration, and dissension among the ranks.

Two words: Geocaching App We had a cache in our front yard - a very large deck box that was padlocked. There were 4 keys on travelbugs distributed in caches around our county. Those 4 keys quickly disappeared, so we put out 6 more. THOSE disappeared and we put out 10. Finally, once 8 of the 10 keys disappeared, we archived the cache. 5 years, over 70 favorite points, gone because people don't know how to deal with trackables. We had people take them thinking they were swag. We had people move them to other states, even though they are clearly labeled with instructions to keep them within our county. We had people grab them and keep them for YEARS. The main reason we finally archived the cache was the volume of complaints from cachers who were visiting our county just to grab this cache, only to arrive and be unable to find a key... they would check several caches that had keys in their inventory, only to find them missing. We caught the flack, although we had no more control over them than they did. And many of those missing trackables were logged by cachers we were unable to contact due to "unverified email addresses"... meaning they were probably new cachers using the geocaching app. So... yes. There are others that are frustrated with trackables.

When I first started caching 7 years ago, I had no idea that I was *SUPPOSED* to write anything more than a word or two in a log. I thought "TFTC" or "Found it!" was expected. It wasn't until I actually became a cache owner that I truly appreciated the longer logs that were well written, descriptive, and entertaining. Since that point on, I've made every effort to write logs that I would enjoy reading myself (with the exception of a few less-than-stellar caches that were best left undescribed - if you can't say something nice...). I'd rather see some type of automated message that appears when a one or two word log gets submitted... something to the effect of "Really? You wrote one word to describe a cache that's a 4 difficulty puzzle? This thing has over 50 favorite points!! You can't be serious..."

There's already a cache type that requires a verification code... Lab Caches.

If requiring electronic proof of visiting the cache is important to you, play that other game with the QR codes. There's already a way to verify that someone has logged a legitimate find - see if they've signed the log.

Absolutely. No, there's not. That's not their role. It's not up to a reviewer to decide that a cache needs disabling unless there's been a NM or NA logged. Occasionally, there are extenuating circumstances (placed on private property, mistaken for a bomb and blown up, ect.). But a string of DNFs is *NOT* extenuating circumstances. There's a reason why those processes are in place, and they seem to have worked for the last 13 years or so.

A terrible idea in general, but the Ohio Historical Society makes you renew the permits they issue for geocaches on their property every year, and insists that they're inspected monthly.

Apparently, they may soon... after a lengthy discussion with one of our local reviewers, it was relayed to me that this is now encourage from the head honchos. "Groundspeak has given reviewers direction to "reap" caches within our review territories that appear to be in need of maintenance or archival." was the way he worded it. My thoughts exactly. If an apparently "abandoned" cache is bothering you, then as a geocacher you can log a "Needs Maintenance" or a "Needs Archived" if you feel it's necessary. But it's certainly not within the role of a reviewer to go actively seeking caches to disable. Well... at least it wasn't.

Ahhhh! Another "improvement" that was neither requested nor desired. Got it.

Didn't we used to be able to click on a member's avatar picture for a larger image? The 48x48 thumbnail is great for use on the site in general, but I'd really like to be able to click on it and see the bigger picture...

http://coord.info/GC1F414

But what constitutes "abandoned"? If people are finding it, and it's not in bad shape (conditions which would eventually lead to it's archival by an astute reviewer anyway), why archive it for the sake of archiving it? There are plenty of places I'd like to put caches that are already occupied... should I request that they be archived simply because those cache owners starting caching before I did? After all, it's "not fair" that there's already a cache in the area I wanted to place one. Maybe they only check on the cache every few months, or once a year, or once every other year... does that really effect the quality of the cache? If it's a good container, and a good hide, and a good location... theoretically you should NEVER have to check on it again. Unless, of course, there's several DNF or "Needs Maintenance" logs... which would go unheeded... which will lead to it's eventual archival ANYWAY.

It's not meant to be a permanent situation. It's suggested as a way to temporarily allow someone else access to edit the page. If you fail to turn off the ability to make changes, then you're on your own... no different from giving someone your password and never changing it again. Preventing the need for password sharing is exactly the reason I'm suggesting this... that's an unacceptable security risk.

I'm SURE this has been suggested before, but here it is again... I'd like to see a feature that would allow a cache owner to "share" ownership of a cache with another account, and allow that sharing privilege to be turned off/on or changed at any time. This would be invaluable for those of us that volunteer with various educational groups, scout groups, museums, parks departments, etc... I've also worked with other cachers in the past to create "collaboration" caches, where we've shared the responsibility of gathering information, waypoints, etc. and shared a listing. Just being able to get someone else's input on an unpublished cache would make this a wonderful feature...