Zuckerruebensirup
-
Posts
1056 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Zuckerruebensirup
-
-
When logging a cache find, there is a place for entering alternate 'user assigned' coordinates. I thought this was a great idea, especially in the cases of Locationless caches. But since recently launching a personal travel slug to track my caching travels, I discovered that even when I've entered my own coordinates, the tracking log still reflects mileage for whatever the posted cache page coordinates are.
Because of this, I've posted all of those logs as notes, rather than as placement/retrievals, because I don't want my mileage skewed by showing I visited a cache in Australia, for example, when I actually bagged my find near my own backyard. (But by doing so, I've instead skewed my mileage to the short side, by missing out on the real miles that I *DID* travel.)
I'd like to see the tracking method changed, so that the tracking log is based off the user-assigned coorinates (whenever they exist), and for the listed coordinates whenever the field is left blank.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
-
When logging a cache find, there is a place for entering alternate 'user assigned' coordinates. I thought this was a great idea, especially in the cases of Locationless caches. But since recently launching a personal travel slug to track my caching travels, I discovered that even when I've entered my own coordinates, the tracking log still reflects mileage for whatever the posted cache page coordinates are.
Because of this, I've posted all of those logs as notes, rather than as placement/retrievals, because I don't want my mileage skewed by showing I visited a cache in Australia, for example, when I actually bagged my find near my own backyard. (But by doing so, I've instead skewed my mileage to the short side, by missing out on the real miles that I *DID* travel.)
I'd like to see the tracking method changed, so that the tracking log is based off the user-assigned coorinates (whenever they exist), and for the listed coordinates whenever the field is left blank.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Crusso:I have a couple of problems with the Mobipocket reader on my Prism. Wondering if anyone is having similar problems?
I can't say that I'm having any technical problems with MobiPocket...but after having used another format previously (before the data was made inaccessible to this extraction method), I was very disappointed in the layout of the MobiPocket format, and the way the Hints are stored in a separate index. (It just seems very user unfriendly, compared to the previous tool that was taken away.)
My PDA came with Microsoft Reader, and I sent an e-mail to Jeremy, asking about the possibility of alternate formats for the Pocket Queries...but as is usually the case, I haven't received any reply or acknowledgement of my question.
-------
"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:
Originally posted by Crusso:I have a couple of problems with the Mobipocket reader on my Prism. Wondering if anyone is having similar problems?
I can't say that I'm having any technical problems with MobiPocket...but after having used another format previously (before the data was made inaccessible to this extraction method), I was very disappointed in the layout of the MobiPocket format, and the way the Hints are stored in a separate index. (It just seems very user unfriendly, compared to the previous tool that was taken away.)
My PDA came with Microsoft Reader, and I sent an e-mail to Jeremy, asking about the possibility of alternate formats for the Pocket Queries...but as is usually the case, I haven't received any reply or acknowledgement of my question.
-------
"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:I noticed that since the "blank" location was added to the Leaderboard, the top 10 finders have averaged 49 locationless "finds" each.
Why does everything have to come down to comparing who's done how many of what kind? Can't we just Geocache for the sake of personal enjoyment (and do the ones we personally like, and ignore the ones we don't), and stop worrying so much about everyone else?
-
quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:I noticed that since the "blank" location was added to the Leaderboard, the top 10 finders have averaged 49 locationless "finds" each.
Why does everything have to come down to comparing who's done how many of what kind? Can't we just Geocache for the sake of personal enjoyment (and do the ones we personally like, and ignore the ones we don't), and stop worrying so much about everyone else?
-
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:If you're going to have a crop circle locationless cache, why call it "Ring around the Rosey?" (This isn't one. Just an example). Why not call it "Crop Circles" - Easy, recognizable, and just plain straightforward. That way people can look at the list and realize what you're looking for.
Maybe this should be a rule. Thoughts? There are an awful lot of caches which by reading their title have no idea what the heck they're looking for.
Personally, I enjoy seeing the creative names that people come up with.
I wonder how difficult it would be to add a 'key words' field, for searching purposes? Then people could use creative and cryptic titles if they so choose, but it would still be simple to search on 'crop circles'.
-------
"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:
Originally posted by Da Rebel:An acquaintaince of mine started collecting toys and memorabilia. The collection now fills the basement and is in danger of spilling into the rest of the house.
Wow, that's quite a collection! I imagine his wife will put her foot down before he starts filling up the living room walls.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Da Rebel:An acquaintaince of mine started collecting toys and memorabilia. The collection now fills the basement and is in danger of spilling into the rest of the house.
Wow, that's quite a collection! I imagine his wife will put her foot down before he starts filling up the living room walls.
-
EMAZING Quote of the Day:
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
- Dave Barry
-
quote:
Originally posted by Genius Loci:Yes, I am one of those who finds a cache, signs the logbook, but then doesn’t log it online…right away.
There's a big difference between slow logs, and no logs. I don't think anyone has complained about people who take a long time to get their logs posted...just the ones who choose not to log them because it 'isn't their thing' or it's too much bother, etc.
I enjoy the thoughtful, descriptive, humorous, etc. logs best (even if it takes awhile for them to show up), but if someone at least leaves even a simple, "TNLN" log, that's ok, too. At least they are acknowledging the existence of the cache.
By the way, if you take awhile to post your log, and later finders post logs before yours gets entered...causing your post to scroll off the page by the time you enter it...the cache owner (and anyone else watching the cache) still gets an e-mail whenever you post a log. (And I think that's where the 'I logged it in the book...why should I have to log it online, too?' excuse falls short. There are more people than just the cache owner who enjoy reading logs. By posting them online, we ALL get to read them. We can't all go out to every physical cache, and browse through the hand written logs. But it's fun to be able do so here, on caches from all over the place...places we'll never get to personally visit. It's part of what makes us a community, rather than simply a bunch of strangers.)
GL, your reference about a short quickie log not being enough of a 'thank you' tells me that you're someone who appreciates the efforts of the person who's hidden the cache for your hunting enjoyment.
That's the bottom line, in my opinion.I don't even mind if someone misses a few logs that they never end up gettting entered (stuff happens, that's understandable)...as long as it's not their usual practice. Or even if they never log...because they have arthritis in their hands, or a visual condition that makes it difficult to type, etc...there are lots of understandable excuses for not logging.
But when I hear people say, "It's not my thing." or "It's too much bother.", etc., it gets my dander up. It's the selfish attitude of people who feel like they don't need to give anything back (not even a symbolic 'thank you') when someone goes to the effort of doing something nice for them.
If you're willing to take, you should learn how to give. Plain and simple.
[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on September 19, 2002 at 01:51 PM.]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Genius Loci:Yes, I am one of those who finds a cache, signs the logbook, but then doesn’t log it online…right away.
There's a big difference between slow logs, and no logs. I don't think anyone has complained about people who take a long time to get their logs posted...just the ones who choose not to log them because it 'isn't their thing' or it's too much bother, etc.
I enjoy the thoughtful, descriptive, humorous, etc. logs best (even if it takes awhile for them to show up), but if someone at least leaves even a simple, "TNLN" log, that's ok, too. At least they are acknowledging the existence of the cache.
By the way, if you take awhile to post your log, and later finders post logs before yours gets entered...causing your post to scroll off the page by the time you enter it...the cache owner (and anyone else watching the cache) still gets an e-mail whenever you post a log. (And I think that's where the 'I logged it in the book...why should I have to log it online, too?' excuse falls short. There are more people than just the cache owner who enjoy reading logs. By posting them online, we ALL get to read them. We can't all go out to every physical cache, and browse through the hand written logs. But it's fun to be able do so here, on caches from all over the place...places we'll never get to personally visit. It's part of what makes us a community, rather than simply a bunch of strangers.)
GL, your reference about a short quickie log not being enough of a 'thank you' tells me that you're someone who appreciates the efforts of the person who's hidden the cache for your hunting enjoyment.
That's the bottom line, in my opinion.I don't even mind if someone misses a few logs that they never end up gettting entered (stuff happens, that's understandable)...as long as it's not their usual practice. Or even if they never log...because they have arthritis in their hands, or a visual condition that makes it difficult to type, etc...there are lots of understandable excuses for not logging.
But when I hear people say, "It's not my thing." or "It's too much bother.", etc., it gets my dander up. It's the selfish attitude of people who feel like they don't need to give anything back (not even a symbolic 'thank you') when someone goes to the effort of doing something nice for them.
If you're willing to take, you should learn how to give. Plain and simple.
[This message was edited by Zuckerruebensirup on September 19, 2002 at 01:51 PM.]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:Biggest problem I see in implementation would be people logging them out of order. For example, I go out and find a mass of 15 caches in a day (
) and go back to sit down in front of my computer to log them. I go through and log them all in precise order, except I miss one. When I realize it, I need to go back and CHANGE the order of my finds to have it accurately...If they're all done in a single day, I doubt the order they are logged is going to matter a whole lot in the scheme of how 'experienced' you were at any of the given hunts. I doubt many people will log a couple of dozen finds, and then remember they forgot to enter one from a month earlier.
Besides, even if you did that, by the time you logged the entry, you'd be doing it from your current level of experience, so the higher find count would still be relevant to how 'knowledgable' you were at the time you typed your comments. (At least that seems to be the primary argument people have been making about why we need to see the counts...to judge the logger's level of experience. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:Biggest problem I see in implementation would be people logging them out of order. For example, I go out and find a mass of 15 caches in a day (
) and go back to sit down in front of my computer to log them. I go through and log them all in precise order, except I miss one. When I realize it, I need to go back and CHANGE the order of my finds to have it accurately...If they're all done in a single day, I doubt the order they are logged is going to matter a whole lot in the scheme of how 'experienced' you were at any of the given hunts. I doubt many people will log a couple of dozen finds, and then remember they forgot to enter one from a month earlier.
Besides, even if you did that, by the time you logged the entry, you'd be doing it from your current level of experience, so the higher find count would still be relevant to how 'knowledgable' you were at the time you typed your comments. (At least that seems to be the primary argument people have been making about why we need to see the counts...to judge the logger's level of experience. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
-
quote:
Originally posted by Rubbertoe:Oh, oh - wait, I found a loophole.
If that person logged a cache while only having 5 finds, then they go BACK to that log and edit it after they've found 100 more caches...What I suggested in my original note was to have it regenerate the find total whenever a note is edited. We'll see the 'last edited on' date, so we'll know the find count is relevant to the time the comment was updated.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Rubbertoe:Oh, oh - wait, I found a loophole.
If that person logged a cache while only having 5 finds, then they go BACK to that log and edit it after they've found 100 more caches...What I suggested in my original note was to have it regenerate the find total whenever a note is edited. We'll see the 'last edited on' date, so we'll know the find count is relevant to the time the comment was updated.
-
Especially for the accidental double posts (or jumped-the-gun-too quickly posts, like above), it's nice to be able to 'undo' a posting.
I look forward to having it back soon.
-
Especially for the accidental double posts (or jumped-the-gun-too quickly posts, like above), it's nice to be able to 'undo' a posting.
I look forward to having it back soon.
-
quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:Some people just don't dig logging online.
I hope those same people to dig visiting the caches I go to the time and work to put together, then.
It's nice to get positive reinforcements for our efforts.-------
"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:Some people just don't dig logging online.
I hope those same people to dig visiting the caches I go to the time and work to put together, then.
It's nice to get positive reinforcements for our efforts.-------
"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
Doh! I see Jeremy's already seen, and is addressing, the issue.
Have I mentioned how much it SUCKS that we can't delete our own logs anymore? And WHY is the 'delete' option still there to tease us if we aren't allowed to use it????
-
Doh! I see Jeremy's already seen, and is addressing, the issue.
Have I mentioned how much it SUCKS that we can't delete our own logs anymore? And WHY is the 'delete' option still there to tease us if we aren't allowed to use it????
-
I've stumbled across another side effect of having cache page information update only when a new log in entered, rather than for each page view:
If someone logs the retrevial of a travel bug, the TB page gets updated to show the bug in the person's possession...but the cache page that it was retrieved from still shows the travel bug icon (and link to the TB page) until another log is added to the page.
I can see this having the potential for misleading cachers into thinking there will be a travel bug when they get to the cache...only to be disappointed that it was already taken.
As a temporary solution, I recommend that anyone who logs a travel bug into our out of a cache add another 'dummy' note following their log entry, in order to force a refresh of the page. The log can then be deleted to remove it from the page. (And the cache page watchers will have to put up with extra 'phantom' log notices to the cache page.)
-------
"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"
-
quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:[...] it won't update again until someone else makes a log.
Yep, you were right. I added a note, and the Lucky Duck vanished into thin air.
(Of course, whoever's watching the cache must wonder what the heck the post was all about. )
Pocket Query Results should be in public Doc format
in Website
Posted
Doh! I just posted a note related to this topic on another thread. I guess I'll have to check out the converter, and see how it works on my PDA. (I'm assuming that I'll have to use the text format, rather than the Palm, since my PDA has a Windows CE operating system.)
I'm curious how your method handles the encrypted hints? The old layout that I used had a convenient Hint link on each cache page that automatically decrypted the hint for you.
-------
"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"