Jump to content

zsdeng15014

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zsdeng15014

  1. Let them remain there... It's unneccesary to remove them. What's wrong with the buttons? True, but we don't need it not to be there. I say just leave it there for convience.
  2. What I can say is that it's not happening to me...
  3. If 40% of the world's population - close to 3 billion - have a FB account, over 7 billion don't. Social networking used or not, deprivement of the functionality may be considerable because of the unneccessary circumstances. Post it? Great. Changing social network button titles to be relevant to repective network? Not related.
  4. The 'beginner caches' is a great idea - I suspect that you also include some consideration regarding the number of 'finds' against DNF's (information that I can't trust in an off-line database.) My definition of a 'quick cache' is up for debate. Perhaps I should have phrased it in reverse and tried to define a 'veteran cache.' I have put some thought into a better definition but we're limited by the information available. What I find particularly difficult is to include into the 'veteran caches' all caches that have a terrain less than 2 when the difficulty is 3 or greater and visa-versa. Which brings me to me response to both your observations... To find 'quick caches,' I think you should add a check-box that says "Quick Find" so that you can override possibilities of an overrated/underrated cache, and of caches that simply take more time than their D/T ratings and size ratings imply.
  5. Show time submitted and time found (will be entered by finder) on geocache logs, so you can see the time span among multiple logs. That way, you can see when a cache was published and what time of the day the cache was found.
  6. No, it probably got stuck. Just refresh (F5) and the page will work.
  7. No, it was a very good decision. The feedback page was cranky, slow, and hindersome.
  8. Clicked on your link. Doesn't work. Using Internet Explorer 8.
  9. In June of this year, I let my premium membership laspe; however I renewed it in September. But the caches found during this laspe do not count when calculating my amount of favorite points. Is this a bug? I think so.
  10. When I want to add line breaks, I do this: [Hint 1] | | [Hint 2]
  11. Yes. I agree. Of course. Agree. More to add: what if someone logged a "not in cache" log incorrectly and no one bothered to move it? Then it would be incorrectly marked as missing, and it's not often that anyone posts a "discovered" log.
  12. They're a new sort of virtual that some don't like. I don't. I like them.
  13. Discounting the whole worldwide challenge thing, as they more closely resemble locationless; Virtual: Go to a place. (used to log a picture) Log your experience. Challenges: Go to a place. Take a picture. Log your experience. It's not a geocache. Neither are virtuals. Correct, they aren't geocaches either. Interesting how that concept hasn't prevented you from logging finds on 127 virtuals, 51 events, 3 CTIOs, 3 mega events, 2 Lost and Found events, 1 GPS adventure exhibit, 3 webcams and the GS Lost and Found celebration. That makes 188 finds you have on things that are not geocaches, now all of a sudden you're concerned about challenges counting as finds? For the sake of consistency, I would think you would delete all of those non geocache logs. Yeah, I logged them, but they're not geocaches. Just because I don't agree that they're geocaches, does that prevent me from logging them? I also logged waymarks as well. Does logging these non-geocaches indicated that I believe that they're geocaches? Most of the virtuals I did with my wife, who doesn't like geocaching, but she likes Waymarking and visiting historical spots. I log them so I can reminiscence where I've been and what I've done. They need to be separated so that one cannot be mistaken for the other in the eyes of park managers. Or would you like to be the one Briansnat, trying to convince the people at the NPS that a Challenge isn't the same as a geocache when you're trying to get one approved? Without challenges I've been able to convince NPS to put many physical geocaches, and without challenges we may eventually get physical geocaches region wide in the middle Atlantic. With challenges this going to prove an impossible task on something that is already an uphill battle, but currently we have traction. Challenges appear to be a catalyst to set back all that success. So you want virtuals and you don't want virtuals (in the form of challenges) to count in yuor finds number?
  14. "Agree", but thats not something wrong with challenges itself.
  15. Speak into a microphone at an event, you've completed a challenge. Congratulations. Okay, I am officially befuddled. Yes, but it's because... Wait. Why do you geocache? Same thing. It's fun, so it's not "befuddling".
  16. You can post a comment claiming a completion.
  17. Go ahead and try to "boycott" Challenges and end up ignoring this new feature!
  18. 20, 1.5 21, 2.5 22, 2.5 23, 1.0 24, 3.5 25, 2.0
  19. 3rd Guess: 27, 2.0 4th Guess: 31, 1.5
×
×
  • Create New...