LydiaSimmons

Is it possible you have JavaScript disabled for geocaching.com in Chrome?

It might not help but maybe try re-discovering from the app.

You can search for this as a basic member using the old search page. Which may be retired in the future. Here is a search for caches in Arizona that puts the unfound caches at the top of the list. https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?state_id=3&ex=0&cFilter=9a79e6ce-3344-409c-bbe9-496530baf758&children=n&sortdir=asc&sort=lastfound

You can use https://www.geocaching.com/api/live/v1/gpx/list/BMXXXX for the list in question.

I can edit the log date after selecting the Log type. Some log types (Owner attention requested, Reviewer attention requested) do not allow you to customize the date.

I was able to access the Write Note option by clicking on Will Attend in the top right and changing the log type to Write Note.

Where should the characters go back to?

You might try the custom LUA script suggested here: However, you would have to use character:MoveTo(zone) where zone is the identifier for your zone rather than character.Visible = true to move the character into the zone.

The cache description for GCA1R22 contains logs copied and pasted into the description, which are not formatted exactly as they appear on a cache page. Are you sure you're not looking at the original cache, GC829MG, in Chrome?

How do you measure whether someone could have given the cache a favorite point? If they were a basic member at the time they logged a cache, but then purchased a premium membership years later, they could go back and favorite the cache. But if they don't. Should their newfound premium status now make their log count as premium? Only if they became a premium member for the first time and were granted favorite points for their past finds? Similarly, if someone was a premium member when they logged a cache, and didn't give it a favorite point. And then let their membership lapse. Does their found it now count as a non-premium found it? That's not really accurate either; they didn't favorite it when they could. Whether you measure the finder's current premium status or the premium status at the time of logging, # of premium logs is subject to flaws. Using the total number of finds is simpler, more stable, and I believe, good enough to get a sense of how people are enjoying the cache. The CO could make the cache premium members only if they wanted, as well (yes, I know there is a way for a basic member to log a premium member only cache).

I was not suggesting to omit the percentage. I was suggesting a change to how the percentage is calculated. I propose to change the denominator to not use the number of premium logs, but instead the number of total found it logs. I suspect it is computationally expensive to look up the current membership status of each finder of a cache when the % score is requested, and so some data is being cached, which adds complexity to this system.

Numerator is displayed accurately on the top of the cache page. Total number of finds is displayed accurately on the bottom of the cache page. I'm just saying, there's enough information on the page to calculate a FP percentage. Premium logs is not well-defined anyways as memberships get renewed, and lapse, etc.

I don't think that means the problem is unrelated to counting premium member logs. The numerator seems to be right, it's the percentage that seems to be wrong, and my inference is that the denominator is the problem.

If there is a database challenge associated with counting the number of premium logs efficiently, I would (controversially?) suggest just using the number of total found it logs in the denominator, which is already computed and shown in the logs section. I suspect this would be simpler to implement and while the denominator may not reflect the true number of those who could possibly give it a favorite point, it would even out over time in my opinion across caches. COs could make their cache premium-member only if they were concerned about this, though of course the cache could still be logged by basic members.

If you want to review your own past logs, this page is also helpful. https://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1

Is it possible you accidentally placed the cache on your Ignore List?