Jump to content

Team Microdot

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    4573
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Team Microdot

  1. Than I reckon you've failed to notice the tape holding the smashed-up lid together or the guideline contravening plastic bag that the whole stinking box of mould spores was probably wrapped in BECAUSE it is junk.
  2. Looks like they are thinking about it. Perhaps now they'll add limiting placement radius to the list to improve the green factor ?
  3. This argument holds no water and certainly isn't an excuse of any sort because it's laughably simple to fix this by only placing caches within a radius where they can be easily maintained in an environmentally friendly manner.
  4. I understand how some see that as derogatory but I don't use it that way. It contributes toward the breeding of a culture that I find distasteful and negative in every way.
  5. Yes - the moment you used the derogatory term the cache police. I tend to stop listening to what anyone who uses that term has to say because beyond that they really aren't worth my time. I think that would be short lived. Serial abusers - if any ever existed - would very quickly go on the ignore list.
  6. This would do little to nothing to address caches left to rot by old timers who CBA / think the guidelines don't apply to them. no idea what you mean here at all. It does seem that you've decided everyone who uses this facility must be deserving of your sneering contempt
  7. How would geocaching.com prevent that from happening? A few seconds with the snipping tool I can grab an image of absolutely anything displayed on my screen and do with that whatever I please.
  8. This question comes up so often it should be made a sticky topic?
  9. Don't worry about it - I understood what you meant. I would add also that it shouldn't come down to luck given that there are clear mechanisms, processes and resources in place within Groundspeak to ensure that guidelines are interpreted appropriately / consistently across the board. Given that this is the case I can see no logical reason for individual Earthcache reviewers to arrive at diametrically opposed interpretations of any single guideline - or for that to be considered acceptable by cachers, reviewers or Groundspeak or taboo as a subject of frank, open, honest, robust adult discussion.
  10. I've had similar experiences but getting permission has been the least time consuming part. I too appreciate reviewer critique but it's not always been useful and there have been times when it has proven an unncessary obstacle to publication. External peer review has proven a useful tool / process as Earthcaching has brought me into contact with some highly qualified and knowledgable people over the years. I think photographs are a double-edged sword. In some regards I would welcome them as they would enrich the rather short, empty logs that some finders post and brighten the cache page somewhat at the same time. In other regards they are a pain. Sometimes there are out-and-out spoiler pictures posted and at other times a collection of photographs builds up which collectively enables armchair logging - and people sometimes get terribly upset when their photographs are later deleted - making things a bit difficult. There's still an element of the community who remember a time when Earthcaches taught very little Earth Science and that proof of visiting the location by posting a photograph was pretty much guaranteed to see their log stand - and get upset when they discover that's no longer the case - making things a bit difficult. And now there's things like GDPR to deal with whereby at any point in the future a data subject can required a data holder to locate, report on and, if required, delete all personally identifiable data held. I can imagine that being a logistical nightmare for Groundspeak in the absence of any sort of machine-readable image tagging. But then again - such photographs exist across all cache types other than Earthcaches presently so GDPR requirements isn't really a compelling reason for forbidding photographs on Earthcaches in the existing circumstances. It's important though to remember that while a photograph demonstrates physical presence at the cache location it does not prove that the logging tasks were properly completed. People could still get the answers from someone else and then spend only the few brief seconds required to snap a selfie actually at GZ.
  11. Basically what I suggested but not in those precise words.
  12. Apparently me theory on guideline implementation differences between reviewers was deemed disrespectful and unconstructive, so my post was removed. On a positive note though at least the mod took the time to let me know it had been deleted. I think in future I'll just keep my theories to myself as, true or not, they are apparently not welcome. Oh for a full and frank discussion between all interested parties. What a breath of fresh air that would be
  13. That has been exactly my procedure and experience. The CO should at least acknowledge the answers. If they can't be bothered I have to wonder why they bother having an EC in the first place. Part of the enjoyment is interacting with others.
  14. Is Send to Garmin still a thing? Thought that had broke down ages ago.
  15. Yes. That would have been bad. Especially if we'd seen their underwear
  16. Can't remember anything specific. Although there have been a number of times where I've felt this has been forgotten or just ignored - my bold:
  17. I don't remember any threads being poofed out of existence, only posts where a mod arbitrarily chose to do so. I have seen threads locked for no good reason. Don't think GDPR is a factor in any of that.
  18. Is it really ‘bizarre’ not wanting your online activity monitored? Given the context I'd say yes. How many of us are walking around with a cellphone in our pockets that not only monitors our Internet activity to the nth degree but also records where we were while we were accessing that data? How many of us have our whereabouts recorded on CCTV umpteen times a day? How many of us have our driving patterns recorded byANPR cameras every time we enter or leave a major town or city? How many of us have our TV viewing habits recorded in detail? How many of us put stuff on social media that, in times past, had we written them in a diary and somebody snooped on it, we'd have been annoyed? How many of us have free email accounts that disclose a sea of personal facts about us? Use a search engine that does the same and personalises search results for every single user? Worrying about a CO seeing how many times I've looked at their cache and when the first time and last time were against all of that seems rather pointless. An insignificant drop in an ocean of personal data that we are leaking pretty much constantly.
  19. Which is silly because I mention other cachers in my logs all the time, have never sought permission and those logs become part of the cache page. I have to wonder how many of these rules are made up on the spot on a whim with zero thought.
  20. It's the CO's cache! How can it be 'no business' of theirs that people are or are not looking at the cache page? It's not even like the CO knows exactly when you're looking. The CO can see who visited, how many times and when they first and last visted. That's it.
  21. I do that every time I download a PQ, don't I? Is that what you're wondering? No. Unless in Groundspeak's sole discretion they decide otherwise. In other words - what you think means nothing.
  22. I find this part most interesting: They seem to do this a lot.
  23. That's just the basics. Where's the investment? Innovation? Improvement?
×
×
  • Create New...