Team Microdot
-
Posts
4573 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Team Microdot
-
-
1 minute ago, meltdiceburg said:
Like I said, it's an issue Groundspeak need to be thinking about when there's millions of caches. Any use of a car is not environmentally friendly, even a 5 mile drive x 1 million is 5 million miles driven - it's sad you think it's a laughing matter.
Looks like they are thinking about it.
Perhaps now they'll add limiting placement radius to the list to improve the green factor ?
-
3 minutes ago, meltdiceburg said:
I'm no great environmentalist but the amount of pollution we must be pushing out driving out to replace logbooks on millions of caches must be staggering.
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.
-
.png)
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, coachstahly said:22 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
Yes - the moment you used the derogatory term the cache police.
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.
-
3
-
-
3 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
Sneering contempt? That's what you got out of it?
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.
5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:I just think that there's the possibility that this type of log could be abused and used in ways in which it might not be intended.
I think that would be short lived.
Serial abusers - if any ever existed - would very quickly go on the ignore list.
-
4
-
-
6 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
Mentoring is a good idea but I wonder how those people would be chosen? Workshops would be great as well, especially if there's a template that hits the main points - particularly as it pertains to good containers and expected maintenance duties.
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.
7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:Also, would the NRA be used by armchair loggers (the cache police) to target caches they feel shouldn't be out in the field any more?
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
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, PulmonaryHip said:
I added photos to my trackables, and now discover that somehow the photos ended up on instagram. I don't use instagram and have no idea how it works. How would they get there and why would geocaching.com allow that to happen?
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.
-
This question comes up so often it should be made a sticky topic?
-
1 minute ago, frostengel said:
But I still don't seem to understand the difference between "there" and "their", sorry. ?
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.
-
26 minutes ago, sgerbs said:
Earthcaches have become my favorite type to hide, but they take a lot of work to publish. I recently had one publish in Glacier National Park and it took several months to get permission and then I had to get it published by the reviewer. I'm very thankful for the process because it does make my earthcaches quality, whereas they may not have been had I not had reviewer critique.
Having said all that, I would like photos to be a part of the logging tasks. I know this has to do with the GSA, but I like seeing pictures of people working on my ECs. Even though I don't have to, I post pictures with the ECs I work on. For my Glacier NP EC, having a picture would really require people to be there. You can't fake it. It proves you were in that spot and did the work. Another EC I have is on a sandbar on a lake. Someone sent in the "correct" answers, but it was obvious they didn't go out on the lake to get the answers because it was November in Michigan. Having to have a picture would have had them wait until they could get out on the lake.
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.
-
1 minute ago, frostengel said:
Do you really need to theorize that? They are human beings and therefore it is quite obvious that they handle things differently...
And sometimes you are lucky with there decision and sometimes you aren't...
Basically what I suggested but not in those precise words.
-
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
-
2
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:On 11/18/2018 at 4:47 AM, CAVinoGal said:
I'll send answers first, then post my log, so when my log says "answers submitted" - that is indeed the case. If my husband and I are caching together, he'll wait till I've emailed our answers before posting his log as well. It's the way I thought it was supposed to be done! Now and then a CO will acknowledge my answers; none have ever deleted a log because we got it "wrong", and most times I hear nothing, so I assume all is well.
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.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, kunarion said:
Here's a pretty good comparison chart:
Is Send to Garmin still a thing?
Thought that had broke down ages ago.
-
9 hours ago, noncentric said:
they didn't want to further expose themselves.
Yes. That would have been bad. Especially if we'd seen their underwear
-
8 minutes ago, K13 said:
I remember replying to threads, that were gone when I returned to the Forum on a later day. There was a short discussion about that happening to others as well.
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:
QuoteDiscussion forums are moderated to preserve the spirit of an open, interactive discussion without offending participants. Please understand that we are not attempting to censor any messages or opinions.
-
3 hours ago, Touchstone said:
We've seen threads unceremoniously *poofed* out of existence on the Forum. Seems like the Audit Log is in real jeopardy if something like a Forum thread was considered linking a Username and comments they made to a GDPR concern.
What do others think?
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.
-
3 hours ago, IceColdUK said:4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
Bizarre.
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.
-
3
-
.png)
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:
If I see a PMO puzzle, I will do my absolute best to keep my visits to a minimum.
Bizarre.
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, arisoft said:
I would like to agree with your interpretation but a rewiewer told me that also your geocaching nickname is a personal data and HQ confirmed that I am not allowed to use other players nicknames on cache page without their consent. It is possible that PQ contains personal data.
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.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:
Yes it does seem creepy to me that the CO knows exactly when and how often I have viewed their listing. It seems an invasion of my privacy and it seems to me that it is no business of the CO. I'd be very surprised if my opinion is unusual.
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.
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, Mermaid.Man said:
While we're on the subject of privacy, it seems to me that the audit log on PMO caches is a problem. Personally I find it to be quite creepy and really wish that it was discontinued.
Creepy how?
-
5 minutes ago, dprovan said:5 hours ago, Max and 99 said:
Collect, store or distribute personal data about other users of our services.
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.
-
I find this part most interesting:
2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:Whether these restrictions have been violated shall be determined in our sole discretion.
They seem to do this a lot.
-
1 minute ago, igator210 said:
Trackables are an additional revenue stream for Groundspeak to help pay for servers and switches and bandwidth and employees. If it boosts the bottom line for the month, that is added worth.
That's just the basics.
Where's the investment? Innovation? Improvement?
.png)
.png)
Let’s talk some more about geocache quality (survey)
in General geocaching topics
Posted
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.