pppingme
-
Posts
1238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by pppingme
-
-
There are some points that everyone seems to be missing.
Point 1 - Proof of the cache:
Everyone wants to keep saying that SuperFly should have provided proof that his cache existed. AT NO POINT DID GS QUESTION THE EXISTENCE OF THE CACHE, NOR DID THEY ASK FOR PROOF. Their entire grounds seemed to be focused on the lack of finds and assumptions based on that. They asked SF to check on it, he did. GS archived it anyway.
Even in Superfly's appeal, there was no request for proof, nor even a valid response except to say that they reviewed it and it would remain archived. No follow up questions, nothing.
At that point it doesn't really matter if Superfly destroyed the cache or not, GS never asked about it, indicating that they had already made their decision.
While its true that only SuperFly would truly know if the cache existed, he was known for more challenging caches.
Lack of asking for proof would indicate that GS believed the cache was there (or that it didn't matter if it was there or not) and is basing this decision on other factors (see point 2). If GS did not believe the cache was there, asking for proof would have been a big point in their favor, lack of asking shows it didn't matter if it was there.
Point 2 - Why the focus on Nomex, why not the 3 real reviewers of the area:
Nomex first disabled this cache, then later archived it, as a favor to the reviewers in Michigan.
Miss Jenn defends his actions.
Of course she can honestly defend his actions, he wasn't acting as a reviewer checking the status of a cache, he was doing a favor for a fellow reviewer. Be it a right or wrong action, its that simple, and that's why Miss Jenn can defend this action and can say he did no wrong, her statement was that he acted appropriately and supports his decision. Even if Nomex had full knowledge that the cache did indeed exist or had no conflicting information to the opposite, he was acting out as a favor, not a reviewer. Miss Jenn NEVER stated that she felt that Nomex believed the cache never existed, she simply stated that he acted appropriately. Anyone that does a favor for a friend (fellow reviewer) in most cases is acting appropriately.
Why have the local reviewers barely been mentioned in this thread?
-DeRock- -Rusty- and -Tiki- seem to be strangely absent from mention in this thread.
To me it seems pretty obvious that Nomex was doing a favor for one of these three, if not all three reviewers.
Another reviewer made the comment that reviewers often help each other, I'm not aware of any other evidence that nomex was working Michigan caches that day, so I'm not sure I buy the "busy reviewer helping" story. I might be wrong on this statement, but even if I am, it doesn't affect this point.
So again, this falls back on the original Michigan reviewers asking for a very specific favor.
Superfly and others have stated that there is contention between SF and the Michigan reviewers. If this is the case, the cache owners (and finders) of Michigan should be demanding new reviewers that don't let their personal feelings and agendas get in the way.
Now what I believe:
I believe the cache did indeed exist. I've seen the political games that go on here so I also believe Nomex was simply a scape goat, nothing more, and as a result, GS can defend him and still have both sides of the cake. The Michigan reviewers didn't want blood on their hands, and they seem to have successfully avoided that.
-
You'd be surprised how many caches are retracted after publishing due to some mistake or another. You would also be surprised how often the owner changes things soon after publishing. TPTB really want you to visit the web site and make certain you have the latest info before going off on a FTF.
If changes, retractions, etc. are made after being published, chances are they would still be missed by someone going after an ftf.
If I have time, and I get a published email, I grab the .gpx within minutes usually, and off I go. If it gets retracted 30 minutes later or the owner makes a change, I'm probably already in my car and would have missed it anyway.
-
Groundspeak wants you coming to the website. Emails & GPX files don't have ads in them.
Neither does the PQ that will have the info in it the next day. Visiting the website is not a valid response to this frequently asked feature, since you'll have the info the next day anyway.
And the PQ has all the information stated in larryc43230's post too.
So what you're both saying is that the reasons stated by TPTB, plus the ad thing, are all hogwash, and we're left with no "real" reason anywhere.
TPTB just stated they wanted traffic to the site, never specified a reason (except the whole "current info" argument).
If this were a valid argument, then they should do away with PQ's, as any new cache in my area is going to show up in the next morning's PQ anyway.
I would say over 95% of the caches I've found have been from info off a PQ, not directly off the site, and almost every cacher with more than a couple hundred finds would probably say the same.
So here's the question to answer, if I find 95% of my caches off .gpx info (pq's), then why is there an exception here? Why can't I find this cache off .gpx info also? Why does everyone object to including .gpx info when they have no problem caching off of PQ'S?
-
Groundspeak wants you coming to the website. Emails & GPX files don't have ads in them.
Neither does the PQ that will have the info in it the next day. Visiting the website is not a valid response to this frequently asked feature, since you'll have the info the next day anyway.
Also, premium members don't have most of the ads like a regular user.
-
Just found some statistics on cachers per country:
Geocachers in the US with more than 200 founds: 35.000
Geocachers in Germany with more than 200 founds: 14.000
Geocachers in Germany with more than 200 founds with most being out of the country virtuals: 13,975
-
Go to tools | options | privacy tab.
You'll see a section in the middle called cookies.
Change the "keep until" from "I close firefox" to "they expire"
Thanks for that idea. It turns out my setting was already set at "they expire"
next idea?
Are you running any kind of "privacy" or cookie manager type add-ons? Some of those may clear cookies on their own.
-
I don't have that section under my Firefox (ver. 3.5.5)?
I highly doubt the option is gone, so it probably moved between 3.0 and 3.5.
I don't have anything running 3.5 yet so I can't look.
-
Go to tools | options | privacy tab.
You'll see a section in the middle called cookies.
Change the "keep until" from "I close firefox" to "they expire"
-
More importantly, I've not received my emailed queries -- which show as having run at 12:00.00 Am today when I checked the boxes at ~12:15PM).
When caches are flagged at 12am that seems to be an indication that some type of error happened.
The bad thing here, AND THIS IS A BUG, is that even though gc flagged the cache as not being able to run, IT STILL COUNTS AGAINST YOUR DAILY LIMIT.
-
On the oregon, after you write your note, if you go back and list found caches, does that particular cache show up?
-
Magellan probably has some software on their site that can load the .gpx and .loc files onto your gps, but my preference would be GSAK, it will talk to that unit and has a lot of extra features that make caching easier.
-
13283
Field Notes banner: Remove number of FN waiting
Wow, so one person didn't like it wasn't being updated "realtime" and it was removed?
Now there is NO COUNT OF FIELD NOTES ANYWHERE.
The number did not update in real time and was therefore misleading. To force it to update every time you visited the /my/ page was too big a hit to the database so we removed it. Knowing you have some field notes pending is almost as good as knowing how many.
Based on your reply, since the banner itself isn't real time (it still shows after field notes have been cleared) then the whole banner should have been removed, not the count within.
The complaints I've seen focus on the banner itself, not the count (only one complaint about that).
-
13283
Field Notes banner: Remove number of FN waiting
Wow, so one person didn't like it wasn't being updated "realtime" and it was removed?
Now there is NO COUNT OF FIELD NOTES ANYWHERE.
-
Something that has not been documented as a change but seems new to me. At /my there is a note saying
You currently have 7 pending field notes. Visit your field notes page to review these notes.However it still says this after I've logged one of those and it should be six.
This feature does not update in real time, but will if you log out and back in. We assume that once you know there are pending field notes it is not necessary to know how many.
Ah... Then why just don't leave the number away?
Good point. I'll discuss it with the developer.
I like the number, its the ONLY place outstanding field notes are counted. I'd rather see a delay in updating the number than for it to go away.
-
Viewers should be motivated to inquire of the owner about reenabling the listing, or logging a "needs archived" if the owner is not responsive.
Isn't that the local reviewers job?
Nope. They have enough to do already without babysitting every cache within 1000 miles. They have to rely on local finders to alert them to problems.
We are talking about caches that have already been identified as problem caches, thus they are disabled.
This isn't the reviewer going over every single cache to see if it needs disabled.
-
From what I hear, TMobile is worse than AT&T.
You definitely heard wrong then.
But back to the point, the real issue seems to be that gc keeps developing apps for phones that are locked down to specific carriers, if every one thinks back a bit, they developed some sprint specific stuff too, that didn't seem to go over too well either (well except for the few sprint users out there).
I "might" consider getting a different phone to support a gc app, but I would NEVER switch carriers.
sprint-bad, especially interesting because I live in their "home town"
cingular (att, whatever you want to call them this week)-bad
verizon-mixed, although good data coverage
t-mobile-overall good, not a lot of 3g yet though
Seems as though gc has targeted the two worst carriers for some reason.
-
Viewers should be motivated to inquire of the owner about reenabling the listing, or logging a "needs archived" if the owner is not responsive.
Isn't that the local reviewers job?
-
This seems to be a common complaint, but probably 75% of the time its a problem with the receiving domain.
Quite often it either gets marked as spam or rejected all together.
-
All these arguments against including a .gpx in notifies seem pointless and null, because if I wait till the next morning, I'm probably going to have it in .gpx format anyway with my daily pq's.
I just don't see the argument against including it.
Arguing for it and even using the reviews comment that posted in this thread against him, by including it, if a disable/retracted/archived or other negative type log is made, I've already got that too, and will most likely will have already filtered it out of my gps instead of not knowing that its now a dead cache.
-
"updated" will return a cache if there is ANY change to it, that includes the CO changing info on the cache itself OR any type of log, be it a note, find, dnf, or anything.
So if you want everything, you only need to run the "updated", there is no need to run the "found in last 7 days" query if your already running the other.
-
The cache owner and the local reviewer can both fix the bad dates.
-
Your point, of course, is "what if there is a competitor with a lower price". While the mantra of our times is "nothing is impossible", I'd like to say (in my fake British accent) "not bloody likely".
Its that very attitude that has caused all the American car manufacturers to fall flat on their face and why Toyota is (last years sales) the number two automaker in the USA.
-
Strange one this. Since yesterday or so, I haven't been able to get to any page at all on www.geocaching.com. This includes the homepage.
Here are my results from wfetch:
REQUEST: **************\nGET / HTTP/1.1\r\n
If your browser is truly http 1.1 compliant, the get statement should be a lot more than just "GET /"
-
... and gc is forced to reduce their price to a more realistic (but still profitable) level of lets say $1/month or $12/year
You must be kidding. I think $30/year is very reasonable, and a great value for all the features I get. Heck, I spend more than that in gas in just one full day of caching
You might have an idea of what it costs to run a car, but no idea what it costs to run a website.
Comparing what it costs to run a website to your car just shows that. Spending $30 on a tank of gas doesn't mean thats what it costs to run a website.
"Auditing" your caches?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
The whole concept of using the 'audit logs' as proof for a muggled cache (or for anything) is extremely flawed. I can pull a PQ and have all of the info I need, and even go as far as logging the cache, and NEVER show up in the audit log.
To take it a step further, anyone (premium and non premium) can see a list of cache names and owners, and from that determine the actual coordinates of any cache (premium or non premium). This can even be done without actually being logged into the site.
Look at this url (you do not need to be logged in):
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...;lng=-94.304517
Look at the first listing, its a premium cache, I was able to determine cache name, owner, and coordinates simply by toying with the URL, all while NOT being logged into the site.
As a premium member, I also have the full description of the cache, again without ever visiting the page.
If someone is running around muggling caches as was suggested in one post, it can all be done without ever showing up in an 'audit log'.
I'm not for or against it, its just simply pointless and holds no real value.